Page images
PDF
EPUB

On motion of Mr. PUGH,

It was ordered to be entered on the Journal that had Mr. Pugh, of Cecil, been present on Friday, June 24th, he would have voted against the amendment of Mr. Brown to the 23d Article of the Bill of Rights, and in favor of the adoption of the Article as reported by the Committee.

On motion of Mr. Topp,

It was ordered to be entered on the Journal that had Mr. Todd been present on Friday, June 24th, he would have voted against the amendment of Mr. Brown, to the 23d Article of the Bill of Rights, and in favor of the adoption of the Article as reported by the Committee.

On motion of Mr. NOBLE,

It was ordered to be entered on the Journal that had Mr. Noble been present on Friday, June 24th, he would have voted against the amendment offered by Mr. Brown, to the 23d Article of the Bill of Rights, and in favor of the Article as reported by the Committee. On motion of Mr. AUDOUN, it was Ordered, that the Committee on the Judiciary be and they are hereby requested to inquire into the expediency of empowering the several Orphans' Courts of this State to authorize guardians and administrators to lease vacant lots belonging to deceased persons' estates and wards.

On motion of Mr. MILLER, it was Ordered, that the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of inserting a provision in the Constitution requiring every case in the Court of Appeals to be decided by said court within three months after the same has been argued or submitted for decision.

Mr. MILLER Submitted the following order: Ordered, that the Committee on Elections be instructed to inquire and report whether under the provision of the Convention Bill requiring the qualifications for a seat in this Convention to be the same as those required for a seat in the House of Delegates, or any other provision of said act, any person holding any civil or military office under the United States, or any minister or preacher of the gospel, or any person holding any civil office of profit or trust under this State, except justices of the peace and senators or delegates in the present Legislature, is entitled to a seat in this body.

Mr. STIRLING moved to lay the order upon the table.

Upon that question Mr. MILLER called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question being then taken by yeas and nays, it resulted-yeas 41, nays 16-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs, Goldsborough, President; Abbott, Annan, Baker, Brooks, Carter, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil,

Keefer, Larsh, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Noble, Nyman, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Wickard, Wooden—41.

Nays-Messrs. Audoun, Belt, Bond Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Clarke, Dent, Edelen, Hollyday, Lansdale, Miller, Morgan, Parker, Peter, Thomas-16.

The following explanations were made by members as their names were called :

Mr. MILLER. I wish to say that I did not offer this order as a partisan measure at all, because it reaches members upon both sides of this body. The Convention Bill, according to my judgment, is very clear in its provisions that the classes of persons I have designated in my order, are not entitled to seats in this body. There is a clause in the Convention Bill, however, which makes that construction liable to a doubt. I merely wish the Committee on Elections to examine and report to this body whether such members were entitled to seats here, and what the powers of this body were. I offered the order for no partisan purpose, but merely to call the attention of the Committee on Elections to the subject, and have them report, so that it may be decided by what part of the Convention Bill this body is bound. I therefore vote "no."

Mr. SANDS. Being one of that unfortunate class of people who happen to hold office under the Constitution of Maryland, I ask to be excused from voting. I will only say that if I had had any doubt about my right to hold a seat here, I would not rest satisfied until that doubt was settled.

The Convention refused to excuse the member from voting, and he voted "aye."

Mr. STIRLING. I moved to lay this order on the table for the reason that if it were adopted, so far as determining the question of eligibility to a seat here, it can result only in nothing or in breaking up this Convention. I am therefore opposed to having this subject inquired into in any shape or form. I vote "aye."

Mr. TODD. Regarding the order of the gentleman from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) as especially complimentary to myself, motives of modesty induce me to ask to be excused from voting.

The member was accordingly excused. The motion to lay the order on the table was accordingly adopted.

LIMITATION OF SPEECHES.

Mr. ABBOTT submitted the following: Ordered, That the time allowed each member for debate on any question before the Convention be limited to fifteen minutes; that no extension of time be granted except by a vote of two-thirds of the members pres

ent.

Mr. THOMAS. I am opposed to the adoption of that order. I take it that gentlemen

who have had opportunities to put them-) selves upon the record and to give the reasons which induced them to vote for or against certain propositions that have already been before the Convention, should allow the same privilege to other gentlemen who have not had that chance. Now, this order of my colleague (Mr. Abbott) cuts off entire ly those members who have not spoken upon the-e questions, from giving the views which they entertain and which they may desire to have put upon record. I do not think it is fair or just that this should be done. I do not think that when the Legislature provided a short-hand reporter for this Convention they intended that that reporter should take down the remarks of a few gentlemen and not the remarks of all others who desire to speak upon any subject. I do not think that reporter is exclusively their property or the property of any one member of this Convention. I, for one, am opposed to the adoption of this order.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE called for a division of the question.

The question was accordingly stated to be upon the first branch of the order, limiting the time for debate to fifteen minutes for each member.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM moved to amend by striking out the word "fifteen" and inserting the word "thirty" so as to allow a member thirty minutes for debating a question.

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to lay the whole subject upon the table.

Upon this question, Mr. STIRLING called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question being then taken, by yeas and nays, upon the motion to lay upon the table, it resulted-yeas 19, nays 39-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Audoun, Belt, Bond, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown, Chambers, Clarke, Dent, Edelen, Hollyday, Lansdale, Larsh, Miller, Morgan, Parker, Peter, Thomas-19.

Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Baker, Carter, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Noble, Nymau, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Rus-, sell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Todd, Wickard, Wooden-39. The motion to lay on the table was accordingly rejected.

The question then recurred upon the amendment of Mr. CUNNINGHAM to strike out "fifteen" and insert "thirty."

Mr. THOMAS. I offer the following as an amendment to the amendment:

"On all questions connected with the subjects of representation and State compensation, every member who desires to speak shall be allowed one hour to address the Convention."

Mr. HEBB. Is that in order as an amendment to the amendment?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that it is not germain to the pending proposition.

Mr. CHAMBERS. The proposition of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas) is simply an amendment to the amendment offered to the original proposition. The original proposition was to limit debate on all subjects to fifteen minutes. An amendment is proposed to that to allow debate on all subjects to the extent of thirty minutes for each member. The gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas) proposes to amend the amendment by allowing each member, who desires to speak, one hour on the two subjects embraced in his proposition, while on all other questions debate shall be limited to fifteen or thirty minutes as the Convention may determine. It seems to me that his proposition is perfectly germain.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I would suggest that the amendment proposed by my colleague is rather an amendment to the original proposition than an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Frederick (Mr. Cunningham.)

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is correct. The question will first be taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Frederick.

The question being then taken upon the amendment of Mr. CUNNINGHAM to strike out the word "fifteen" and insert the word "thirty," it was agreed to upon a division, ayes 33, noes 22.

The question then recurred upon the amendment of Mr. THOMAS, to add to the first branch of the order submitted by Mr. ABBOTT, the following:

"On all questions connected with the subjects of representation and State compensation, every member who desires to speak shall be allowed one hour to address the Convention."

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I would suggest to my colleague that his amendment as it now reads does not fully express what he designs to accomplish. As it now reads it would seem to allow one hour on all questions except those connected with representation and State compensation.

Mr. THOMAS modified his amendment so as to read as follows:

[ocr errors]

Except on all questions connected with the subjects of representation and State compensation, upon which every member who desires to speak shall be allowed one hour to address the Convention."

Mr. BOND. There is another subject which I think will claim at the hands of this Convention as much deliberation and will call for as much discussion as the subjects named in the amendment of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas,) that is, the subject of the judiciary. I know, and we all

know, that there are a great many different Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Belt, Bond, propositions upon that subject, and a great Brown, Clarke, Davis, of Washington, Earle, many different views held by the members Hatch, Hebb, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Lansof the Covention in reference to the estab-dale, Mullikin, Murray, Ridgely, Schley, lishment of the judiciary; and if my friend Scott, Sneary, Thomas, Wooden-21. will consent to include that subject with the two he has named, I will vote for his proposition with pleasure; if not, then I will have to move to amend by i serting the word "judiciary," so as to include that subject with the subjects of representation and State compensation.

Mr. THOMAS. If the Convention desires to include that subject I shall have no objection. But I would prefer the vote to be first taken upon the proposition as I have submitted it.

Mr. BOND. Then I move to amend by inBerting the word "judiciary" after the word "representation.

[ocr errors]

The PRESIDENT. The question can be taken upon that after the proposition of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas) shall have been adopted.

The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. THOMAS.

Upon this question, Mr. DANIEL called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question being then taken, by yeas and nays, it resulted-yeas 22, nays 35-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Audoun, Belt. Bond, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Dent, Edelen, Hollyday, Lansdale, Larsh, Miller, Morgan, Nyman, Parker, Smith, of Carroll, Sykes, Thomas-22.

Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Audoun, Baker, Briscoe, Brooks, Carter, Chambers, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Dent, Ecker, Edelen, Galloway, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Larsh, McComas, Miller, Morgan, Noble, Nyman, Parker. Peter. Pugh, Purnell, Russell, Schlosser, Smith, of Carroll, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Todd, Wickard-36.

Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the following explanations were made by mem

bers as their names were called :

Mr. CLARKE. I am in favor of the propo-
sition of my colleague (Mr. Belt.) But I be-
lieve I have already consumed some of the
time of this Convention; and in considera-
tion of that fact, I would not like to deprive
other members of the same chance
therefore, the Convention will excuse me from
voting.

The Convention not excusing him,
Mr. CLARKE Voted "aye."

I hope,

Mr. HOPKINS. I ask to be excused from voting. I think this is consuming time in child's play.

Not being excused,

Mr. HOPKINS voted "no."
Mr. SCOTT.

Under the circumstances, I ask

to be excused from voting.
Not being excused,
Mr. Scort voted "aye."

The amendment of Mr. BELT was accord-
rejected.

The question recurred upon the first branch of the order as amended, reading as follows: "Ordered, That the time allowed each member for debate on any question before the Convention shall be limited to thirty minutes."

Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Baker, Cun-ingly ningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Noble, Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swo e, Todd, Wickard, Wooden-35. The amendment was accordingly rejected. The question recurre upon agreeing to the first branch of the order submitted by Mr. ABBOTT as amended upon motion of Mr. CUNNINGHAM.

The question being taken, it was adopted. The question then recurred upon the second branch of the order, as follows:

"And that no extension of time be granted except by a vote of two-thirds of the members present." Mr. CUSHING moved to amend by striking two-thirds," and inserting a major

in-out

Mr. BELT moved to amend by striking out all after the words "ordered that" and serting the following: "There shall hereafter be no debate on any question whatever."

Mr. RIDGELY. Is that amendment in order?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that it is in order, as it relates to the subject embraced in the original proposition, viz: that of debate.

Upon this question, Mr. BELT called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question being then taken, by yeas and nays, it resulted-yeas 21, nays 36-as follows:

ity."
The question being taken, the amendment
was not agreed to, upon a division-ayes 22,
noes 28.

The question then recurred upon agreeing to the second branch of the order.

Upon this question Mr. CHAMBERS asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question being then taken, by yeas and nays, it resulted-yeas 38, nays 20-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Baker, Belt, Brown, Cunningham, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb,

Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer,
McComas, Mullikin, Noble, Nyman, Parker, Abbott, Annan Audoun, Baker, Brooks, Car-
Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Pugh, Ridgely, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlos-ter, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel. Davis, of
ser, Scott, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary, Stir-
ling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Todd, W ick- Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil,
Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Hatch,
ard, Wooden-38.
Noble, Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Purnell,
Keefer, Larsh, McComas Mullikin, Murray,
Ridgely, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser,
Scott, Sueary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope,
Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Wickard, Wooden-

Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Andoun, Bond, Briscoe, Brooks, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Cushing. Dent, Edelen, Hollyday, Lansdale, Larsh, Miller, Morgan, Murray, Peter, Purnell, Thomas-20.

The second branch of the order was accordingly adopted.

The entire order as amended and adopted is as follows:

"Ordered, That the time allowed each member for debate on any question before the Convention shall be limited to thirty minutes; and that no extension of time be granted except by a vote of two-thirds of the members present."!

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

The Convention then resumed the consideration of the order of the day, being the report of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights, which was on its second reading.

44.

The article was accordingly rejected. No further amendments being offeredThe question was stated to be upon orderclaration of Rights, as amended upon its ing the report of the Committee upon the Desecond reading, to be engrossed for a third reading, and printed-which was ordered.

Mr. STIRLING. I move that the rules be suspended, in order that this report may now be put upon its third reading. Under the fifteenth rule, that motion requires a twothirds vote to be adopted.

Mr. DENT. Has this report, as amended engrossing clerk, or is it to be considered as on its second reading, been engrossed by the only constructively engrossed?

The pending question was upon the following amendment submitted by Mr. ABBOTT : The PRESIDENT. So far as the information Insert as an additional article the follow-regularly engrossed, as is usual in parliamentof the Chair extends, the report has not been ing: Article 1. Truths to be held as self-eviary proceedings. dent are, that all men are created equally free; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the proceeds of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness."

Mr. STOCKBRidge. I move to amend the phraseology of the proposed article by striking out in the first line the words "truths to be beld as self-evident," and inserting, "that we hold it to be self-evident," so that the article will read:

"That we hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equally free; that they are endowed," &c.

Mr. ABBOTT. I have no objection to that, as it is merely a change of phraseology, and act of principle.

The amendment was agreed to, and the article as amended was then adopted.

in which these articles are to follow each Mr. CLARKE. I do not know that the order other in this Declaration of Rights have been determined upon. Several new articles have been adopted, and it was said that the President would have the right to determine the order of the articles. I think that should be done before thi report is read the third time and taken up for final action.

gentleman from St. Mary's (Mr. Dent) is that The PRESIDENT. The point raised by the this report has not actually been engrossed for its third reading.

held to be an objection to reading it the third Mr. DENT. And I supposed that would be time now

Mary's (Mr. Dent) ever know a bill in the Mr. STIRLING. Did the gentleman from St. grossed before it was read the third time? I Legislature of Maryland to be actually enleast as far back as I have any knowledge, think that a far back as memory runs, at "Article 3. That absolute, arbitrary power the ordinary parliamentary practice; that is, the practice in Maryland has been contrary to over the lives, liberty and property of free-the practice has uniformly been to engross a men exists nowhere in a republic; not even bill after i's third reading, and not before. in the largest majority.”

Mr. BRISCOE submitted the following as an additional article:

Upon this question Mr. BRISCOE called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question being then taken, by yeas and Days, it resulted-yeas 13, nays 44-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Belt, Bond, Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Clarke, Dent, Edelen, Hollyday, Lansdale, Miller, Morgan, Peter-13.

of the Chair to Rule 53, which is in these Mr. THOMAS. I would call the attention

words:

bodying proposed provisions for the Constitu"After a report of any committee, (emon which second reading it shall be open to tion,) has passed through its second reading, amendment, the question shall then be put by the President of the Convention: 'Shall this

report be engrossed for a third reading? If objection is made, then a majority of the members shall decide upon the question of engrossment, and after the engrossment of a report is ordered, the secretary shall have the same printed as engrossed. After any report of a committee has passed to a third reading, it shall not be in order to amend the same, except by the consent of the majority of the members elected to the Convention."

Mr. STIRLING. My motion is to suspend the rule.

Mr. DENT. In reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) I would say that I have very frequently known bills to be engrossed before being read a third time, and the amendments which have been adopted on the second reading properly inserted in the engrossed bill, otherwise it would be impossible for the members of the Legislature to know upon what they were voting.

Mr. STIRLING. I perhaps went a little too far in saying that it never was the case that a bill was engrossed before being read the third time. But it certainly is the fact that at every session of the Legislature bills are taken up from the clerk's desk, read the third time and passed before they are engrossed. It has even been the practice in many cases for bills not to be engrossed until after the session of the Legislature has closed. The engrossment before the third reading is a parliamentary fiction, I admit; but it is a fiction sustained by the uniform legislative practice of this State.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I desire merely to say that I do not see that we shall expedite matters at all by suspending the rule and putting this report upon its third reading to-day. We have on our tables reports of several other committees, and can take up any one of them and proceed with it, allowing time to the committee on engrossment to have this report as amended properly engrossed, and have it printed. We can now order it to be engrossed, and make it the special order for some day next week.

Mr. STIRLING. It can be engrossed by the committee after its third reading, as well as before.

Mr. CHAMBERS. This practice of trusting these things to a committee, or to any one, is a very dangerous practice. There is no advantage to be gained by passing finally upon this report to-day rather than to-morrow, or the day after. I rise chiefly, however, to call, attention to the danger of this experiment. In the last Convention, the one of 1850, there was the same anxiety to hurry through the body a portion of its work. The result was that we had not a fair copy before us to examine, but entrusted that work to others. And a very important portion of the Constitution, as adopted by the Convention, was left out in the committee room, where the last re

vision was made. It was solemnly determined by the Convention, after full discussion, that the judges of the district courts should not hold office after reaching the age of seventy years. But no such provision as that is to be found in the Constitution. It was placed in the custody of somebody, as is now proposed, to complete the work, and that provision was left out of the Constitu tion entirely. Now, let us have this report fully and fairly engrossed and printed, so that we can leisurely examine it, and then we can understandingly vote upon it.

Mr. STIRLING. I made the motion, when these rules were under consideration, that all reports should be actually engrossed before they were read a third time. But so far as I was aware, the proposition seemed to meet with some opposition on the other side of the house. I withdrew it, however, because I found that I had inadvertently introduced it at a wrong stage of the discussion. I concede that, as a general thing, reports ought to be recopied before being read a third time. I would not do otherwise, except where the circumstances would seem to justify it. But few amendments have been made to this report, and the secretary will not have to copy more than fifteen or twenty lines, so that practically it will amount to the same thing as if it was actually engrossed. I think, therefore, we might wind up this report now.

think that events are moving very rapidly, and if we are not more prompt in our action they will catch up with us.

Mr MILLER. The fifty third rule, I think, is as much a part of our rules as is the fifteenth. And the fifty-third rule absolutely requires that this report should be engrossed and printed before it is read the third time. Now, to suspend that rule, the suspension must take place under the operation of the forty-ninth rule, which requires a threefifths vote.

The PRESIDENT. The fifteenth rule is confined exclusively to reports.

Mr. MILLER. The fifty-third rule applies to reports also. There would seem to be a conflict between those two rules.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I would suggest that those rules stand precisely as articles in our code. Where there is a general law and a local law, the local law applies. The fifteenth rule is a local rule, and of course the general rule must give way where the local rule apphies.

Mr. CLARKE. If we could have this report printed and brought in here to-day, then the fifteenth rule might apply. But if we cannot have the report printed and laid before us today, then I think the fifty-third rule must apply. That rule reads

"If objection (to the engrossment) is made, then a majority of the members shall decide upon the question of engrossment, and after the engrossment of a report is ordered, the

« PreviousContinue »