clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Page 208   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 
 
208

The question was then put on the motion of Mr. Dent, to
postpone said report until the 15th of February.

Mr. Chambers, of Kent, moved that the question be taken by
yeas and nays, which being ordered, appeared as follows
AFFIRMATIVE.----Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell,
Sellman, Dalrymple, Bond, B uchanan, , Welch, C handler, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, Eccleston, Chambers,
of Cecil, McCullough, McLane, Bowie, Sappington, Stephenson,
McHenry, Nelson, Brent, of Baltimore city, Fiery, John New
corner, Harbine, Kilgour and Fitzpatrick—29

NEGATIVE.—Messrs. Ch apman, President, Ricaud, Chambers,
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent,
Sollers, Brent, of Charles, Merrick, Bell, Ridgely, John Dennis,
James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Phelps, Miller, Tuck, Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer, Wright, Mc
Master, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan,
Magraw, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Schley,
Davis, Brewer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Smith, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—56.
So the Convention relused to postpone the consideration of the
report until the 15th of February.

The question then recurred upon the motion of Mr. Merrick,
to postpone the consideration of the report, until Thursday next,
30th inst.;
Mr. John Newcomer, inquired of the chair, whether it would
be in order for him to make a motion before the previous question
was exhausted?
The chair stated, that tinder the rule, as amended this morning,
it would be in order.
Mr. John Newcomer, then moved to postpone the consideration
of said repoit until the 1st Monday in February next;
Determined in the negative.
The question then recurred on the motion of Mr. Merrick, to
postpone said report until Thursday next, the 30th inst.; and
Determined in the negative.
The question then recu red on the motion of Mr. Sollers, to com
mit said report to the committee of the whole.
Mr. Tuck, moved the previous question, that is,
"Shall the main question be now put?" and it was
Determined in the affirmative.
The question was then put on the motion of Mr. Sollers, to
commit the report to the committee of the whole house, and
Determined in the negative.

 
 
 
 
 
 
On motion of Mr. Phelps,



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Page 208   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives