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 274   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

274


Mr. Spencer, rose to a point of order, that the previous question
on the entire amendment having been ordered by the Convention,
the motion of Mr. Chambers, of Kent, for a division of the ques
tion, was not in order;
The Chair decided the motion to be out of order.
The yeas and nays were then taken on the amendment as
offered by Mr. Spencer, and appeared as follows:
AFFIRMATIVE. —Messrs. Tuck, President, pro tem., Morgan,
Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Seilman, Nerrick,
Buchanan, Welch, Constable, Chambers, of Cecil, Bowie,
Sprigg, McCubbin, Spencer, George, Wright, Shriver, Biser,
McHenry, Magraw, Presstnian, Ware, Davis, Anderson, Holly-
day, Parke and Brown----30.
NEGATIVE—Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell,
Dalrymple, Brent, of Charles, Bell, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson,
Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams,
Hicks, Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Bowling, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Gaither, Annan,
Stephenson, Nelson, Carter, Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart., of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore city,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New
comer, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Shower
and Cockey—49.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. Phelps, then moved to a mend said 2nd section by filling
the blank in the 2nd line with the words "two years;" and
Moved the previous question, that is
"Shall the main question be now put?" audit was
Determined in the affirmative.
The question was then put on the adoption of the amendment
as offered by Mr. Phelps.
Mr. Phelps, moved the question be taken by yeas and nays, and
being ordered, appeared as follows
AFFIRMATIVE—Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell,
Dorsey, Dalrymple, Brent, of Charles, Bell, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickin
son, Sherwood, of Tal., Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams,
Hicks, Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowling, Spencer, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Gaither, Annan, Ste
phenson, Nelson, Carter, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Stewart
of Balt. city, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine,
Michael Newcomer, Davis, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Hollyday,
Fitzpatrick, Smith and Cockey—49.
NEGATIVE—Messrs. Tuck, Pres't, pro tem., Morgan, Donald
son, Wells, Randall, Kent, Sellman, Merrick, Buchanan, Welch,
Constable, Chambers of Cecil, Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin, Wright,
Shriver, Biser, McHenry Magraw, Gwinn, Brent of Balt. city,
Presstman, Ware, Anderson, Parke, Shower and Brown—28.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So the amendment was adopted.



 

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 274   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