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

626

AFFIRMATIVE—-Messrs. Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell,
Wells, Dalrymple, Bond, Welch, John Dennis, James U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, McLane, Spencer, Wright, Dirickson, McMas
ter, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, McHenry, Carter, Kilgour, Brewer,
Anderson and Smith—25.

NEGATIVE—Messrs. Chapman, Pr't, Morgan, Blakistone, Dent,
Hopewell, Ricaud, Donaldson, Dorsey, Sellman, Brent of Charles,
Howard, Buchanan, Lloyd, Dickinson, Williams, Hicks, Hudson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Chambers of Cecil, Miller, Grason,
Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Nelson, Thawley, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Balt, city, Sherwood, of Balt. city, Schley, Fiery,
Neill, John Newcomei, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis,
Waters, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown —46.
So the Convention refused to grant the consent for a motion to
reconsider.
Mr. Schley, moved the Convention reconsider their vote of yes
terday, adopting an amendment offered by Mr. Spencer, as the
11th section of the report;
Mr. Buchanan, moved to postpone said motion indefinitely.
Mr. Gwinn, rose to a point of order, that the motion to postpone
is not in order, as being against the true meaning of the will es
tablished by this Convention;
The Chair ruled the motion to be in order;
From which opinion, Mr. Gwinn appealed.
The question was then put,
Shall the opinion of the chair stand as the judgment of the
Convention?
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. Brown, moved the previous question, and being seconded
The question was put,
Will the Convention reconsider their vote adopting the amend
ment offered by Mr. Spencer, as the 11th section of the report?
Mr. Spencer, moved the question be taken by yeas and
nays, and being ordered appeared as follows:
AFFIRMATIVE—Messrs. Chapman, Prest. Morgan, Blakistone,
Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donald
son, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Seliman, Brent of Charles,
Howard, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Williams,
Hicks, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Chambers of Cecil, Miller,
Bowling, Grason, Gaitber, Biser, Annan, Gwinn, Brent of Balt.
city, Schley, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Davis, Holly day,
Slicer, Smith, Parke, Shower and Brown—43.
NEGATIVE—Messrs. Lee, Bond, Buchanan, Welch, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Dashiell, Spencer, Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, McHenry, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Balt. city,


 

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 626   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives