of new districts would certainly not be sufficient
to warrant annual sessions. He had not risen to
take up the time of the Convention in unneces-
sary debate, and he would detain it no longer.
If these were the strongest arguments which
could be brought forward by the friends of the
annual system, he would still adhere to biennial
sessions, believing that they are in accordance
with the will of the people.
The question was then stated to be on the mo-
tion of Mr. SPENCER, to strike out the fifth and
sixth sections, and insert the amendments he had
offered.
Mr. BISER called for a division—first on strik-
ing out;
Which was ordered.
And the question being taken,
The motion to strike out was rejected,
Mr. JACOBS now moved to reconsider the vote,
adopting the third section.
The vote having been reconsidered,
Mr. JACOBS said, his object in the amendment
he had offered to the third section, was to make
the State elections conform to the Presidential
election. Finding he had been mistaken in the
day—he now moved to strike out the first Mon-
day in November, and insert "on the Tuesday
next after the first Monday, in the month of No-
vember."
Mr. SPENCER called for a division on striking
out;
Which was ordered.
The motion to strike out was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the motion to
insert the day designated by Mr. JACOBS.
Mr. BROWN moved a reconsideration, of the
vote striking out from the third section the words,
"first Monday in November."
He made the motion, he said, because he had
given his vote in favor of the motion to strike out
under a misapprehension. The object he had in
view, was to keep the State and the general elec-
tions free from each other.
Some conversation followed on the part of
Messrs. BROWN, THOMAS, DIRICKSON and MITCH-
ELL.
Mr. SPENCER asked the yeas and nays, on the
motion to reconsider;
Which were ordered; and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Buchanan, Welch, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Constable,
Chambers, of Cecil, Miller, McLane, Spencer,
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter,
Stewart, of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart of Balti-
more city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware,
Harbine, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday,
Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower and Brown.—34.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Ricaud, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Don-
aldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sellman, Dal-
rymple, Sollers, John Dennis, Hicks, Hodson
Phelps, Sprigg, Bowling, Dirickson, Hearn, Ja-

cobs, Magraw, Schley, Fiery, Neill, Waters
Smith and Cockey—28.
So the vote was reconsidered.
The question now recurred on striking out the
"first Monday in November," and inserting the
amendment of Mr. JACOBS.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, suggested to the gen-
tleman from Worcester, that it was not worth
while to press this question now. There was
but a thin attendance, and that it would be im-
possible to determine to-day, what the sense of
the Convention was.
Mr. JACOBS explained that his only object
was, in the amendment he had offered, to avoid
the multiplicity of elections.
But the sense of the Convention had been ex-
pressed, as he supposed, that the State and Fed-
eral elections should be held on the same day.
He was not anxious to press Hie question now—
and yielding to the suggestions of gentlemen,
would withdraw the amendment for the pre-
sent.
Mr. DIRICKSON gave notice that he should to-
morrow move to reconsider the vote of the Con-
vention on the second section of the report.
The fifth section was then again read.
Mr. THOMAS moved to amend the section af-
ter the word "every" in the second line, by inser-
ting the word "second."
The question was taken.
But no quorum voted.
Mr. MAGRAW moved that the third, fifth and
sixth sections of the report, be passed over in-
formally.
The PRESIDENT. It can bedone only by unan-
imous consent.
Objection was made.
Some conversation followed on the part of
Messrs. CHAMBERS, of Kent, THOMAS, and HAR-
BINE.,
Mr. SPENCER proposed to amend the section
by inserting, in the second line the words "and
on the same day in the year 1853."
The question was stated to be on the amend-
ment of Mr. SPENCER.
Mr. SPENCER asked the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered.
Some desultory conversation followed, as to
the effect of the amendment, in which Messrs.
SPENCER, THOMAS, CONSTABLE, WELLS, PHELPS,
BUCHANAN, HARBINE and DONALDSON, took part,
The question on the amendment of Mr. SPEN-
CER was then taken and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Ricaud, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Don-
aldson, Wells, Sellman, Buchanan, Welch,
Sherwood of Talbot, John Dennis, Hicks, Hod-
son, Miller, Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer, George,
Wright, Dirickson, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver,
Biser, Annan, Carter, Stewart of Caroline,
Gwinn, Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Waters, Ander-
son, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Smith and Cockey-
38.
Negative—Messrs. Lloyd, Dickinson, Phelps,
Constable, Chambers of Cecil, McLane, Hearn,