Mr. DORSEY said, his amendment left it dis-
cretionary with the Legislature, to contract
either for one or the other, as they might think
proper. He, [Mr. D„] had no doubt what their
choice would be.
Mr. SCHLEY said, what was wanted, was a
codification.
The second objection to the substitute of the
gentleman from Anne Arundel, was that it omit-
ted any provision in relation to pleadings, &c.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, desired, he said, to see
some proposition adopted which might lead to a
codification of the laws of the State, under the
sanction of the Legislature. He had no prefer-
ences as to its paternity; nor had he regarded
the question of so much importance as some gen-
tleman had. He had not risen to make an argu-
ment, but only a suggestion. It was easier to
codify a part of the laws, than the whole of them.
It was more likely that an early result would be
reached by confining the code, in the first place,
to public general laws. If the commissioners
should accomplish that portion of the work, the
Legislature would very probably make provision
for codifying the public local laws. And he sug-
gested to the Convention the propriety of deciding
that question. With a view to bring it distinct-
ly before the Convention, he would move an
amendment.
The amendment was not now in order.
The question then recurred upon the substitute
as offered by Mr. SPENCER.
Mr. BUCHANAN, stated to the Convention that
Mr. SPENCER had informed him that he had
been compelled to leave the city on pressing busi-
ness, and desired him to ask the Convention to
pass over the sixteenth section informally, until
he could be present.
The question was then taken on the substitute
of Mr. SPENCER, and it was decided in the nega-
tive.
So the substitute was rejected.
The question then recurred on the substitute
of Mr. DORSEY.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, offered the amend-
ment he had indicated, but, on a suggestion by
Mr. THOMAS, and after some conversation, with-
drew it.
The question, therefore, again recurred on the
substitute amendment of Mr. DORSEY.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, called for a divis-
ion on striking out the section, which was ordered.

Mr. DORSEY asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered and, being taken, were as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of
Kent, Dorsey, Wells, Sellman, Weems, Merrick,
Williams, Goldsborough, Phelps, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Hearn, Jacobs, McHenry, Gwinn,
Ware, Davis, Kilgour, Waters, Anderson, and
Brown— 26.
Negative—Messrs. Dent, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot,
John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Hodson, Miller,
Bowling, Wright, Dirickson, Thomas, Shriver,
Stewart of Caroline, Brent of Baltimore city,
42

Schley, Fiery, Harbine, Brewer, Weber, Holly-
day, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Ege, and Show-
er—36.
So the Convention refused to strike out.
Mr. GWINN then offered the substitute of which
he had given notice, as follows:
"All laws shall be passed by original bill, and
every law enacted by the Legislature, shall em-
brace but one subject—and that shall be describ-
ed in the title,—and no law or section of law,
shall be revived, amended, or repealed, by refer-
ence to its title or section only, and it shall be
the duty of the Legislature at the first session
after the adoption of this Constitution, to appoint
two commissioners, learned in the law, to revise
and codify the laws of this State, and the said
commissioners shall report the said code so form-
ed to the Legislature, within a time to be by it
determined, for its approval, amendment or re-
jection, and if adopted after the revision and
codification of the said laws, it shall be the duty
of the Legislature, in amending any article or
section thereof, to enact the same as the said article
or section would read, when amended; and
whenever the Legislature shall enact any public
general law, not amendatory of any section or
article in the said code, it shall be the duty of
the Legislature to enact the same in articles and
sections, in the same manner as the said code may
be arranged; and to provide for the publication
of all additions and alterations which may be
made to the said code; and it shall also be the
duty of the Legislature to appoint one or more
commissioners, learned in the law, whose duty it
shall be to revise, simplify and abridge the rules
of practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings of
the courts of record in this State."
The substitute having been read,
Mr. GWINN made some remarks (which will
be found embodied in a report of some other re-
marks at a later period of the day.)
Mr. THOMAS expressed his hope that no motion
would be made to divide the question. The ef-
fect of a division would be that the question would
first be taken on striking out, leaving them at
liberty to insert any article hereafter, and the
vote on that motion, should it prevail, would be
no indication of the sense of the House on the
merits of the particular proposition now offered.
For this reason he hoped that there would be no
division of the question.
The question was then stated to be on the sub-
stitute amendment of Mr. GWINN.
Mr. DORSEY moved to amead the substitute by
striking out the word "general"
The amendment was rejected.
The question recurred on the amendment of
Mr. GWINN.
Mr. STEPHENSON asked the yeas and nays
which were ordered.
Mr. DORSEY called for a division, so as to take
the question separately on that portion of the
amendment which related to pleadings, &c.
Some conversation followed on a point of or-
der.
On a suggestion by Mr. TUCK,
Mr. DORSEY withdrew the call for a division.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, gave his views of the