heard of any difficulty arising therefrom in that
State, although the interests represented in her
legislature were of such great variety and magnitude.
This was, in fact, the true method of
securing the attendance of members. Reference
had been made to the thinness of this Convention
in which important questions were, from day to
day, decided by mere majorities of quorums
The fact, he must say, was discreditable
But, the action of the Convention was, after
all, only advisory. The people by their votes were
to adopt or reject what was done here, and if
the work were good, it would matter little
whether it came from the hands of few or many.
The legislature, on the other hand, made laws,
which, of their own efficacy, regulated the
rights, and affected the interests of the people;
and those laws ought not to pass without the
express consent of a majority of the people's
representatives.
Mr. D. insisted further on the evils of log-
rolling, which could not, perhaps, be entirely
prevented, but which might be greatly checked.
By the decision of the Convention, that a bill
should relate to one object only, which should be
expressed in its title, a blow had been already
struck at that vicious system of legislation; and
a still more effective blow would be struck by the
adoption of the section under consideration. He
therefore hoped that the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Dorchester would not prevail.
Mr. PHELPS said, he had no particular objec-
tion to the latter clause of the section, (that
which provided for the taking of the yeas and
nays on the final passage of bills,) but he thought
that its effect would be to retard the business of
the legislature, and to embarrass its proceed-
ings.
As to the section itself, if such a provision had
been inserted in the old Constitution, the result
to the State of Maryland, would have been re-
pudiation and insolvency. To sustain this posi-
tion he referred to the meagre vote by which
various important measures had been passed—
the majority in some cases being only one or two,
not of the whole number elected, but of the
number present.
Mr. SPENCER would vote for the section, he
said, if he could believe for a moment that its
'effect would be, to cause all bills before the
legislature, to be more thoroughly examined and
considered, or if he could feel justified in ex-
pecting from it any of the beneficial operation
which was claimed for it. In his judgment, no
such result would follow.
He referred also to his own experience as sus-
taining the assertion that, when action was ta-
ken upon great public measures, the attendance
in the legislature was always full.
Mr. BISER said, that if he had been called upon
to select one provision in this bill, better calcu-
lated than any other, to promote the public in-
terest, this was the section to which he should
have pointed. Caution was the parent of safety.
At home and abroad—in this Hall and out of it,
he was a majority man, and he intended to vote
in favor of the first branch of the section. The

absence of such a provision had been the source
of serious evil to the legislation of the State.
He was also in favor of the last clause of the
section—believing, as he did, that it was a sav-
ing and salutary provision. He believed that it
would obviate much mischief in the legislation
of the State.
Mr. WEEMS suggested that it was in the power
of any member of the legislature to call for the
yeas and nays which, if the call was sustained by
a small number of members, must be ordered.
It seemed to him, therefore, that there was no
nececsity for making an imperative rule, that the
yeas and nays should be taken on every law, or
resolution, however unimportant or local its ob-
ject might be. Such a rule would greatly retard
the business of the legislature.
He moved, therefore, to amend the section by
striking out the words "and on the question of its
final passage, the ayes and noes shall be record-
ed."
The PRESIDENT. That amendment will take
precedence of the substitute.
Mr. BISER. I call for a division on striking
out.
Mr. SPENCER said, he never could consent to
vote for striking out the provision which related
to the yeas and nays.
Mr. BLAKISTONE moved an amendment confin-
ing the operation of the restriction to bills ap-
propriating money or imposing a tax upon the
people.
Mr. B. said, that, in his judgment, these were
the only laws which absolutely required the vote
of a majority of all the members elected. In
ordinary matters of legislation, he thought such
a provision unnecessary.
He hoped the gentleman from Calvert, (Mr.
Weems, ) would accept the amendment as a mod-
ification of his own proposition.
Mr. WEEMS. I cannot do so. The amend-
ment does not at all suit my views.
Mr. BLAKISTONE withdrew the amendment.
Mr. GWINN said he could not agree to vote for
the proposition just read by the gentleman from
St. Mary's (Mr. Blakistone). He did not suppose
that any member could be influenced in his course
by a call of the yeas and nays on a question, but
the call possessed the advantage of placing the
responsibility where it ought to rest. There is a
great inconsistency in saying that a majority of
the members is a quorum competent to transact
business, and yet requiring the yeas and nays
only on the final vote. This he considered as
unjust in its operation. Amajority of a quorum
may have amended a bill and put it in a shape in
which it will pass, why then should there be re-
quired a majority of the whole House to pass it?
If the rule is to be made applicable at all, it should
be applicable in all the stages of the bill. Nor
could he understand why members who were ab-
sent, from sickness or any other necessity, should
be always considered as opposed to a bill. The
true secret and protection of legislation must be
in the honor and conscience of the individual
member. All questions should, in his opinion,
be determined by a majority of the quorum who