may be present. Absenteeism cannot always be
prevented, as it frequently proceeds from causes
beyond the reach of legislative power, and ought
not to be permitted to influence the fate of a
measure.
Mr. SPENCER moved to amend said eighteenth
section, by striking out, in the second line, the
words "which number of," and the word "elec-
ted."
Mr. PHELPS accepted the amendment.
Some conversation followed.
Mr. WEEMS expressed a hope that the time
would never occur, in this hall, when any bill in-
volving important public interests, would be per-
mitted to pass without a call for the yeas and
nays. This, he thought, was sufficiently guarded
against, by the provision which had been adopted
that the yeas and nays should be taken on the
call of five members of the House, and one mem-
ber of the Senate. But it was not necessary
that they should be taken on every local and pri-
vate bill. As the section now stands, he believed
it is required that they ayes and noes, shall be
taken on all bills without discrimination. He
thought it would be better than a majority of all
the members elected, should be required on all
laws of public concernment, and that, in such
cases, the vote should be taken by yeas and nays.
He hoped the agricultural interest, on this floor,
would vote for such a provision as that, no bill of
a public character should be permitted to pass
the Legislature without the vote of a majority of
the whole number of members elected.
Mr. MORGAN suggested that his friend from
Calvert, would not be able to gain his object,
without some modification of his amendment.
How was he to ascertain whether a majority of
the whole number of members elected, had voted
without taken the ayes and noes.
Mr. WEEMS explained that it would be easy
for the speaker, when he counted the House,
to ascertain whether a majority of the whole
number of members had voted.
Mr. MORGAN said it would not consume much
more of the time of the House to take the yeas
and nays, than was consumed in dividing the House.
He agreed that every one who had had much
experience in legislation, must see the propriety
of adopting some such provision. He had himself
known a bill passed by a vote of only twenty-four
members, that being the majority of forty-six
which was a quorum of the House, and that a
very important bill. It would be better, he
thought, to insert a provision in the Constitution,
than to leave the matter to be settled by the
Legislature, many of whom cared little about the
responsibility of their acts. Such a provision
embodied the only conservative principle, and
the only guard against negligent legislation. He
wondered that any one could be found to sanction
the principle of passing laws, without reading
more than the title. There ought to be a guard
against such infractions.
Mr. JENIFER said, that forty-six members of
the House constituting a quorum, twenty-four
would be a majority of a quorum, and eleven be-
ing a quorum of the Senate, six was a majority
of that quorum. He could not suppose that the |
Convention would be willing that important bills
should be passed by so small a number without
the vote being taken by yeas and nays. But the
fourteenth section of this bill provides that the
yeas and nays shall be ordered on the call of five
members of the House, and of one member of the
Senate. As to the fact, whether a majority of
all the members elected had voted, the Speaker
could always decide that point. He thought that
he provision in the fourteenth section, to which
the had referred, is a sufficient protection of the
public interests.
Mr. PHELPS said he was not particularly tena-
cious of his own amendment. He was perfectly
willing to accept the amendment of the gentle-
man from Queen Anne's, (Mr. Spencer.) The
principle that a majority of the members present
should pass laws had been engrafted on the Con-
situtions of nineteen States, yet a cry was raised
against this proposition, as if some terrible en-
croachment was about to be made on the usual
course of legislation. He was indifferent wheth-
er any more laws were passed or not. If there
was not another law passed in the next hundred
years, he believed no hard would result. He
would withdraw his amendment and accept that
of the gentleman from Queen Anne's.
Mr. CHAMBERS entirely concurred with the
committee in the whole section as it stands. He
had hoped his friend from St. Mary's would have
admitted that the vote by yeas and nays was al-
ways the mode of testing the sense of a legisla-
tive body. He would say, in reply to the gentle-
man who was such a stickler for majorities, that
twenty-four members, although the majority of
a quorum, was not a majority of the whole House.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment of Mr. WEEMS, striking out from the
section the following words:
"And on the question of its final passage, the
ayes and noes shall be recorded."
Mr. WEEMS asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Dent, Weems, Lloyd,
Phelps, Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Ware, Shower and Brown—9.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Kent, Jenifer, Bell,
Ridgely, Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Col-
ston, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Williams,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Miller, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Spencer, George, Dirickson, Jacobs,
Gaither, Biser, Annan, McHenry, Magraw, Nel-
son Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Kilgour, Brewer,
Waters, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Smith
and Parke—51.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr SPENCER.
The question was taken, and the amendment
was rejected.
And the eighteenth section was then adopted.
Mr. FITZPATRICK offered the following amendment
to the report: |
