teen hundred years ago, the doctors and the law-
yers persecuted the Saviour.
Now, as to the doctors, said Mr. B., whether
doctors of divinity as was intimated by the gen-
tleman from Kent, or doctors of medicine, as
was charged by his colleague—he bad nothing to
say—no defence to make. He was uninformed
on the subject; and besides, the doctors are gen-
erally able to take care of themselves. But as
to the lawyers, so gallantly defended by his
friend from Kent, [Mr. Chambers,] he, [Mr. B..]
desired to know of his colleague, who was Jo-
seph of Arimathea? He, [Mr. B.,] was aware
that his colleague was an accomplished Bible
historian, and he called upon him out of the full-
ness of his biblical knowledge to instruct the
Convention in this—who was Joseph of Arima-
thea.?
He was, (said Mr. B,,) a lawyer—a coun-
sellor. Who was it, he would ask his colleague—
who, in that dread hour, when the sun was dark-
ened, and the vail of the temple was rent in
twain, and the earth did quake, and the graves
were opened—that stood firmly and faithfully by
the side of his crucified Redeemer? It was Jo-
seph of Arimathea, a lawyer,
Who was it when all the followers of the Sa-
viour had fled in alarm, saving only his mother
and a few faithful women—whilst the pierced
body still hung upon the accursed cross—that
went boldly unto Pilate and craved the body of
his God? It was Joseph of Arimathea, a law-
yer.
Who was it that took down the body of the
Saviour from the cross at the risk of his own life,
wrapped it in fine linen, and laid it in his own
new sepulchre, hewn out in the rock? It was Jo-
seph of Arimathea, a lawyer. Beware then, af-
ter the high example, how you traduce the law-
yers as a class.
These are the questions in kindness I desired
to put, and these the. remarks I desired to
make.
Mr. JENIFER briefly congratulated the gentleman
from Baltimore county, for his research into the
history of the lawyers, which had carried him
back nearly to the commencement of the world.
Mr. BELL. I rise not to defend the lawyers,
but to say a word or two on the subject of phy-
sicians. He,would not go as far back as his honor-
able colleague, but if he did, he thought the comparison
would not be unfavorable to the physi-
cian. He only desired to say a word in reply to
his respected colleague on his left, who had ad-
dressed the Convention a. short time before,
and hinted at the impropriety of professional
gentlemen neglecting their special duties and en-
gaging in politics. He desired to state a subject
within his own knowledge. He was himself a
physician of long experience; he had attended,
he thought, faithfully to his calling, and to his
patients, but it sometimes so happened that he
was compelled to leave them, being called off on
business for a few days; yet on his return, to his
great astonishment he mostly found them impro-
ving, he thought faster than if he had been in
constant attendance—they having taken the ad-
vantage of his absence in recruiting their health. |
He, therefore, felt no conscientious scruples in
leaving his patients, and holding a seat in this
body. ,And he doubted if lawyers and physicians
were more frequently absent, whether their
clients and patients would be much the losers.
The question was then declared to be on the
modified amendment of Mr. CHANDLER.
Mr. C, asked the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered, and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Bond, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Colston, Fooks, Shriver, Bi-
ser, McHenry, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Hardcastle, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine,
Michael Newcomer, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters,
Weber and Parke—22.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Sellman. Weems, Merrick, Jenifer,
Ridgely, Lloyd, James LI. Dennis, Crisfield, Da-
shiell, Phelps, Constable, Chambers of Cecil,
Miller, McLane, Grason, George, Wright, Mc-
Master, Hearn, Jacobs," Gaither, Sappington,
Stephenson, Nelson, Gwinn, Sherwood of Balti-
more city, Ware, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Shower and Brown—44.
So the amendment was rejected.
The ninth section was then adopted.
Mr. MERRICK moved a reconsideration of the
vote on the twenty-first section, (that which re-
lates to loans on the credit of the State,) with a
view to offer an amendment, (of which he had
heretofore given notice.)
The PRESIDENT, pro tem., (Mr. Blakistone,)
finding that notice of a motion to reconsider had
been made on a former day by Mr. MCHENRY,
stated that fact.
Mr. MCHENRY made the motion to reconsider.
He did so, he said, with the concurrence of the
mover of the amendment, which had been adopt-
ed, and of other gentlemen who had voted for it,
and with the intention to move, if the motion to
reconsider prevailed, that the consideration of
the section should be postponed, until after the
other sections of the report had been disposed
of.
After some conversation,
The question was taken on the motion to re-
consider.
But, no quorum voted.
The question was again taken.
But no quorum voted.
Mr. KILGOUR moved a call of the House.
Mr. PRESSTMAN enquired of the Chair, how
many members were present?
The CHAIR replied, fifty-one.
The question was taken on the motion of Mr.
KILGOUR;
And decided in the negative,
So a call of the Convention was refused.
Mr. MERRICK asked the yeas and nays, on the
motion to reconsider;
Which were ordered, and
Being taken, resulted as follows; |
