Mr. BLAKISTONE suggested Thursday week, as
the boat from the Eastern Shore came up on that
day.
Mr. THOMAS expressed the hope that the gen-
tleman from Talbot, (Mr. Lloyd,) would adhere
to his original motion. It was impossible to ac-
commodate the action of this body to the various
and conflicting private engagements of its mem-
bers. He, [Mr. T.,] could not be here next
week. Let each gentleman who was compelled
to be absent, pair off with some other gentleman
of opposite opinions,
Mr. MERRICK said, he could not possibly be
here next week.
Mr. DORSEY suggested that there was another
special order, besides that which had been allud-
ed to by the Chair, and which he, [Mr. D.,] be-
lieved had precedence of the report of the committee
on the executive department. He alluded
to the report which had been made in relation to
Howard district.
The PRESIDENT, on enquiry, stated that the re-
port alluded to by the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, [Mr. Dorsey,] had been simply made
the order of the day, [in parliamentary phrase,]
and not a special order for any particular day.
Mr. GWINN submitted to the Chair, whether
the consideration of a special order might not be
postponed, by a vote of a majority of the Con-
vention.
The PRESIDENT indicated the opinion that a
vote of two-thirds would be required to postpone
the consideration of a special order.
Mr. LLOYD, [to the Chair.] If I should now
move that the report of the committee on repre-
sentation be made the special order of the day
for Tuesday next, will it come up immediately
after the report on the executive department
shall have been disposed of ?
The PRESIDENT. It will.
Mr. LLOYD. I make the motion.
Mr. MERRICK moved to make the report the
special order for Tuesday week. It was impos-
sible, he said, that gentlemen should receive no-
tice, and be here by the time designated in the
last motion of the gentleman from Talbot, [Mr.
Lloyd.]
The PRESIDENT stated, that the question would
be taken first on the most distant day.
And the question was stated to be on the mo-
tion of Mr. MERRICK, to make the report of the
committee on representation, the special order of
the day for Tuesday week.
Mr. WARE asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative — Messrs. Chapman, President,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud. Lee, Chambers,
of Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Ran-
dall, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Merrick, James U.
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Bowie, Sprigg, Bowling,
McMaster, Fooks, Sappington, Stephenson, Thawley,
John Newcomer, Davis and Kilgour—33.
Negative— Messrs. Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Lloyd, |
Colston, Chambers, of Cecil, McCullough, Miller,
Spencer, George, Thomas, Gaither, Biser,
Annan, Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Balti-
more city, Presstman, Ware, Schley, Fiery,
Neill, Harbine, .Michael Newcomer, Weber,
Hollyday, Slicer, Smith, Parke, Ege, Cockey and
Brown—34.
So the motion of Mr. Merrick was rejected.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. Lloyd, fixing Tuesday next.
Mr. DENT moved to amend the motion, by
making the report the special order of the day
for the first Monday in April.
Mr. D said, that some time ago, many gentle-
men were anxious to postpone the consideration
of this subject, until after the other business of
the Convention had been disposed of, who were
now anxious to take it up.
The question was stated to be on the amend-
ment of Mr. DENT.
Mr. KILGOUR moved to amend it by designa-
ting Monday week.
Mr. WELLS asked the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered.
Mr. RICAUD moved that there be a call of the
Convention.
A call was ordered.
The roll of the members was called, and the
names of the absentees were then called over.
The Doorkeeper was sent to notify the absent
members who were in the city to attend,
After some time the doorkeeper returned, and
the President informed the Convention that all
the members in the city, not sick, had been noti-
fied to attend.
Further proceedings on the call were then dis-
pensed with.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. KILGOUR, designating Monday week, ana
being taken,
The result was as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud. Lee, Cham-
bers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Randall, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Sollers,
Merrick, Jenifer, James U. Dennis, Crisfield,
Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccle-
ston, Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Mc-
Master, Fooks, Sappington, Stephenson, Thaw-
ley, John Newcomer, Davis and Kilgour—37.
Negative— Messrs. Welch, Chandler, Ridgely,
Lloyd, Colston, Chambers, of Cecil, McCullough,
Miller, Spencer, Grason, George, Thomas, Gai-
ther, Biser, Annan, McHenry, Stewart, of Caro-
line, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore
city, Brent, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Presst-
man, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Smith, Parke, Ege, Cockey and Brown—37.
A tie vote.
So the motion of Mr. KILGOUR was rejected.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. Lloyd, designating Tuesday next. |
