Mr. DORSEY moved to amend said Section by
striking out the words "Speaker of the House of
Delegates," and substituting in lieu thereof "Pre-
sident of the Senate."
Some explanation as to the propriety of the
amendment, passed between Messrs. DORSEY
and GRASON.
The question was then taken, and
The vote stood ayes 31, noes 32.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved to
amend the said third section in the first line, by
striking out the words "the Speaker of the
House of Delegates," and inserting, "Secretary
of state for the time being."
Mr. B. briefly explained the amendment.
Messrs. GRASON and SPENCER opposed it.
Mr. BRENT, not desiring, he said, to excite de-
bate, and feeling no solicitude as to the adoption
of the amendment, withdrew it.
Mr. DORSEY moved to amend the section by
inserting before the word "votes" in the third
line, the word "legal."
Mr. GRASON opposed the amendment as unne-
cessary.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GRASON moved further to amend said sec-
tion by striking out in the fourth line the words,
"first Monday," and inserting in lieu thereof,
"second Wednesday."
The amendment was agreed to.
And the third section, as amended was adopt-
ed.
The fourth section of the report was then read
as follows:
Sec. 4, And if two or more persons should have
the highest and an equal number of votes, then
one of them shall be chosen as Governor by the
joint ballot of the Senate and House of Dele-
gates; and all questions in relation to the legality
and number of votes given in the election of
Governor, and in relation to the returns of said
election, shall be determined by the House of
Delegates.
Mr. DORSEY moved to amend said section by
inserting after the word "Governor" in the fifth
line, the words "his eligibility."
Some explanation followed on the part of
Messrs. DORSEY, GRASON, JENIFER and CRISFIELD.
Mr. CRISFIELD moved as a substitute for said
amendment to insert after the word "election,"
in same section and fifth line, these words, "and
in relation to the qualifications of the persons
voted for as Governor."
I be substitute of Mr. CRISFIELD was re-
jected.
The question recurred on the amendment of
Mr DORSEY.
Further explanations passed on the part of
Messrs. BRENT, of Baltimore city, GRASON,
BOWIE, BROWN and DORSEY.
The question was then taken, and
The amendment of Mr. DORSEY was Agreed
to. |
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, then moved to
amend said section by adding at the end thereof
the following:
"And if the person receiving the highest num-
ber of votes should not be constitutionally eligi-
ble, then the Governor shall he chosen by the
joint ballot of the Senate and House of Dele-
gales."
Mr. GWINN offered as a substitute for said
amendment, to come in at the end of said section,
the following:
"And in case that the person receiving the
highest number of votes, shall not be constitu-
tionally eligible, it shall be the duty of the Gov-
ernor for the time being, or in case of the vacan-
cy of the said office, for the Speaker of the
House of Delegates to issue writs for a new
election."
The substitute was sustained by Mr. GWINN,
and opposed by Mr BRENT, of Baltimore city.
Mr. GWINN said he offered the amendment as
a substitute for that of his colleague, (Mr. Dent.)
The contingency provided for, was certainly re-
mote, but if it required any notice in the Constitution,
it was only right that the means adopted
to remedy the evil. should be in consistency with
the spirit of the Constitution, on which it was
engrafted. Until 1836, the Governor of Mary-
land was elected by the joint vote of the two
Houses of the Legislature. This feature in the
system was long opposed by all who thought that
the people of the State should, by a direct vote,
appoint the chief executive officer of the Com-
monwealth. He did not think it wise, when
this result had been attained with such exteme
difficulty, to adopt any provision, which would, in
any contingency, defeat the good effects of a strug-
gle so protracted, and place the Executive power
in the hands of that body, from whose grasp it had
been wrested with such difficulty.
If the amendment had contemplated only the
case of a vacancy arising by death or resignation
during the term, it would have been liable to
great objection, but atill, its advocates could then
have argued the inutility of renewing an exciting
contest for supremacy during the few remaining
months of the official term. But the proposition
now introduced, has no such justification. It is
the case in which the people have, through fraud
or misapprehension, been induced to cast their
suffrage for one who was not constitutionally eli-
gible, or have equally divided in their prefer-
ences for rival candidates. In such instances it
would seem that there was paramount reason
for permitting them to exercise again the privi-
lege of which they had been defrauded, without
aid, upon their part. Certainly, there is no jus-
tification for taking from them the privilege of
correcting their mistaken confidence, or in case
of an equal vote, of determining, in a more de-
liberate manner, their preference for one or
the of her of the two candidates who may have
received their suffrages.
The only inconvenience resulting, would be
the interregnum which would result. This could
easily be provided for; and he had no objection |
