pro tem., Dent, Hopewell, Mitchell, Wells, Weems,
Sollers, Jenifer, Dasheill, Williams, Hicks, Hod-
son, Eccleston, Phelps, McLane, Bowie, Tuck,
McMaster, Magraw, Carter, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Presst-
man, Ware, Kilgour and Waters-27.
Negative-Messrs. Lee, Chamber of Kent,
Donaldson, Dorsey, Randall, Sellman, Brent of
Charles, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Crisfield, Mil-
ler, Grason, Dirickson, Fooks, Shriver, Biser,
Sappington, McHenry, Nelson, Hardcastle, Fiery,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Brewer, Weber,
Hollyday, Slicer, Smith, Parke, Shower, and
Brown-36.
So the Convention refused to accept the sub-
stitute.
The question was then put on the adoption of
the report of the majority of the committee.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved the question
be taken by yeas and nays, and being ordered ap-
peared as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Donaldson, Dorsey, Randall, Sellman, Brent of
Charles, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Crisfield, Miller,
Grason, Fooks, Shriver, Biser, Sappington, Mc-
Henry, Nelson, Carter, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Brewer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Smith, Parke, Shower and Brow. -35.
Negative-Messrs. Blakistone, President, pro
tem, Dent, Hopewell, Mitchell, Wells, Weems,
Sollers, Jenifer, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hod-
son, Eccleston, Phelps, McLane, Bowie, Tuck,
Dirickson, McMaster, Magraw, Gwinn, Stewart
of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Presst-
man, Ware, Kilgour, Waters-27.
So the report of the majority committee was
adopted.
The Convention adjourned until to-morrow
morning at 10 o'clock.
FRIDAY, March 14, 1851.
The Convention met at ten o'lcock.
Prayer by the Rev. Mr. GRAUFF,
The journal of yesterday having been read,
CORRECTION.
On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS,
Acorrection was made in page 442, in the
amendment offered by him, to the resolution of
the special committee, to allow such clerks as
may be dispensed with, their per diem to Mon-
day next, by adding the word "inclusive."
He explained his object to be, to remove any
doubt as to the time when the per diem should
cease.
There being no objection, the correction was
made, and
The journal was then approved. |
NEW COUNTY.
Mr. SHRIVER presented a petition of eighty
voters of Middletown, Hawver's, and Catoctin
districts in Frederick county, remonstrating
against the creation of a new county from parts
of Frederick and Washington counties.
Which was read, and
Referred to the committee appointed on New
Counties.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER, presented a petition of
sundry citizens of Washington county, praying
that provision may be made in the new Constitu-
tion, that the privilege to sell intoxicating liquors
shall not be granted to any person in any part of
the State, except the same shall first be sanctioned
or approved by a majority of the votes in
the election district where the same is to be
sold.
Which was read, and
Referred to the select committee appointed on
that subject.
BASIS OF REPRESENTATION.
Mr SMITH said:
He rose to submit an order, accompanying
which, was a tabular statement which he desired
to have printed. This statement contained various
views which he, in conjunction with other
gentlemen, had been preparing on the subject of
the basis of representation.
He hoped this document would be printed and
put in the hands of gentlemen as speedily as pos-
sible, in order that it might be examined. He
thought it important that the Convention should
see at a glance, all the various projects on the
subject.
He then offered the following order,
Which was agreed to.
Ordered, That the committee on Printing, be
directed to have printed for the use of the Con-
vention, in one tabular form, the various plans
for a basis of representation of the House of Dele-
gates.
REDUCTION OF CLERKS.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, enquired wheth-
er it was now in order to move to reconsider
the vote by which the order discharging a por-
tion of the committee clerks was yesterday
adopted?
The PRESIDENT, pro tem., replied that such a
motion was in order.
Mr. BRENT, then submitted the motion to re-
consider.
Mr. McHENRY moved to lay the motion to re-
consider on the table.
Mr. PHELPS hoped his friend from Harford
would withdraw the motion to lay on the table.
Yesterday the previous question was sprung, and
no opportunity was afforded to say a word. He
gave notice that if the motion to reconsider was
laid on the table, he would renew it to-morrow.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, asked for the |
