absolutely necessary that it should be so.—
The motion of the gentleman from Kent (Mr
Chambers) would very much deprive the Convention
of all the benefits resulting from such a
practice. So far as his [Mr. McL's.] knowledge
extended, no such rule as the gentleman
proposed was to be found in any deliberative or
legislative body, unless perhaps it might have
been in some of the colonial or provincial Leg-
islatures. The only distinction in relation to
motions to reconsider had been, that such a mo-
tion should be made by a member who had vo-
ted with the majority; and this had been a suffi-
cient security against any improper use of the
power to reconsider. This Convention had va-
ried that rule, because it had found it requisite
to do so for its own security. He was willing
to go back to the original vote, so far as to re-
quire that motions to reconsider should be made
by members voting with the majority; but he
was opposed to the adoption of any new restriction
from which he conceived great inconveni-
ence might result. And Mr. McL. put a case
in illustration.
He found that in the Convention Which
framed the Constitution of the State of Massa-
chusetts in 1820-21, a motion bad been made
similar to that of the gentleman from Kent, [Mr.
Chambers.] The rule was debated by some
most eminent men; and, after a good deal of
discussion, a motion was made by Mr, Morton
to strike out the whole rule, and insert "one
which should allow of reconsideration, when as
many members voted for it as were in favor of
the original measure, provided they were a ma-
jority of the members voting on the question of
reconsideration—notice to be given—and one re-
consideration of the same question only to be
allowed." Let us see bow Mr. Webster treated
the proposition. He [Mr. McL.] read from page
27, of the debates of the Convention.
"Mr. Webster thought, that of all the various
propositions which the occasion had elicited, that
now before the Convention was the most extra-
ordinary. It appeared to him to be in many re-
spects objectionable. In the first place, what is
meant by requiring as many votes to reconsider
a motion, as were in favor of the original mea-
sure? Suppose the questions were on the adop-
tion of an amendment—a vary small number, for
example five, might be in favor of it, and all the
rest against it. Yet, in this case, by the proposed
rule, the vote was necessarily to be reconsidered.
The honorable gentleman had drawn his motion
as if affirmative votes only could be reconsidered,
and has made no provision at all for the reconsideration
of negative votes. Again, according to
this provision, a motion for reconsideration might
be made and discussed for a week; then put to
the vote, and although carried affirmatively by a
majority, have no effect, and bedeclared anullity
because the majority was not large enough.
"He begged leave to dissent entirely, and most
widely, from all such modes of proceeding. All
rules respecting reconsiderations, were intended
and adopted for the purpose of ascertaining, un-
der what circumstances, and by whom, a motion |
for reconsideration might be brought forward.
But when once brought forward, it must, of
course, like all other motions, be decided by a
majority. Nobody, he believed, ever before
heard of a rule, by which a motion to reconsider
when once regularly made, was not to be decid-
ed like other motions. It might well be doubted
whether the Convention could prescribe any such
rules; rules by which anything, more than a ma-
jority of members should be required for the de-
cision of any question regularly before it.
"Mr. W. proceeded to say, it was with great
unwillingness that he troubled the Convention
again on this occasion, but he would indulge the
hope, that after the failure of so many attempts
to qualify the right of moving to reconsider, in
any manner acceptable to the Convention, gen-
tlemen would be more inclined to adopt the
usual limitation—the restriction of the right to
some member voting with the majority. No
other qualification was so simple, or so easily un-
derstood, and none better secured the right
against abuse."
Mr. W. then went on, (continued Mr McL.,)
to advocate the adoption of the general rule, as
applied in most cases—that was to say, that the
motion to reconsider should be made by a mem-
ber voting with the majority.
The rule proposed by Mr. Morton, which was
the same as that now offered by the gentleman
from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) was voted down,
without even the form of a division, and ulti-
mately the Convention, on the motion of Mr.
Webster, adopted precisely the rule which he,
(Mr. McL.,) had indicated at the outset of his
remarks; that was, simply requiring the motion
to be made by a member voting with the ma-
jority.
We had had that rule here, but it was chang-
ed. He confessed that he desired as much lati-
tude as possible, and he thought that such also
should be the general desire of the Convention.
A decision might be made on a question to-day,
when there might be a thin attendance. It
might become important to have the decision of
a full House.
They were acting here on the formation of a
Constitution which was to endure, he hoped, so
long as any of those, who assisted in framing it
might exist. And it was important that every
part of it should be well considered. If amis-
take was made to-day, the Convention should
have an opportunity without any great formality
to go back to the proposition and rectify that
mistake. When the Convention came to the
final vote, there would probably be a full atten-
dance, and any error which might have been
made could be corrected.
He thought that the gentleman from Kent,
(Mr. Chambers,) would not obtain his object by
the proposition he had offeree.'. He thought the
amendment which had been made to the rule on
the motion of the gentleman from Frederick,
(Mr. Thomas,), was a good one. The Conven-
tion had not wasted time under it, nor did he
think that there meed he any apprehension on
that score.
Mr. CHAMBER said he felt some degree of |
