would also be in the power of persons opposed
to reconsideration, to keep out of the
House, and in that way to gain their object. "
Yes, sir, one man by keeping out of the House
might thereby prevent a reconsideration, though
a number very much larger than that by which
the original vote was carried, were ready and
anxious to reconsider.
It was this which occasioned the strong remark
of Mr. Varnum. A rule was then proposed "to
allow of re-consideration, when as many mem-
bers voted for it as were in favor of the original
measure, provided, they were a majority of the
members voting on the re-consideration—notice to
be given and one re-consideration only to be al-
lowed."
The defects in this rule as stated by Mr. Web-
ster, and which induced him to declare it the
most extraordinary of all propositions submitted,
were amongst others, that on a question of adop-
ting on amendment to the Constitution "a very
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 necessa-
rily to be re-considered." Again he said: "the
rule as proposed was drawn as if affirmative votes
only could be re-considered." Did these objec-
tions, Mr. C, asked, did either of them apply
here? Moat certainly not. An equal number of
members need not be present, an affirmative or a
negative vote may be re-considered, and he would
add, a majority will have its decision enforced.
All that had been quoted from Mr. Webster, was
said in relation to the particular rule there dis-
cussed. He was for restricting the right of re-
consideration, greatly more than it would be re-
stricted by our rule, with the amendment now be-
fore us. The language on page 28—too long to
quote at large—will be found to design any thing
but a commendation on the facilities of re-con-
sideration. But we were not left to grope through
an argument to find Mr. Webster's views. Af-
ter succeeding in convincing the Massachusetts
Convention of the correctness of his views, he
embodied them in a condensed form in the shape
of a rule in the following words—to be found on
page 29—"when a motion has been made and
carried, in the affirmative or negative, it shall be
in order for any member of the majority, to
move for a re-consideration thereof, on the same
or succeeding day." And on page 30, this rule
was adopted, by a vote of two hundred and fifty
to one hundred and twenty. This is precisely
the rule of Congress, which we have thought it
light and proper, greatly to enlarge. This rule,
t will at once be seen, restricts the right to re-
consider greatly more than the rule here would
do, even when amended as now proposed. He
trusted, that, however, in the first remarks he had
made, without the book to consult, he had mis-
applied some of the remarks there used, he had
now fully satisfied the Convention that he was
not proposing a measure which would make a re-
consideration more difficult than Mr. Webster's
did.
The gentleman from Cecil does not; deny or
propose to remedy the evils against which this
proposition is directed, but rests his opposition |
on the ground of its "novelty." Why certainly
it is novel. And why novel? Simply for the
reason that the existing rule is novel, entirely
novel, not known or adopted in any Convention
or legislature, whose history is known to us. And
was it not "of course," that modifications of this
"novel" rule must, be "novel" also. He did not
suppose that in this presence, the argument per
se, that a measure was novel, should condemn it.
The gentleman had referred to the rule said to
be adopted in the Convention which formed the
Constitution of the United States. No other
evidence had been furnished of the existence of
any such rule, except what was said of it by one
of the members in the course of debate in Massa-
chusetts, He could not, of course, admit or deny
what was the character or purport of a rule of
which neither he or the gentleman were inform-
ed. So much for the proposed alteration of the
rule, about which he cared but little, but wished
it understood.
The gentleman from Cecil had commented on
his, (Mr. C.'s,) profession of republicanism, in-
timating a want of consistency in not carrying
out the principle of "the right of a ma-
jority to rule." He did understand the allusion,
not being aware he had on any occasion here ad-
vocated the doctrine that a minority should con-
trol the majority. He had expected the majority
of this Convention to make the new Constitution.
He held they were bound to do so, and he, for
one, was ready and constantly had been, to em-
ploy himself in this duty. He was every hour of
every day in his chair, and intended so to be, to
the neglect of other urgent and important duties,
to accomplish this very purpose. It was very
true that those who were so loud in their de-
mands for reform, cannot now determine amongst
themselves, what is the reform needed. That
was no fault or his, nor should the fault be at his
door, if no Constitution was made. He was al-
ways ready to vote, and if out-voted to submit.
He was not, therefore, to be impeached by
anything he had done here when he claimed to
be a republican. He was one—one of the old
stamp—had been so all the days of his life. The
first political speech be ever made, the first vote
he ever gave, were made and given in and for
that school, and there he had remained in it to
this day. This was dating, perhaps, beyond
some gentleman who had attached themselves
to later schools of republicanism, and which, be-
cause later, were of course improvements; as
the book-makers say of their new editions, "re-
vised, corrected and improved." These new
editions sometimes command ahigher price, but
they do not always contain better matter. He
was a republican in nothing more sternly than
in the doctrine, that in every question properly
for decision, a majority should govern.
Mr, BRENT, of Baltimore city, said that much
time had, undoubtedly, been consumed in deci-
ding questions of reconsideration, but still more
time, he thought, had been consumed in reconsidering
the rules of the Convention, because, no
sooner was one set of rules adopted, than it was
immediately met by a motion to reconsider. He |
