thought, however, that the great evil was not in
the rules, but in a difficulty which the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. CHAM-
BERS,) did not propose to remedy.
Mr. B. here referred to the habit of gentle-
men to read the newspapers when the debates
were going on, thus not listening to what might
be said. [Several gentlemen role and asserted
their ability to read the newspapers and listen, at
the same time, to everything that was said.]
Mr. BRENT continued. All he could say then,
was, that gentlemen had a finer capacity than he
possessed.
Mr. B. then referred to the case of the thir-
teenth section of the executive report, which had
been reconsidered, and in which, after the re-
consideration, on the motion of the gentleman
from Kent, [Mr, Chambers,] the proposition had
been restored just as it stood before. The result
was, that the same mischief was left in the new
Constitution which was found in the old one.
He referred to the proposition which allowed the
Governor to make temporary appointments dur-
ing the recess where they were not cases of va-
cancy. There was the case of an original pro-
position passed for want of proper attention. It
was reconsidered, and then restored as it stood
before. Unless the Convention could enforce
gentlemen to attend to what was going on—to
keep the current of the debate and thus enable
themselves to vote understandingly—no rule
would prevent the consumption of time in mo-
tions to reconsider.
What was the proposition of the gentleman
from Kent, [Mr. Chambers]? That the majori-
ty must govern. The rule was a very good one
for the Convention, but would not do for the
people. Gentlemen were not willing to apply
it to the people. He would like to see gentle-
men consistent—these Jeffersonian republicans,
who were born in the doctrines of the Jeffersonian
school—he would like to see them carry out
these principles, as he, (Mr. B.,) did, among
the people. Did Jefferson sanction the doctrine
that the minority of the people were to govern?
He would like to see the gentleman carry out
the doctrines of that eminent man in all respects.
Mr. B. then examined the proposition of Mr.
CHAMBERS—gave his, [Mr. B's.,] understanding
of its effect, and argued that it ought not to be
adopted. Members might from better informa-
tion, from conscientious conviction of the error
of their decision, change their minds, and desire
to reconsider the decision they had made. They
should not be deprived of the opportunity to
do so.
Mr. CHAMBERS replied. His remarks will be
published hereafter.
Mr. PRESSTMAN said:
That he should not enter upon any of these
nice distinctions which had been drawn on either
side in the course of this debate. He did not
know that it was important to the settlement of
this question, whether the proposition had been
sustained, or voted down in the Convention of
Massachusetts, or whether the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) had adhered more close- |
ly to the Jeffersonian track than the gentleman
from Cecil, (Mr. McLane,) or the gentleman
from Baltimore city, (Mr. Brent,) or whether,
when the gentleman from Kent brought forward
his amendment, (from the most honest motives
as he, [Mr. P.,] did not doubt,) the almost unani-
mous sentiment of the Convention was in favor
of its adoption. He did not know how the gen-
tleman had arrived at that conclusion.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. By a general ex-
clamation. I heard at least a dozen voices cry
out in its favor.
Mr. PRESSTMAN, continuing, said, that he was
in the Convention at the time the notice was giv-
en, and no such exclamations had reached his
ear. He had no doubt that the gentleman was
sincere and honest in his course—that he believ-
ed that the existing rule had worked mischief,
and that his amendment would work good,
He, [Mr P.,] desired to call the attention of
the Convention to the plain, practical fact,
There were now upon the journal, propositions
which had passed by immense majorities, as to
which motions of reconsideration had been inti-
mated, and which, if not reconsidered, might, in
the opinion of some gentlemen lead to agood
deal of harm.
In this connection, Mr. P. cited the case of
the single provision abolishing imprisonment for
debt, where the naked principle had been adopt-
ed, without any of these controling provisions
which, in the judgment of some gentlemen, could
alone obviate the ruinous effects which would re-
sult from its adoption. That proposition had
passed by an affirmative vote of sixty-five—
against a negative vote of some five or six. This
was one prominent measure in respect to which
a motion to reconsider was pending. That mo-
tion had been indicated by the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers.) ,
It was to be borne in mind that, although the
gentleman from Kent had, no doubt, in his eye
the future and not the past proceedings of the
Convention, yet, as the gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. McLane,) had stated, the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) was not here arguing for
the restoration of the rule as it originally stood.
If the gentleman's proposition had sought merely
to restore the rule which provided that no mem-
ber should move a reconsideration, except he
had voted with the majority, he, (Mr. P.,)
could see some good reason lor it.
But the gentleman proposed an entirely differ-
ent thing. He had gone, in his, [Mr. P's,] judg-
ment one step too far, and had submitted a pro-
position, the effect of which, would be to delay,
rather than facilitate the business of the Conven-
tion. He did not believe that the gentleman de-
sired any such result,
He, [Mr. P.,] thought that a majority of the
Convention might be willing to restore the old
rule; but this was entirely a new proposition for
which the gentleman had not been able to pro-
duce a single precedent in any legislative body. ,
He, [Mr. P.,] was one of those who were in
favor of the application of the previous question.
He hoped it would be freely used. It was at any
time, in the power of the Convention to get rid, |
