by its application, of any subject-matter before
it, whenever they believed that the discussion
had been sufficiently extended, to enable the
members to give an intelligent vote.
Some further remarks were made by Messrs.
CHAMBERS and PRESSTMAN which will be publish-
ed hereafter.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, said, that when
he called attention to teh fact that but few mem-
bers were listening-although it appeared to be
the case that some were listening who were, at
the same time, reading newspapers-it was with
no unkind motives, and was intended as no re-
flection upon any member of the Convention.
On the contrary, it was intended as a strong
illustration of the evil to which he had referred.
Mr. B. proceeded to illustrate his objection to
the amendment proposed, by supposing that one
hundred and three members, being the whole
number, should be present, and that they should
be so equally divided that fifty-two should be in
favor of the proposition and fifty-one against it.
If one of the fifty-two should change his opinion
and desire a reconsideration, there would be but
fifty-two desiring the reconsideration; and in-
quired whether it was just and proper that the
majority should not have the right, in that con-
tingency, to reconsider.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, said, that as that was
a possible, though not a very probable case, he
would modify his proposition so as to allow an
equal number of votes to reconsider.
Mr. BRENT proceeded to show that with a less
number, the same thing might happen. There
being sixty-one members present, for example,
if to-day thirty-one were in favor of a proposi-
tion and thirty against it; and if to-morrow one
of them should change there would still be but
thirty-one in favor of a reconsideration. He
was in favor of the rule recommended by all
parliamentary experience, and had no doubt that
the amendment was carried inconsiderately.
Mr. McLANE, of Cecil, wished to place him-
self right; not feeling that justice had been done
to his argument by the gentleman from Kent.
When he had risen this morning to interrupt the
harmony of the majority, by whom the gentle-
man from Kent seemed to suppose that he was
supported, he had not the least conception wheth-
er there was a majority for or against the propo-
sition. It was not his custom to reflect whether
in any proposition he thought it to be his duty
to make, he should be sustained by the majority,
or should be foudn in the minority. He arose
for the purpose of expressing his views upon the
question before the House; and, having done
that he was content to leave the question with
the Convention. The gentleman from Kent had
greatly the advantage of him, if he deemed it an
advantage, in starting much earlier in the career
of Jeffersonian republican. They had started
very wide apart, and if he were to judge from
what he had seen, they were likely to end just
as far apart as when they started. Either one
or the other had totally mistaken the Jeffersoni-
an policy; and they must remain the antipodes
of each other in respect to that policy. They
seemed to be upon different radii of a circle, and
65 |
their distance seemed to be widening as they go.
When they come to leap off from that circle to
the great ocean beyond, whatever their lot might
be, he suspected that neither would be much in-
clined to dispute about Jeffersonian politics.
They would have other cares to engross their at-
tention.
Teh gentleman had misconceived his argu-
ment, and had not done justice to the authori-
ties he (Mr. McL.) had cited. He had not spo-
ken of the rule as it now stood. He had conce-
ded that the rule was an improper one. He
thought it prudent and wise to go back to the
original rule-the universal rule of every parli-
amentary body-and to require the motion to re-
consider to be made by a member who voted in
the majority. His objection was to the mode
of correcting the evil. He would now proceed
to call the attention of the Convention to the
rule proposed in Massachusetts.
The rule reported by the committee, in the
Massachusetts Convention, was as follows:
"No motion for the reconsideration of any
vote shall be sustained, unless made on the day
on which such vote passes, and a return of the
Convention be then made and entered on the
journal, when the question was not taken by
yeas and nays; every such motion shall lie on
the table one day before it shall be taken up for
consideration, and shall not be taken up, unless
as many members are present in Convention, as
were present when such vote passed, and not
more than one motion for the reconsideration of
any one question shall be sustained.
The record shows that Mr. Danna moved to
strike out a clause requiring the same number
of members to be present when the motion for
reconsideration was sustained, as were present
on passing the original vote. He considered the
rule too strict, and referred to the Convention
which framed the Constitution of the United
States, in which the right of reconsideration was
exercised with the greatest freedom. Mr. Sibley
thought it would be impossible ever to re-
consider a motion, if this rule prevailed. It
would be in the power of persons opposed to re-
consideration. to keep out of the house, and in
that way to gain their object. After a long dis-
cussion, the restriction was voted down; and
then Mr. Morton made the motion to amend
"by striking out the whole rule and inserting
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
majority of the members voting on the question
of reconsideration—notice to be given, and one
reconsideration of the same question only to, be
allowed."
The proposition, as originally introduced, has
been more stringent than Mr. Morion's amend-
ment, since it had required a majority. It was
now, however, placed upon the same principle
with that amendment, requiring only an equality
of votes upon the reconsideration, with the num-
ber originally in favor of the measure.
Mr. CHAMBERS suggested that there was still
this difference, that his own amendment allowed |
