very clearly pointed out that the rule would al-
low a small proportion of the Convention when
it happened to be thin, to reverse the action of a
very large and overwhelming majority, and thus,
that majority might be taken by surprise.
The gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr.
Brent,) acknowledged that he had misunderstood
the rule, and was corrected. He misunderstood
it again, and was again corrected. He had been
reminded of the familiar saying—
" A man convinced against his will,
Is of the same opinion still."
The gentleman from Baltimore city had said,
that there were no precedents for this. There
was the best of all precedents, in the very act
about to be adopted in the Constitution, that it
should require a majority of all the members
elected to each branch of the legislature, to pass
any law which with a viva voce vote on all ques-
tions of importance would greatly restrain the
loose and neglected manner in which many Jaws
had heretofore been passed.
He hoped no article of the new Constitution
would be adopted, unless it had a majority of the
whole number of the members of the Conven-
tion.
The object of that rule was to prevent a mi-
nority from adopting a bill and passing it. That
was not the case with the Convention. Aques-
tion might be considered and fully discussed, and
might he dicided upon in the morning, and later
in the day, when but fifty-two were present, the
same measures might be over-ruled. He would
not pretend to say, or to intimate, that there was a
single member of the Convention who would intentionally
take advantage of such circumstances;
hut the Convention should place ilself in a posi-
tion so as not to be subject to this continual vacillation.
In regard to the idea that the Conven-
tion would be tying up their hands, and have no
opportunity to discuss the measures, the simple
motion to reconsider would open the whole ques-
tion to debate, if the motion to reconsider should
be grounded upon considerations which ought to
have weight, it would always be in the power of
members, to bring those arguments before the
Convention.
Mr, BOWIE would very cheerfully go for the
rule proposed by the gentleman from Kent, (Mr
Chambers ) but that it violates a fundamental
principle which he could not disregard. He held
that a quorum, being a majority of the body, had
a right to pass any law they pleased. A majo-
rity in any legislative body, ought always to pre-
vail. But the rule of the gentleman from Kent,
required something besides a majority. Although
there might be a decided majority in favor of
reconsideration, yet if that majority was not
equal to and did not exceed that which passed
the measure, the motion to reconsider would be
lost. He was utterly opposed to such an innova-
tion upon the great cardinal principle, that the
majority should rule, and he believed me innovation
would be fraught with dangers and with infinite
mischief. To get rid of all this, he proposed to
go back to the original rules, so as to allow no |
one to move a reconsideration, who had not voted
in the majority. Much mischief had already
been done, by allowing the minority to overrule
what the majority had done. and this proposition
was to go back to the original question.
Mr, PHELPS raised the question of order,
whether this amendment could be introduced
without one day's notice, the amendment pro-
posing to change another rule from that under
consideration.
Mr. BOWIE remarked that the notice having
been given to the Convention, that the rules
would be considered to-day, the House had juris-
diction over the whole subject.
Mr. CHAMBERS said that to obviate the neces-
sity of discussing a question of order, he would
state that he should decline under any circum-
stances, to accept the proposition, one contin-
gency existing as at present. That portion of
the rule with which gentlemen were dissatisfied,
had been adopted at the suggestion of a distin-
guished gentleman from Frederick, not now in
his seat, (Mr. Thomas.) He should be very un-
willing to have the rule rescinded in the absence
of that gentleman. There was no such pressing
necessity as to require action upon it, in the ab-
sence of the gentleman who had suggested it.
To meet the case which had been shown to be
possible, that there would be 52 upon one side
and 51 upon the other, and but one member
should change his opinion, he had modified his
proposition so that whenever a question should
have been decided by yeas and nays, no motion
to reconsider should prevail unless there should
be cast in favor of the reconsideration, a number
of votes at least equal to the number of votes
given by the majority on Hie original question.
He would suggest the propriety of allowing
the question of a change in the rule, lie until the
arrival of the gentleman from Frederick, when
it would be taken up and acted upon.
Mr. GWINN moved the previous question.
Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the whole subject
lie upon the table for the present.
Mr. GWINN thereupon withdrew the call for
the previous question.
The question being taken upon laying upon
the table, it was agreed to—ayes 38; noes not
counted.
Mr. DORSEY rose for the purpose of giving
notice of his intention to offer an amendment to
the 17th rule—it being the rule which authorised
the call for the previous question. He said that
he had noticed much inconvenience resulting
from the manner in which the rule was made to
operate. Many members after making speeches,
were in the habit, without allowing an opportu-
nity to reply to their arguments, of moving the
previous question. His amendment, if adopted,
would prevent this.
Mr. D. read his amendment as follows:
"But no member who has discussed any sub-
ject before the Convention, shall be permitted
to move the previous question thereon, until at
least two or more members have had an oppor-
tunity of replying to the mover of the previous
question." |
