Mr. SMITH. I am sorry to differ with the
gentleman from Allegany, (Mr. WEBER) in a
matter of this kind. There has been a wide lat-
itude of debate. Much poison has been sent out,
and I propose that the antidote should go with
it. I, therefore, move that the resolution be laid
upon the table.
Mr. STEPHENSON asked the yeas and nays.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline. I desire to say one
word.
The PRESIDENT. The motion to lay on the ta-
ble is not debateable.
Mr. SMITH. I withdraw the motion, to enable
the gentleman from Caroline/Mr. STEWART,) to
make his remarks.
Mr. STEWART. I call the attention of gentle-
men to the rules by which we are supposed to
be governed. It is known, I believe, to the Con-
vention, that I have been as much in favor of
expediting its business as any gentleman here,
and that I have occupied the attention of the
Committee and of the Convention as little as any
gentleman. I desire now to read the 20th, 23rd,
and 27th rules. (Mr. S. read them.) Now, it
seems to me that the adoption of this resolution
will have the effect of changing or rescinding
one of these rules, and if that be so, then one
day's notice will be required.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. How change
a rule?
Mr. STEWART. Because it stops debate.
Mr. BROWN. Suspends debate.
Mr. STEWART. Well, suspends debate.
Mr. BRENT suggested that the difficulty to
which the gentlemen referred could only arise in
case of collision between two gentlemen as to
the right to the floor.
Mr. STEWART, in illustration of his position,
contended that the adoption of this rule would
preclude him from expressing his views. We
propose (he said) to adopt a rule to govern men
of intelligence and wisdom, which would be ap-
plicable enough to a set of school boys. Let
members judge for themselves how often they
shall speak. I look about me, and I see men of
experience and ability, (for example, the chair-
man of the committee of the whole,) who have
not had an opportunity to express their senti-
ments. I should like to speak mine. But this
resolution precludes me, and will preclude others.
I believe, in point of fact, that not more
than a dozen members have been heard on this
subject of the elective franchise. Yet, forsooth,
the balance of the Convention must be stopped
and not permitted to say a. word. The importance
of the objects for which we are here, can-
not be over estimated. If the report of the com-
mitted on the elective franchise is adopted, the
effect will be that we shall have judges of elections
sitting as judges upon the intellects of men—we
shall have them deciding whether a man is men-
tally capable of voting or not. Such a provision
it to be incorporated into the organic law, and
that, too, without debate.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. The committee nev-
er dreamed of any thing of the kind. It was in-
tended expressly to provide that the votes of no
8 |
persons should be excluded, whether non compos
mentis or lunatic, unless under guardianship.
The President (interposing.) The merits of
the bill are not under consideration. The gentleman
must confine his remarks to the resolu-
tion before the Convention.
Mr. STEWART. I beg to differ with the honor-
able gentleman from Kent (Mr. CHAMBERS.)
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not mean to say that
that is the grammatical meaning. That is anoth-
er affair. But I say that the committee never
designed any such thing as the gentleman indi-
cates.
Mr. STEWART. If the report of the Commit-
tee is not put in grammatical language,
and is to be altered, I think it should be open to
discussion. To sustain my view, I will read the
section. (Mr. S. read the third section of the
report.) I say that, as the section now reads, it
would leave it to the judges of election, to say
whether a man is non compos mentis, or not.
If this resolution is to beadopted, I hope it will
be made applicable to the first section of the
report only. I renew the motion to lay the re-
solution on the table.
And the question having been taken, the
resolution was laid upon the table. ..
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
Mr. RANDALL. According to the twenty-
seventh rule, it will be seen that no vote of this
body can be rescinded or changed, without one
day's notice previously given. I rise to give no-
tice, that I shall propose a change of the seven-
teenth rule, which declares that the previous
question shall be always in order, if seconded
by amajority, &c., &c., and that the main ques-
tion shall be on the adoption of the proposition
under consideration, and that, in cases where
there shall be pending amendments, the ques-
tion shall be first taken on such amendments,
in their order and without further debate or
amendment.
Now, I understand by the construction given
to this rule, and under the Parliamentary law,
that the effect of the previous question, if sus-
tained, is not only to cut off all debate and
amendments on the question then before the
Convention, but to cut off all debate and amend-
ments on the whole subject matter. (Mr. A.
gave a case in illustration.) That is to say, we
have to vote upon the whole bill and amendments,
at one time. I suggest to the considera-
tion of gentlemen, that every desirable object
will be effected, by confining the operation of
previous questions to the actual question under
consideration; and to nothing else. Many
friends more experienced than myself in such
matters, have intimated their opinion, that such
a change would have a happy effect; and I pro-
pose so to amend the motion as to give it that ope-
ration.
The notice was entered on the Journal.
Mr. SOLLERS gave notice that be would to-
morrow, move to amend the twenty-third rule,
by striking out these words, "except that pert
of the twentieth rule which restricts members
from speaking more than twice Upon the same |
