have some relaxation, at least, from the great
physical and mental labor which were inseparable
from the task. He hoped the motion would
be agreed to.
Mr. HARBINE said that the gentleman from
Baltimore county (Mr. RIDGELY) had made a
motion which met with his (Mr. H's.) decided
disapprobation. He accorded to that gentle-
man, however, credit for the best motives. He
believed that that gentleman felt, as he (Mr. H.)
felt, the stern necessity of proceeding, without
further delay, to the transaction of the public
business. But he submilted, in all candor and
sincerity, that the motion to change the hour of
meeting to 11 o'clock, was calculated not to pro-
mote the common object they had in view, but
to defeat it. He declared, as he had declared a
few days ago, that the motion was one calculated
to frustrate the ends for which this Convention
had assembled. He could not agree with the
gentleman, that the change would have the ef-
fect of causing the Convention to get to its sub-
stantial work sooner and more earnestly. Why
should it do so? Had the gentleman offered any
resolution which would so direct the action of
this body, as to have that effect ? None. What
were the facts ? Between the hours of ten and
eleven, the Convention was engaged in the dis-
cussion of motions, which were supposed to have
a considerable bearing on its labors. Would not
the same propositions be discussed if the Conven-
tion met at eleven? What then was gained?
The change, if it had any effect, would rather
tend to protract these discussions and to multi-
ply the number of motions. Away, then, with
all such arguments.
But what were the precedents ? He took it
for granted that if it worked well, as to other
Conventions, to meet at an early hour, it would
operate equally well here. If it were good policy
in the Convention of the State of Ohio, to meet at
ten and at nine; if it was good policy in the Con-
vention of the State of New York, to meet at
ten in the beginning of its sessions, and subse-
quently at nine—it was equally good policy here.
After the discussion which had taken place on a
former day, he had been at some trouble to see
what other Conventions had done. They met at
an earlier hour than this body met. How was it
with the Convention which framed the old Con-
stitution ? They not only met at nine, (shortly
after the commencement of the session,) and
continued to do so, but they held afternoon sessions.
Mr. RIDGELY. Will the gentleman be so
good as to state at what season of the year the
Convention of the State of New York was in
session ?
Mr. HARBINE. I knew that it was at a dif-
ferent season of the year—the month of June or
July. But at what season did the Convention
that framed the old Constitution meet? How
was it with the Convention of the State of Ohio
now in session? It met at nine, and had afternoon
sessions also. He earnestly begged Of the Con-
vention, if they valued the objects for which
they had assembled to vote down this proposi-
tion. |
Mr. BUCHANAN said, that as regarded Ale-
modern precedents which his friend (Mr. HARBINE)
had referred, it seemed to him (Mr. B.)
that they had not as yet exactly had a fair trial.
As to the real and substantial precedents, they
were all the other way. He would tike to know
from that gentleman, whether any Convention
had ever assembled within the limits of the
United States, composing more capable business
men—men of higher intellectual endowments in
every respect, than those who framed the ordi-
nal Constitution of the State of Virginia? Yet
that body never met earlier than twelve o'clock,
and yet a more perfect or stupendous work never
emanated from the brains Of the hearts of men.
There was another precedent almost equal to
that of the State of Virginia. He referred to
the Constitution of the State of New York,
formed in 1831. The Convention of that day,
composed of men quite as industrious and
quite as zealous in the cause of their constituents
as this body could be, met at eleven and twelve
o'clock. They made aperfect work, so much so
that the members of this Convention, in the course
of its discussions, had been constantly referring
to the Debates in that body as guides for their
own.
He did not know to what Committee the gentleman
(Mr. HARBINE) belonged. But he (Mr.
B.) was amember of a Committee (the judici-
ary) which would be constantly engaged in the
business before it, not only after the adjournment,
and in the evenings, but in the mornings. It could
not dispose of the business before it, unless time
was given. So be might say of other committees.
It was idle to talk of doing business
here, between the hours of ten and eleven.
Every gentleman who had been present between
those two hours, knew that nothing had been
done. They met, and talked— talked— talked ;
but God knew there was time enough for talk in
the other hours, during which the Convention remained
in session. Deducting the one hour,
they still talked from eleven to three or half
past three. The Committee then rose and re-
ported that they bad made progress, but ''had
come to no conclusion," and they would own; to
none in this way. There were times when work
was to be done; there were times when talking
was to be done. The talking was to be done
after they met here; the work was to be done
after night and in the morning when the Committees
met. Hence, be would cordially sustain
the motion of the gentleman from Baltimore
county, (Mr. RIDGELY.)
Mr. BROWN moved that the resolution he laid
upon the table.
Messrs. RIDGELY, BUCHANAN and HARBINE
asked the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
And the question having been taken, the vote
resulted as follows:
Affirmative.— Messrs. Dent, Lloyd, Sherwood,
of Talbot, James U. Dennis, Eccleston, Grason,
George, Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Shriver, Sappington,
Stephenson, Magraw, Nelson, Carter,
Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Schley, Fiery,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Smith, Parke, Cockey and Brown.—29. |
