SATURDAY, Jan. 18th, 1851.
The Convention, in pursuance of its order, met
thin day at eleven o'clock.
Prayer by the Rev. Mr. GRAUFF.
The roll of the members was called. A quo-
rum being present, the journal of yesterday was
read, and a typographical error having, on motion
of Mr. WEBER been ordered to be corrected, was
approved.
The PRESIDENT said that the regular order of
business would be reports of Committees.
There being no reports—
The PRESIDENT announced the unfinished busi-
ness of the morning hour, to be the amendment
to the resolutions of which Mr. RANDALL had
heretofore given notice.
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
The Convention resumed the consideration of
the amendment heretofore offered by Mr. RAN-
DALL, to amend the 17th rule, which is in the
following words:
"The previous question shall be always in
order in Convention, if seconded by a majori-
ty; and, until decided, shall preclude all further
amendment and debate, and shall be in this form:
'Shall the main question be now put?' When,
on taking the previous question, the Convention
shall decide that the same shall not now be put,
the main question shall be still under considera-
tion, and if the previous question is sustained, the
main question shall be on the adoption of the
proposition under consideration. And in cases
where there shall be no pending amendments,
the question shall be first taken on such amend-
ments in their order, and without further debate
or amendment."
Mr. RANDALL had moved to amend this rule as
follows:
1. After the word "Convention" in the 1st
line, insert the words "the mover designating
whether the whole or a part and what part of
the matter depending is comprehended in his
motion."
2. Strike out all after the word " adoption ' in
the 8th line, and insert in lieu thereof the follow-
ing words, " of the special matter under consid-
eration, and the question shall be taken thereon
alone without further debate or amendment
thereof, and the previous question shall be then
exhausted."
Mr. RANDALL remarked, that as some mem-
bers of the Convention were not probably in their
seats when he made an explanation of the opera-
tion of this amendment, he would repeat that ex-
planation, so that gentleman might understand
the object which be had in view.
Mr. R. explained accordingly.
Some conversation followed between Mr. BI-
SER. and Mr. RANDALL, as to the effect of the
amendment.
The question was then taken, and the first and
second branches of the amendment were sever-
ally adopted.
BUSINESS OF THE CONVENTION.
The Convention proceeded to the considera- |
tion of the motion of Mr. SOLLERS, to amend the
twenty-third rule which is as follows:
"The preceding rules shall be observed in a
Committee of the Whole, so far as they are applicable,
except that part of the twentieth rule,
which restricts members from speaking more
than twice upon the same question. The ayes
and noes shall be taken in Committee of the
Whole, in the same manner as they are taken in
Convention, and ajournal of the proceedings in
a Committee of the Whole shall be kept. The
motion to adjourn and the previous question
not be in order in the Committee of the Whole."
Mr. SOLLERS moved to amend the rule, by
striking out these words, "except that part of
the 20th rule which restricts members from speak-
ing more than twice upon the same question.
The ayes and noes shall be taken in Committee
of the Whole, in the same manner as they are ta-
ken in Convention."
Mr. SOLLERS said that his only motive in pro-
posing the amendment, was to facilitate the bu-
siness of the Convention. It was well known
that there bad been occasions in committee of
the whole, where gentlemen had spoken four or
five times. If this state of things was to continue,
the session of the Convention would be protrac-
ted a long time. The same motive—to save the
consumption of time—had induced him also to
offer the other part of the amendment, which
proposed to prohibit the taking of the yeas and
nays in committee of the whole.
Mr. HARBINE said that he was in favor of the
first branch of the amendment, but was opposed
to the adoption of the second. He believed that
restriction upon debate would to some extent be
necessary to prevent the discursive, wild and
desultory discussions which took place in committees.
As to the latter part of the amendment,
he was opposed to its adoption, as be
thought it important that the privilege of taking
the yeas and nays in Committee, should be allow-
ed. He could see no sufficient reason why they
should not be taken in the Committee, as well as
in the Convention. The only objection that
could be urged was that the yeas and nays might
be taken twice on the same proposition; but he
submitted whether there were not some propositions
voted upon in Committee, which never
might be voted upon in the House at. all.
Mr. PHELPS was in favor, he said, of the adop-
tion of both the amendments of the gentleman from
Calvert, (Mr. SOLLERS.) As Chairman of the
Committee on the Rules, he had dissented from
the proposition to take the yeas and nays in Committee.
He regarded the taking of the yeas and
nays there, as a work of supererogation, because
they could as well be taken in Convention.
Mr. SPENCER asked for information. He did
not understand that every measure offend in committee
of the whole would come up again in
Convention.
Mr. PHELPS. I mean to say, that it is compe-
tent for a gentleman to offer the same proposition
in Convention, which may have been voted down
in Committee.
Mr. SPENCER. But a great deal of time will
be unnecessarily consumed in that way. I hear, |
