Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, inquired whether
this would preclude all further amendments.
The PRESIDENT replied in the affirmative.
On motion of Mr, BLAKISTONE, the Convention
was called, and the door-keeper sent for the ab-
sent members.
On motion of Mr. PRESSTMAN, further proceed-
ings under the call were dispensed with.
Mr. JENIFER stated that the proposition now
under consideration had give a majority to the
anti-slaveholding counties.
Mr, WELLS demanded the yeas and nays on
the call for the previous question, which were
ordered and being taken, resulted—yeas 42; nays
38—as follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Lloyd, Colston, Constable,
Chambers, of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, McLane,
Spencer, Grason, George, Wright, Thomas,
Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of
Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city,
Brent, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, Presstman, Ware, Fiery, Michael Newcomer,
Brewer, Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Parke, Shower and Blown—42.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Dalrymple, Bond, Sollers, Jeni-
fer, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield,
Williams, Hodson, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Flicks, Jacobs, Sappington, Stephenson, Kilgour,
Waters and Smith—38.
So the previous question was sustained.
The question was then stated upon the substi-
tute offered by Mr. GRASON for the amendment
as offered by Mr. JOHNSON.
Mr. PHELPS demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted—
yeas 43; nays 40—as follows:
Affirmative. — Messrs. Donaldson, Sellman,
Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler,
Lloyd, Colston, Constable, Chambers, of Cecil,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson,
Gaither, Biser, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Car-
ter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware) Michael New-
comer, Brewer, Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer)
Smith, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower and Brown—
43.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of
Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Weems,
Dalrymple, Bond, Sollers, Jenifer, John Dennis
James U. Dennis, Crisfield) Hodson, Phelps,
Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Dir-
ickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, Gwinn, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city. Fiery, Kilgour
and Waters—40.
So the Convention accepted said substitute.
Mr, CHAMBERS, of Kent, gave notice that lie |
should move to reconsider the vote of the Convention
just taken on said substitute.
The question then was stated on the adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. DIRICKSON demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted—
yeas 43; nays 40—as follows:
Affirmative. — Messrs. Donaldson, Sellman,
Howard, Buchanan, Bell. Welch, Chandler,
Lloyd, Colston, Constable. Chambers, of Cecil,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson,
Gaither, Biser, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson Car-
ter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Stewart, of
Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Fiery, Michael
Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower and Brown
—43.
Negative —Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of
Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent,
Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Sollers, Jenifer, John
Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Williams
Hodson, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Spring, McCub-
bin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Sappington, Stephenson, Gwinn,
Brent, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, Kilgour and Waters—40.
So the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the proviso, as offered by Mr. JOHNSON, to the
amendment offered by him.
Mr. JOHNSON withdrew his proposition in
order to give time to consider it, believing that
it would gain strength by consideration.
Mr. CHAMBERS moved a proposition submitted
by Mr. Randall, for districting the city of Baltimore
but after some conversation, withdrew It.
Mr. PHELPS gave notice that on to-morrow
he would move to reconsider the order limiting
the debate on the representative question to 5
minutes. A new feature of the question had
come up which had never been discussed.
Mr. BLAKISTONE moved to take up the report
of the committee on the judiciary department.
Mr. CRISFIELD stated that he would be obliged
to leave to-morrow, and he would prefer that it
should be postponed to Monday week, if taken
up. There were other subjects sufficient to
occupy the attention of the Convention in the
interim.
Mr. SPENCER was in favor of the postpone-
ment. Three distinct bills had already been
acted upon, and were incomplete, it would be
proper to complete those bills before taking up
the Judiciary question, to prevent every thing
from being crowded into the last moments of
the Session. He desired therefore that the Con-
vention should proceed to the consideration of
the Executive bill, in order to complete that
portion of it which had been passed over inform-
ally. He believed the Convention to be nearly
as full as it would be for the remainder of the
session; and that there was not a member absent
who had not paired off. He would favor the
postponement until Monday week; and would
then move to take up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Executive. |
