Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Grason, Wright, Dir-
ickson, McMaster, Jacobs, McHenry, Carter,
Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Gwinn, Stew-
art, of Balt. city, Sherwood, of Balt. city, Ware,
fiery, Davis, Kilgour, Waters, Anderson, Holly-
day, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke and Shower—46.
So the Convention refused to accept the sub-
stitute.
The question then recurred on the adoption
of the substitute as offered by Mr, Dorsey in
place of the 5th section of said report,
On motion of Mr, Dorsey, the yeas and nays
were ordered and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chambers, of Kent, Don-
aldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Davis and
Waters--7.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell, Dickinson, Ricaud, Bond,
Jenifer, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Chandler, Lloyd, John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams,
McCullough, Miller, Bowie, Tuck,
Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Grason, Wright,
Dirickson, McMaster, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver,
Gaither, Riser, Sappington, Stephenson McHenry,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of
Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart, of Balt. city, Brent,
of Balt. city, Sherwood, of Balt city, Ware,
Fiery, Michael Newcomer, Kilgour, Brewer,
Anderson) Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke. Shower and Brown—57.
So the Convention refused to accept the sub-
stitute.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the 5th section as reported by the committee.
On motion of Mr. McHenry, the yeas and
nays were ordered and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers,
of Kent, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sellman,
Bond, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Chandler,
Lloyd, Dickinson, John Dennis. Dashiell, Wil-
liams, Hodson, McCullough, Miller, Bowie,
Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Grason,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Jacobs, Thomas,
Shriver, Biser, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter,
Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Stewart, of
Balt. city. Ware, Fiery, Davis, Kilgour, Brew-
er, Waters, Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitz-
patrick, Smith, Shower and Brown—55.
Negative—Messrs. Donaldson, Jenifer, Welch,
Gaither, Sappington, McHenry, Gwinn, Brent,
of Balt, city, Sherwood, of Balt. city, Michael
Newcomer and Parke.—11.
So the 5th section was adopted.
The President laid before the Convention the
following communication from His Excellency
Governor Low:
STATE DEPARTMENT,
Annapolis, April 3d, 1851.
To the President of the Convention:
SIR: in compliance with the resolution of the
Convention, I herewith transmit copies of the
papers and documents, on file in this Depart-
ment, relating to the case of the requisition of
the Governor of Pennsylvania, for the delivery
of J. S. Mitchell.
I have the honor to be, respectfully, &c.
E. LOUIS LOWE.
Which was read. |
Mr. BLAKISTONE moved that the communica-
tion and accompanying papers be referred to a
select committee of seven, to be appointed by
the Chair.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BLAKISTON requested the Chair, that he
should not be appointed a member of the com-
mittee.
Mr. BOWIE moved to reconsider the motion to
refer. He could see no reason whatever for refer-
ring a communication of this sort to a committee
where it would sleep and never be heard of again.
He took it for granted that the communication
was intended to convey information to the people
of the State in reference to a very important and
delicate question—the case of a citizen of Mary-
land going into Pennsylvania to recapture a fugi-
tive slave. The most proper course for the Con-
vention to pursue would be, in his opinion, to
order the publication of the message, whatever it
might contain. If there was any question upon
the contents of the message, members should call
for the reading of the papers. The presumption
was, that, the action of the Governor of Maryland
had been conformable to the general sentiments
of the people; and he was willing, in advance, to
lay it before the people. He was unwilling to
place the communication in the hands of a Com-
mittee, which might never report,
Mr. JENIFER suggested that the gentleman who
had introduced the resolution of inquiry, to which
this was a reply, was not present, and perhaps it
would be better to allow the whole subject to lie
over until to-morrow morning.
Mr. BOWIE remarked that it might never come
up again, if passed over now.
Mr. THOMAS suggested that the committee
would probably report in the morning; and there
might be portions of the document which need
not be printed. He understood that there was
an elaborate and voluminous indictment, which it
would perhaps be unnecessary to print.
Mr. BOWIE remarked that he was anxious to
see that very indictment, and to have the people
see it, and know what the action of Pennsylvania
has been.
Mr. THOMAS said that he did not know what
the document contained. He had at first desired
that it should be read, but finding that it was vol-
uminous, he had withdrawn that request. It
would be advisable that a committee should ex-
amine it this evening, as there might be other pa-
pers, even if the indictment should be published,
which might advantageously be omitted.
Mr. BOWIE said that his only objection was,
that by possibility, and ho feared by probability,
the committee would not report.
Mr. BLAKISTONE wished it to be understood
that in moving its reference to a committee, he
had no intention to conceal from the public
the communication just received from the Execu-
tive. The papers were voluminous, and he thought
it the best way to refer them to a committee,
which would report to the Convention what ac-
tion it was proper to take upon them, as well as
what portion of them—if only a portion—should |
