Mr. RICAUD demanded the yeas and nays, which
were ordered and taken, and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Ric-
aud, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Wells, Randall, Sollers, Welch, Dickinson, Sher-
wood, of Talbot, Colston, James U. Dennis, Wil-
liams, Hodson, Miller, Sprigg, George, Carter,
Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Gwinn, Brent, of
Baltimore city, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Da-
vis, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Shower
and Cockey—33.
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Hope-
well, Howard, Dashiell, Hicks Phelps, Bowie,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Thomas, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Schley,
Michael Newcomer, Kilgour, Anderson and
Brown—26.
So the Convention determined to strike out,
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment as offered by Mr. Stewart, of Car-
oline.
Mr. HOWARD begged to say a word, by way
of explanation. He intended to vote against the
amendment, and only upon this ground: that he
had no idea of recommending any thing to the
Legislature. What this Convention had said
was an order for them to do what we thought
right. And another reason was, because they
had a law of forty years' standing upon the sta-
tute book. He had no idea of interfering with
the rights of the people of the Eastern Shore,
Ever since 1810, they had had one Senator, and
this Convention recommended to the Legisla-
ture that the law should stand. Now he had no
idea of recommending such a useless thing as to
repeal a law which had been on the statute
book for upwards of forty years.
Mr. BOWIE believed the act of the Legislature
of 1809, as it stood now, was a constitutional
exercise of power, and obligatory upon the
State; and unless it was repealed, was in force.
He believed that the recommendation was, per
se, to repeal it; and therefore, if he was an
Eastern Shore man, he would not be for touch-
ing the act of Assembly. He would rather
stand upon the efficacy of the law.
The yeas and nays being ordered and taken,
on the amendment of Mr. Stewart, of Caroline,
resulted:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Wells, Sollers, Dickinson, Sherwood,
of Talbot, Colston, Dashiell. Hicks, Hodson,
Phelps, Miller, Dirickson, Carter, Thawley,
Stewart, of Caroline. Davis and Kilgour—22.
Negative—Messrs. Blakiston, Donaldson, Ran-
dall, Howard, Welch, James U. Dennis, Wil-
liams, Bowie, Sprigg, McMaster, Hearn, Thom-
as, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Stephenson, Mc-
Henry, Magraw, Nelson, Gwinn, Brent, of Balt.
city, Sherwood, of Balt. city, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, John Newcomer, Michael Newcomer,
Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Shower, Cockey and Brown—35.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the amendment as offered by Mr. Brent, of
Balt, city, as an additional section to the report. |
Mr. BRENT, of Balt, city, (with the consent of
the Convention,) amended the amendment by
inserting after the words "senatorial term,"
the words "or the session succeeding the oc-
currence of the vacancy,"
The question again recurred upon the adop-
tion of the amendment as amended.
Mr. HOWARD would like to know whether any
case ever happened that this was intended to
prevent. He did not remember any such case.
Mr. BRENT, of Balt, city, said he would an-
swer the question. There was nothing to pre-
vent it happening as the Constitution now stood.
Mr. THOMAS remarked, it occurred to him as
it did to the gentleman from Baltimore city,
(Mr. Brent,) that the proposition did not seem
to have had in view the occurrence of a vacan-
cy in the Senate of the United States.
Mr. THOMAS observed, that the term of the
United States Senator commenced, for instance,
on the 4th of last March. Now, if a vacancy
should occur thereafter, the Legislature could
not fill it, because the session of the Legislature
would occur after the term had commenced.
Mr, BRENT, of Bait. city, demanded the yeas
and nays on the amendment, which were ordered,
taken, and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Blakis-
tone, Dickinson, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston,
Miller, Bowie, Sprigg, Stephenson, Nelson,
Gwinn, Brent, of Balt. city, Sherwood, of Balt.
city, Ware, Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer, Show-
er and Brown—19.
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Ri-
caud. Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Wells, Randall, Sollers, Howard, Welch, Jas.
U, Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Phelps, George, Dirickson, McMaster, Thomas,
Gaither, Biser, Annan, McHenry, Magraw,
Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Schley,
Fiery, John Newcomer, Michael Newcomer,
Davis, Kilgour, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Cockey—38.
So the amendment was rejected.
On motion the Convention then adjourned un-
til to-morrow morning 10 o'clock.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
GUBERNATORIAL TERM.
Remarks of Mr. Spencer, March 20, 1851.
Mr. SHRIVER moved for a division of the ques-
tion, which was upon striking out.
Mr. SPENCER said that he was compelled to
oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Baltimore county. It was yet an open
question, whether the Governor should be elect-
ed for two or four years. The question had
been passed over informally, on the motion of
the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr. Gra-
son.) His (Mr. S's) opinion was, as far as his
observation extended, that the people of Mary-
land, generally, were decidedly in favor of two
years, and he entertained no doubt that such
would be the voice of this Convention. Now,
if the gentleman's amendment should be adopt-
ed, then the State's Attorneys would only hold
office for two years. Gentlemen would be
found, willing to accept the office of prosecuting
attorney, by appointment, who would be unwil- |
