meet cases which frequently occurred here. Had
he proposed to take away the right to apply the
previous question? Certainly not. He only propo-
sed to take it away from any member who might
be disposed to use it for unfair and improper pur-
poses. As respected every other member, the
power to use the previous question was left as
before. He explained the effect which his amend-
ment was designed to have, and corrected the
construction which had been put upon it by the
gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Bowie.)
He, (Mr. D.,) thought that every gentleman who
desired to arrive at correct conclusions should be
willing that an opportunity should be given to
those who might dissent from opinions which had
been expressed, to show the error of these opin-
ions, the absence of foundation for the facts which
might have been stated, or the fallacy of the ar-
guments which had been urged.
MR. HOWARD. I move that the amendment be
laid upon the table.
MR. BOWIE. That motion will not dispose of it.
It may be taken up again. Let us have the di-
rect question.
MR. HOWARD. It can then come up again.
MR. BOWIE. Oh! no.
MR. HOWARD withdrew his motion to lay the
proposition on the table.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment of MR. DORSEY.
MR. JENIFER thought the necessity for the
adoption of a such a proposition had been entire-
ly superseded by the debate which had taken
place upon it. The object of the gentleman from
Anne Arundel, [MR. DORSEY,] seemed to have
been misunderstood. His object was to prevent
any member from making a speech and then
cutting off all reply to it by demanding the pre-
vious question. He, [MR. J.,] thought that al-
though there might hitherto have been accidental
cases in which such as course had been pursued
the delicacy of every member would hereafter
forbid him making a speech and then calling the
previous question upon the proposition.
The question was then taken, and the amend-
ment of MR. DORSEY was rejected.
MR. BOWIE gave notice that on to-morrow, he
should move the following as an additional rule:
"No member shall speak more than a half
hour on any subject under debate."
CLOSE OF THE PENDING DEBATE.
Mr. MCHENRY offered the following order :
Ordered, That the debate on the article of the
Constitution reported by the committee on the
Attorney General and his deputies shall termi-
nate this day at two o'clock, P. M., when each
amendment pending, or which may be offered,
shall be passed upon without any further discus-
sion than explanatory remarks, not extending be-
yond five minutes by the several proposers of
such amendment.
The order having been read,
Mr. MORGAN moved that it be laid upon the
table.
Mr. MCHENRY claimed the door.
The PRESIDENT, pro tem., awarded it to him,
Mr, MCHENRY said that his object in offering |
this order, must be apparent to the Convention.
The only part of importance in the report under
consideration, had already been determined. The
time which, by universal consent, seemed to
have been assigned for the termination of the
session of this body, had nearly arrived. It was
conceded on all hands, that unless the Convention
should adjourn by the first of May, the public
expectation would be disappointed, and the
Constitution, however meritorious in its provis-
ions, seriously endangered, it seemed to him,
therefore, to be the imperative duty of the Con-
vention to avoid all useless discussion upon ques-
tions in which neither the public nor the members
of the Convention could take much interest.
If gentlemen were possessed of that spirit of talk
which could brook no restraint, let them talk
upon subjects of interest to the Convention and
to the public, and not waste time and breath
upon matters of no especial importance.
He would have preferred that the order should
have come from some other source—but he
hoped that the Convention would give to it the
consideration to which they might think it en-
titled.
Mr. MORGAN said:
He should not now make the motion to lay the
order on the table. He had risen in the first in-
stance to make a motion of that character, bo-
cause he thought that very little time had been
consumed in the discussion of this particular
bill. If, as little time had been consumed in the
discussion of questions of far less importance, the
business of the Convention would have proceed-
ed much more rapidly than it had.
He thought that the gentleman from Harford,
(Mr. McHenry,) was mistaken in saying, that,
there was nothing of importance left to he dispos-
ed of in this bill. If the office of Attorney Gen-
eral was to be abolished, the Convention bad to
provide for the appointment of some twenty
States' Attorneys—and their duties were to be de-
fined. These matters were necessary subjects
of consideration. If the gentleman from Har-
ford had all the light upon them which was re-
quisite to enable him to act, he, [Mr. M.,] had
not.
He wanted to hear something more upon the
bill, before he voted upon it. He thought that it
was hurrying matters rather too much, to close
the debate at two o'clock. He had seen no dis-
position to discuss the bill unreasonably. He
thought it probable that, without such a resolu-
tion the debate might terminate before the time
designated in the order.
Mr. SMITH rose to give notice that hereafter he
would, on all occasions, call for the enforcement
of the rule, which prohibited a member from
speaking more than once on any question, until
every other member desiring to address the Con-
vention, should have spoken. And he moved that
the older be laid upon the table.
The question was taken and the Convention
decided that the order should not be laid upon the
table.
The question then recurred on the adoption |
