the average number of snits commenced, and the
number of trials; and with all deference to the
gentleman from Baltimore county, he could not
think the statistics would mislead us, or that more
time would be required to transact the business
than he had stated. The statistics were sent
here by sworn officers, and he, (Mr. C.) present-
ed them for what they were worth. Upon his own
mind they were conclusive.
Mr. BROWN again rose and insisted on his point
of order being decided by the Chair. It was
this:
"That no member has a right to speak unless
he submits a proposition or amendment, and then
he is limited under the order adopted on the 18th
inst., to ten minutes."
The CHAIR decided, that Mr. Spencer, having
made a motion to reconsider, it was competent for
him under the order adopted on the 18th inst., to
speak ten minutes on the proposition.
Mr, SPENCER regretted that so much time had
been consumed on a point of order. He was
about to conclude his remarks, when the gentle-
man from Baltimore county requested to be al-
lowed to make some remarks, and he announced
to the gentleman, that to give him an opportu-
nity, he would withdraw the motion.
Mr. BUCHANAN said that he would renew the
motion.
The PRESIDENT stated that the gentleman from
Baltimore county having exhausted his ten min-
utes, could not debate the motion again, unless
by unanimous consent.
Mr. BUCHANAN asked leave to proceed.
Mr. STEPHENSON objected.
The question was then stated to be on the mo-
tion to reconsider,
Mr. MCLANE. I desire to know to what ex-
tent this motion to reconsider is to go. The gen-
tleman from Baltimore county made the motion
to reconsider, as I understand it, with a view of
displacing Cecil county, as arranged in the prop-
osition of the gentleman from Somerset, and put-
ting her somewhere else. He has not assigned
her a place. His motion was to reconsider that
part of the vote taken. The gentleman from
Queen Anne's (Mr. Spencer) availed himself of
the opportunity to move a reconsideration of the
whole subject. What I wish to know is, whether
it is competent for the gentleman from Baltimore
county to move to reconsider a division of the
vote simply, in order to get at his point—or
whether it is not necessary for him to move to
reconsider the whole vote ? My purpose in ask-
ing the question is this : If there is no other ob-
ject for reconsideration than that avowed by the
gentleman from Baltimore county, I am opposed
to it, and must vote against it. The only mitiga-
tion in the proposition of the gentleman from
Somerset is, in my view, the position he has as-
signed to Cecil county. But if it be necessary,
in order to reach the subject, to move a reconsid-
eration of it, as the gentleman from Queen Anne's
has done, I have no objection to vote for the mo-
tion to reconsider, because our objects are identi-
cal.
Mr. BOWIE. If the motion to reconsider pre- |
vails, will it be in order to move any amend-
ments?
The PRESIDENT. If the motion to reconsider
prevails, the whole first branch, which has been
adopted, will be open.
The yeas and nays were then ordered on the
motion to reconsider, and being taken. Were as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, Lee, Chambers,
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Randall, Sellman,
Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler,
Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot, John Dennis,
Chambers, of Cecil, Miller, McLane, Bowie,
Spencer, Wright, Fooks, Thawley, Brent, of
Balt. city, Sherwood, of Balt. city, Ware, Brew-
er, Anderson, Weber, Holliday, Parke, Shower
and Brown—33.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Hopewell, Wells, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple,
Merrick, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hodson, Eccles-
ton, Phelps, McCullough, McCubbin, Grason,
George, Dirickson, McMaster, Jacobs, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington,
Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Gwinn,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine,
Michael Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick and Smith—41.
So the Convention refused to reconsider their
vote on said amendment.
Mr, HOWARD. Will it be in order to give a
notice that it might be entered in the journal?
The PRESIDENT. It will be in order.
Mr. HOWARD. As at present advised, I will,
to-morrow morning, move to change the rule
allowing every gentleman who moves an amend-
ment ten minutes to debate it, so as to allow
every member of this Convention to speak five
minutes upon all motions which are debatable
under the former rules.
Mr. BUCHANAN demanded the yeas and nays
on the adoption of the amendment, which were
ordered, and being taken, were as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Wells,
Sellman, Merrick, Howard, Bell, Welch, Chan-
dler, Chambers, of Cecil, McCullough, Miller,
McLane, Grason, George, Dirickson, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington,
Stephenson, Nelson, Gwinn, Brent, of Balti-
more city, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Har-
bine, Weber, Fitzpatrick, and Brown—33.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Ricaud,
Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Buchanan,
Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot, John Dennis,
Dashiell, Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie,
McCubbin, Spencer, Wright, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, McHenry, Magraw, Thawley,
Schley, Neill, Michael Newcomer, Davis, Kil-
gour, Brewer, Anderson, Holliday, Slicer,
Smith, Parke, and Shower—41.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred on agreeing to
the second branch of the amendment as amend-
ed.
Mr. BOWIE, I think it utterly impracticable
for these county courts, or circuit courts, con-
stituted as they have been by the Convention,
to attempt to exercise chancery jurisdiction. I |
