THURSDAY, May 1st, 1851.
The Convention met at ten o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. GRIFFITH.
The roll was called,
And a quorum was present.
THE RULES.
Mr. BROWN rose, he said, to offer an order
which would speak for itself; and he demanded
the previous question upon its adoption.
The order was read as follows :
Resolved, That the mover of an amendment to
the Judiciary report, may speak not to exceed ten
minutes in explanation thereof, and five minute
speeches may be made by any member on a pending
amendment, provided that no member shall
speak more than twice on one amendment, unless
by the unanimous consent of the Convention
No amendment not offered in good faith shall be
in order, nor shall a motion to postpone indefi-
nitely be debated, nor a motion to reconsider be
entertained by the chair, unless made in good
faith.
Some conversation followed on the part of
Messrs. BROWN and CRISFIELD, growing out of
an enquiry by the latter gentleman, as to the rule
by which the fact should be determined whether
a proposition was offered in good faith or not.
The PRESIDENT then stated the question to be
on the demand for the previous question.
And the question having been taken, there was
a second;
And the main question was ordered to be taken
(which main question was on the adoption of the
order.)
Mr. SPENCER called for a division of the ques-
tion,
Which was ordered.
The question was then put on the adoption of
the first branch of said resolution down to the
word "Convention," in the 6th line inclusive ;
and
Determined in the affirmative.
The question was then put on the adoption of
the second and last branch of said resolution,
and
Determined in the affirmative.
So the order was adopted.
Mr. HOWARD called up the amendment yester-
day, offered by him to the 22nd rule.
Mr. HOWARD said he did not think it necessary
to say much about this rule, or to say any thing
at all. He thought the proposition must be suffi-
ciently prepossessing to every member of the
Convention, as to induce him to come to the con-
clusion that there ought to be a time when they
should cease discussing these matters any further.
There ought to be a time equivalent to the time
allowed when one branch of the Legislature
sends a hill over to the other. Now, as there
was but one body here—no collateral branch to
interchange with, then the Revisory committee
was the quarter in which the necessary correc-
tions were to be made. Let us, then, not discuss
matters already disposed of, and leave subjects
88 |
immediately before the Convention, to re-open
others long since disposed of.
Mr. CRISFIELD made some remarks, which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. HOWARD replied that his answer to the
gentleman's first question was—that his proposi-
tion did not affect any pending motion. In an-
swer to the second question, he would say that
all the articles of the Constitution had been sent
to the Revisory Committee, was easily to be ascertained
from the subjects. And another thing,
it was necessary to take a vote of the Conven-
tion, which had been done already, that the mat-
ter should be sent to the Rivsory Committee.
He would repeat what he had before said—that
after a subject had been sent to the Revisory
Committee, we should not re-open it, unless that
committee found themselves involved in some
contradictory sections, or language, which might
render it necessary for the Convention to examine
into the matter. And, another thing, it might
introduce a new practice, terminating in much
debate.
Mr. CHAMBERS made some remarks which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. HOWARD remarked, that he could only say
what his intention was. He could not answer
for the construction which the Chair, or the Le-
gislature might put on an article. What he sup-
posed to be the construction would be this : that
if this rule passed, forbidding motions for the re-
consideration of subjects which had been sent to
the Revisory Committee, it would operate so far
as to repeal the existing rule allowing motions to
be reconsidered at all. That was his view, and
that was what he wished to avoid. What the
Convention had done, he wished to look over, and
put away. and not re-open. Now, as to the mo-
tion of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,)
to reconsider the representation question.
that was not the time. But the object of
the motion—the. rule—the object he had in
view, was to prevent a similar motion, in future,
to reconsider matters not in committee.
How could the committee get along in unwreath-
ing and untwisting these various matters in order
to make them harmonious and easily to be un-
derstood—how could they make any progress at
all, if the Convention was to be undoing as fast
as they completed a portion of their work?
He saw no end to our session, if we did not adopt
the course he bad suggested. If there was one
thing in which the Convention ought to be unani-
mous, it would be, he should suppose, in a deter-
mination to bring their labors to a close, and
speedily adjourn. He thought, upon that point,
there would not be a dissenting voice. Now, the
rule he had proposed looked to that object—
looked towards a speedy adjournment—by speed-
ing us forward, never letting us go backward.
He would not say any thing about the motion of
the gentleman from Kent, [Mr. CHAMBERS,] it
would come up presently. Those were his rea-
sons for, and explanation of, the order he had just
offered.
Mr. CHAMBERS made some remarks which will
be published hereafter. |
