Master, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Johnson, Gaither,
Annan, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Davis, Kilgour, Waters, Smith and Cockey—50.
Negative —Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson,
Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Chambers of Cecil,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Biser, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nel-
son, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Bait.
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Har-
bine, Miahael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke,
Shower and Brown—45.
So the Convention reconsidered their vote.
Mr. JOHNSON then moved that the Convention
reconsider their vote on the amendment offered
by him this morning as a substitute for the
amendment proposed by Mr. CHAMBERS of Kent,
and rejected by the Convention.
Mr. J. said:
In making this motion, I desire to say but one
word. We have taken a vote upon the proposi-
tion of the gentleman from Kent, which has just
been reconsidered, and I think it was carried in
the negative by ten votes. The proposition
which I had the honor to offer as a substitute for
that, was carried in the negative by three votes.
There must be a desire, on the part of the
members of this Convention, to lay down some
system, either local or general, and there is a di-
vision in the minds of members on that subject.
I am in favor of a general, broad principle, to
pervade all parts and sections of the State alike.
So far as these experiments have been had, rela-
tively, there is a manifest preference in favor of
the proposition which I had the honor to submit,
I therefore made the motion to reconsider, in the
hope that the Convention may thus get the whole
subject before them. Sometime has elapsed,
which will give members an opportunity for an
interchange of their views, and I wish a vote
to be again taken on the proposition which I had
the honor to submit, I call for the previous
question on the motion to reconsider.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Is it in order for the gentle-
man to make this motion, when there is another
pending before the Convention ?
The PRESIDENT decided that the motion was in
order.
The demand for the previous question was
then seconded.
Mr. GWINN moved that the House adjourn,
and on this motion demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, were as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Merrick, Buchanan, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Cham-
bers of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, McLane, Gra-
son, George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, John-
son, Biser, Sappington, Magraw, Nelson, Carter,
Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore
city, Ware, Anderson, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick,
Parke, Shower, and Brown—33.
Negative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
90 |
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Cham-
bers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Randall, Kent, Sellman, Bund, Howard,
Bell, Chandler, Ridgely, John Dennis, James U.
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps Bowie,
Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs,
; Gaither, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Da-
vis, Brewer, Waters, Slicer, Smith, and Cockey—
54.
So the Convention refused to adjourn.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. JOHNSON, to reconsider the vote of the Con-
vention on the amendment offered by him as
substitute for the amendment proposed by Mr.
CHAMBERS, of Kent, and being put, it was
Determined in the affirmative.
The question then recurred,
Will the Convention accept the said substitute
for the proposition offered by Mr. CHAMBERS, of
Kent.
Mr. PHELPS moved the previous question, which
was seconded.
Mr. JOHNSON asked a division of the question
on the motion to strike out and insert.
The question was consequently stated to be on
the motion to strike out,
Mr. MCMASTER. asked the yeas and nays on
this motion, which were ordered.
Mr. BOWIE moved that the House adjourn.
Mr, HARBINE asked the yeas and nays on the
motion, which were not ordered.
The motion to adjourn was then agreed to,
And the Convention accordingly adjourned.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM,
Remarks of Mr. MERRICK—Friday, April 11th.
Mr. MERRICK was much gratified to hear the
desire so generally expressed, that some provis-
sions might now be adopted which should put a
final end to this long continued subject of agita-
tion. For years past there had been no more
convenient hobby for demagogues to mount than
this so called "Constitutional Reform;" and he
who could cry out most loudly for reform, with-
out specifying or understanding abuses to be re-
formed, was often the most popular and most
successful agitator; and would exult in the pus-
session of fancied power and greatness, strutting
upon the green, and stopping all mouths, silenc-
ing all reason and argument with loud vocifira-
tions of his magic, but undefined, and for him, at
least, undefinable phrase, "reform," "Conven-
tional Reform," Here was now a Convention
in session, and in his judgment, one of the very
best refarms to be expected from it, or which
they could make, was to reform these agitators,
to take their hobby from them by adopting a pro-
vision which should enable the good people of
the State at any time, upon due deliberation, to
correct any real evils, any practical inconveni-
ences which might be found to exist in their sys- |
