Mr. CONSTABLE demanded the previous ques-
tion, remarking that he would go for the Con-
stitution without engrossment and without the
signature of the President.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, demanded the yeas
and nays on the motion for the previous ques-
tion;
Which were ordered,
And being taken,
Resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Sherwood of
Talbot, Colston, Constable, McCullough, Miller,
McLane, Spencer, Grason, George, Wright,
Jacobs, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Carter, Thaw-
ley, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood of Baltimore city. Ware, Schley, Har-
bine, Michael Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday,
Fitzpatrick Parke and Shower—41.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Morgan,
Lee, Chambers of Kent, Sellman, Weems, Donaldson,
Wells, Randall, Jenifer, John Dennis, Da-
shiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Dirickson,
McMaster, Fooks and Waters—24.
So the previous question was sustained.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, asked a division of
the question on the orders, so that the vole should
be taken on each separately.
Mr. BOWIE understood that this brought the
Convention to a vote, whether the Constitution,
as it now stood, should be signed by the Presi-
dent and deposited by the committee in the Court
of Appeals. He desired to know what become
of the amendment with regard to the judges.—
Was that a part of the Constitution?
SEVERAL MEMBERS. Certainly.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. It has not been en-
grossed.
Mr. BOWIE. It is understood that it will go
without being engrossed.
Mr. HOWARD. Not at all.
Mr. CONSTABLE. We can regard it as en-
grossed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is no authority to en-
gross it.
Mr. BOWIE. I cannot vote for the order. I
think the article ought to be referred to the com-
mittee to be engrossed at once. Does it exclude
the article adopted in relation to the contested
elections of judges?
The PRESIDENT. The chair thinks not.
Mr. BOWIE. I think it does—though I do not
wish it to be excluded.
The question was then stated to be on agree-
ing to the first order.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, demanded the yeas
and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken,
Were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Sellman, Howard, Buchanan,
Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Sher-
wood of Talbot, Colston, Constable, McCullough,
Miller, McLane, Tuck George, Wright, Gaith- |
er, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry,
Magraw, Carter, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Balti-
more city, Ware, Harbine, Michael Newcom-
er, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick,
and Shower—35.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Lee, Chambers of Kent, Donaldson. Wells,
Randall, Weems, Bell, John Dennis, Dashiell,
Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccles-
ton, Bowie, Sprigg, Spencer, Dirickson, Mc-
Master, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Shriver, Biser,
Brent of Baltimore city, Schley, Brewer, Wa-
ters and Parke—31.
So the first order was adopted.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the second order.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, moved that the
Convention adjourn until half-past eight o'clock
to-morrow morning.
The PRESIDENT stated there was an order ope-
rating, that when the Convention should ad-
journ to-day, it should adjourn without a day.
The gentleman from Caroline had moved that
when the Convention adjourn, it should adjourn
to meet to-morrow morning at eight o'clock. It
would seem that there was a conflict between
the two motions; but the Chair thought that ev-
ery parliamentary body should have its own
hour of adjournment and period of adjournment
within its rule. The chair, therefore decided
that the motion made by the gentleman from Car-
oline took precedence of the order.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, said;
That when this Convention should adjourn,
there would be no President, and had the Presi-
dent the power to sign the Constitution after the
Convention had adjourned, when there would be
no President?
The PRESIDENT replied, that that was a ques-
tion for the House to decide, and not the chair.
Mr. HOWARD rose to a point of order, stating
that he was going to appeal from the decision of
the chair for the first time this session. He was
of the opinion that the resolution to adjourn sine
die was under the operation of the previous ques-
tion, and being so, it was not susceptible of
amendment, nor could any other motion be sub-
stituted for it. Therefore the motion of the gen-
tleman from Caroline was not in order.
The PRESIDENT stated that the appeal was not
debatable, as it was under the operation of the
previous question.
The question was then stated to be on the ap-
peal of Mr. HOWARD from the decision of the
chair.
And the question being put, "shall the decis-
ion of the Chair stand as the judgment of the
Convention," it was decided in the affirmative.
So the decision of the Chair was sustained, and
the motion of Mr. STEWART ruled to be in order.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, that the Convention
adjourn until to-morrow morning at 8 o'clock.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, demanded the
yeas and nays which being ordered, appeared as
follows: |
