Volume 102, Page 675 View pdf image (33K) |
675 Blackiston, H6llyday, Morgan, Brown, Horsey, Parran, Chambers, Johnson, Peter, Crawford, Lansdale, Smith, of Dor., Davis, of Charles, Lee, Turner—23. So the call for the previous question was sustained.
The question then being on the adoption of the amend-
Mr. Dent demanded the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were called, and appeared as follows: Messrs. Dent, Marbury, Belt, Duvall, Mitchell, Billingsley, Edelen, Miller, Blackiston, Henkle, Morgan, Brown, Hollyday, Parran, Chambers, Horsey, Peter, Crawford, Johnson, Smith, of Dor.,
Dail, Lansdale, Turner—25. NEGATIVE. Messrs. Ecker, Pugh, Goldsborough, P't Galloway, Purnell, Abbott, Greene, Russell, Annan, Hebb, Schlosser, Audoun, Jones, of Cecil, Scott, Baker, Kennard, Smith, of Wor., Barron, King, Sneary, Cunningham, Markey, Stirling, Cushing, McComas, Stockbridge, Daniel, Mullikin, Swope, Davis, of Wash., Murray, Todd, Dellinger, Parker, Wooden—35.
So the question upon its adoption was decided in the
The question recurring upon the adoption of section two
Mr. Duvall demanded the yeas and nays, |
||||
Volume 102, Page 675 View pdf image (33K) |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.