Mr. Calvert a slaveowner, and did you not
vote for him? Was he not a good Union
man?
Mr, SANDS. I have been at school for the
last three years—a terrible school; the teach-
ers were major generals and: lieutenant gene-
rals, and all that sort of thing, and they have
shown me many things I did not see then.
Now I have no more to add upon this ques-
tion. I am sorry for the vote of this morn-
ing, because it has necessitated all that has
followed; and whilst I shall never vote to
repeal the section which we adopted yester-
day, because I could not honorably do that,
I can honorably vote against any section
which discriminates in favor of the class of
people of whom I have spoken. I can honar-
ably do that, and I will do it.
Mr. PUGH called for the previous question.
Mr. CLARKE. I do not want to make a
Speech, but if the gentleman from Cecil (Mr.
Pugh) will give me an opportunity—
Mr. PUGH. This discussion is very likely
to be endless. After the reconsideration there
will probably be another discussion. In my
estimation the subject is getting worn utterly
threadbare. I must insist upon my call for
the previous question.
The call for the previous question was sec-
onded, and the main question was ordered..
The question was upon agreeing to the
motion to reconsider.
Upon this question, Mr. BERRY, of Prince
George's, asked the yeas and nays, and they
were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 40, nays 29—as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audonn. Barron, Carter,
Cunningham, Gushing, Daniel, Dellinger,
Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb,
Hopkins, Hopper, Kenaard, Markey, Mc-
Comas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Russell, Sands, Smith,
of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Valliant, Wood-
en— 40.
Nays— Messrs. Berry, of Prince George's,
Blackiston, Bond, Briscoe, Brow", C,hambers,
Clarke, Dail, Davis, of Charles, Dent, Duvall,
Edelen, Harwood, Hollyday, Horsey, Jones, of
Cecil, Jones, of Somerset. King, Lansdale,
Lee, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Par-
ran, Peter, Ridgely, Smith, of Dorchester,
Wilmer—29.
The motion to reconsider was accordingly
agreed to.
Mr, King, when his name was called, said :
I consider myself fully pledged to use all
honorable means towards getting compensa-
tion from the general government. I there-
fore vote " no."
Mr. TODD, when his name was called, said :
I shall vote to reconsider for the purpose of
moving the following: amendment to the sec- |
tion: " Provided, that the expense of such •
census and registration in each case be met
by the owner of such slaves." I therefore
vote "aye."
' The question recurred upon adopting the
section.
Mr. TODD moved to amend by adding the
following to the section:
'• Provided, that the expense of such census
and registration in each case be met by the
owner of auch slaves."
Mr. ABBOTT offered the following as a sub-
stitute for the section;
"Sec. —. The legislature, at its first ses-
sion after the adoption of this constitution,
shall provide a mode by which those colored
persons who have been liberated from slavery
by its adoption shall be registered for the
purpose of receiving, pro rata, any money or
other appropriation made by the general gov-
ernment or otherwise for their benefit."
The first question was nfion the amendment
submitted by Mr. TODD.
Mr. DBKT. I endeavored to get the floor a.
few minutes, while the motion to reconsider
was under discussion, for the purpose of of-
fering some objections to the views proposed
and submitted in support of the motion to
reconsider. But I failed to do so on account
of the call for the previous question, which
has become so very fashionable in this body.
More so, I am sure, than ever before in any
deliberative body that ever assembled in any
State of the Union for the purpose of forming
a constitution for the governmeat of the
State; or, I might add, for any other pur-
pose. It has amounted in many instances to
the ostracism o' those who entertain opposite
views to those of the majority; so much so
that we have been entirely unable to offer
our reasons for opposing the action that has
been taken here, and yet they were reasons
which were convincing to us, and which we
desired to have read by the people, but which
we were warned beforehand were not to bf
appreciated by those who control the action
of this body. We were willing to dffi-r in
opinion; but we desired an opportunity to
express that difference of opinion, and it was
for that purpose that I rose and endeavored
to get the floor, but was cut off by the call
for the previous question.
Gentlemen who advocated the reconsider-
ation of this section, seemed not to be able
to understand' that there is any difference
between the classes of losses of property
Which have been spoken of. The gentleman
from Washington county (Mr. Negley)
speaks of those in his seclion of the State
who have been great losers from the invasion
of the public enemy. I regret that they
have been losers. He speaks of some who
have been robbed on the highway of their
watches, money, and other things, as being
in the same position with regard to their
right to compensation as those who have |
