erable wrangling was adopted by the last
Convention. It will be found in the "pro-
ceedings" page 305; and was adopted, as
appears on page 313, This is the rule in all
legislative bodies; and the effect of the main
question is as proposed by the amendment I
have submitted.
Mr. CLABKE. In drawing up this rule upon
the previous question, the object of the com-
mittee was to meet the same difficulty which
existed in the last Convention. The rules
provide that reports of committees shall go
through the same course as bills. The rule
upon the previous question, as it stands in
the preseat Rules of the House of Delegates
is this:
" Rule 23. The previous question shall be
in this form, " Shall the main question be flow
put!" It may be called for on any question
except on an amendment or other matter
which cannot in its nature be postponed; and
when demanded by a majority of the mem-
bers present, it shall, until it is decided, pre-
clude all further amendment and debate on
the main question."
Under the rules of the House of Delegates,
and under the rules of most bodies, on the
second reading of a bill there is no such
thing as calling the previous question at all,
because when the previous question is sus-
tained it brings you to a vote upon the main
question, and you cannot vote upon the main
question until the bill is on its third reading.
So upon the rules adopted by the House, if a
report is on its second reading, and the
previous question is called, the President
must put the question shall the main question
now put? and inasmuch as you have not
passed through the second reading of the bill,
there can be no such thing as a main or pre-
vious question at all. That was the very
difficulty the last Convention met with,
Therefore, in order to make this proposition
plain upon the previous question, and in
order to extend the call of the previous ques-
tion, the committee made this subdivision,
viz; that upon the second reading of a mea-
sure, not being able under the rule of the
House of Delegates or under the rules of other
parliamentary bodies, to call for the main
question, and it being desirable that to a cer-
tain extent the Convention should have the
privilege of cutting off lengthy debate, the
previous question should be called. That is,
whenever an amendment is offered to a clause
and a second amendment, it is in the power
of the House to call the previous question
upon that, and that previous question simply
applies to the question before the Convention,
viz.: the amendments then pending. After
acting upon them any other amendments may
be offered.
So this rule, instead of catting off or limit-
ing the power of the Convention, in reference
to the previous question, gives to the Con-
vection a power of calling the previous ques- |
tion which under the present rules of the
House of Delegates, and under the rule offered
by the gentleman from Allegany county
(Mr. Hebb) would not exist. He says the
previous question having been demanded, its
effect will be first to require a vote upon the
amendments, and then upon the section itself.
When we are upon the second reading of a
bill we cannot put the main question, because
we cannot vote upon the final passage of a
bill until we are upon the third reading.
Mr. HEBB. It may be an article or section.
If a section is before the Convention, of course
we shall take the vote upon the section, and
not the whole article.
Mr. CLARKE, While going through the
reading of the bill for amendments, it is cer-
tainly in the power of the Convention to
receive an amendment unless it is proposed
by the call of the previous question upon the
second reading of a report to cut off all fur-
ther amendments. I never heard, in the
House of Delegates or in any body, if under-
taking upon the second reading of a measure,
the proper time for effecting it by the House,
to cut off amendments. The previous ques-
tion has never been applied in that way. It
is only to bring the House to a direct vote
upon a proposition, and never to cut off
amendment.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. If the effect of the pre-
vious question in ordinary parliamentary
practice be what the gentlemen from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke) assumes it to be, 1
should most certainly prefer the 54th Rule as
it stands. But it seems to me he must be in
error as to the effect of the previous question.
The form in which the previous question is
always put, is, Shall the main question be
now put? which I understand to be the main
question before the House or Convention,
the body which is to act upon it. The main
question before the body, when a bill or arti-
cle is upon its second reading, is not, Shall
this article become a part of the Constitution ?
The main question before the body is upon
the adoption of the particular article or par-
ticular amendment pending, as I understand
it. If I am wrong in this, it will affect the
whole subject. Everything depends upon
what constitutes the main question in the
ordinary parliamentary practice, when the
previous question is called.
Mr. CLABKE. I will only state that so far
as my experience has gone in the Legislature,
I have never known the calling of the pre-
vious question to operate as the gentleman
understands it. The discussions upon the
Convention Bill last winter, went on for a
considerable time while the bill was on its
second reading, and it was never once sup-
posed that the previous question could be
called on the second reading of the bill. The
rule of the House expressly provides that the
previous question shall not be called on an
amendment. I find, upon turning to the |
