who were not here? It was their fault they
were not here; they should have been here
and voted against these resolutions, if they
were opposed to them. The gentleman from
Montgomery (Mr. Peter,) I think was so un-
fortunate as not to be allowed to place him-
self upon the record upon all these resolu-
tions. Of course that is a privilege which
I do not wish to deny to him particularly, if
it can apply with equal force to all other
members of the convention. But it cannot;
and since it cannot, it will be giving him a
privilege which other members do not have.
I will say fur myself that unfortunately I
was absent upon the occasion of the second
reading of one of the articles of this consti-
tution, and I have sincerely regretted it ever
since. Suppose I should now come forward
with a paper, and ask of the convention the
privilege that my paper should go upon the
journal, the paper containing an argument,
long or short. That might, be granted. After
a while another member comes forward,
having precisely the same right, and asks
permission to put himself upon the record.
It might happen that no fifty or sixty of us
could unite in one argument, as thirty-five
members have done in this case. Now that
is no reason why I should come forward
with my argument, and another gentleman
With his argument, and ask that we be al-
lowed to place ourselves upon the record.
And taking this view of the matter, I seri-
ously object to putting this protest upon the
record.
And there are other reasons. Some por-
tion of the remarks of the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers) referred to the fact
that one gentleman stood upon the floor for
the purpose of calling the previous question—
that he took the floor before the secretary
had finished reading the resolution. Now
that is a direct charge against some member
of this convention. I do not know who the
gentlemen is; but I suppose it is the gentle-
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Barren.)
Mr, CHAMBERS, Certainly; and the fact is
so.
Mr. PUGH, So much the worse, for the
gentleman is not here to answer the charge,
The PRESIDENT. What is the charge "
Mr, PUGH. That he was on the floor before
the secretary had read the resolution for the
purpose of moving the previous question.
Mr, STIRlLING. And not only that; but
this paper says that before the resolution was
read, or at least that. is implied, that before
the house had heard the resolution read, the
previous question was culled.
Mr. MILLER. The gentleman is mistaken
in reference to that being a part of the pro-
test.
Mr. PUGH. I did not say it was a part of
the protest. I said it was a part of the re-
marks of the gentleman from Kelt,
Mr. CHAMBERS. Stated as one of the reasons |
for the protest. 1 beg leave to correct the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stir-
ing.) Fortunately I have written down
all that I said, that no misrepresentation
could be made. I said, as every gentleman
who wag in the house at the time must know
was the fact, that the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr, Barren) was on his feet before
the resolution was read through, for the pur-
pose of moving the previous question, which
was moved us soon as the resolution was fairly
read through. I do not say, »s the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) has sup-
posed, that the motion for the previous ques-
tion was made before the resolution was com-
pletely read.
And to the gentleman from Frederick (Mr.
Schley,) I would say that repudiate the
idea of insidious action. It is misapplied, and
it is unbecoming the gentleman to appropri-
ate that term to myself, or to any individual
who has signed that paper. And he mistakes
in calling upon his imagination for the mo-
tives which led to the production of this pa-
per. It is intended to develop our views to
the State in the only mode in which we think
that can be done effectually. It is to per-
petuate the motives which led us to produce
this paper, and ask its entry upon the jour-
nal. Itis intended to carry down to pos-
terity the true history of our opinions upon
this subject. There is no argument in it, 1
apprehend, further than lo develop the naked
reasons in the shortest possible phrase, which
have led us to the conclusions expressed upon
that paper. And when the gentleman talks
about a purpose, a latent purpose, an insidi-
ous purpose, I advise him to reserve such
terms for persons other than those whose
names are found upon that paper. I will not,
though perhaps 1 might, say—" viper you
bite at a file."
Mr. SCHLEY. 1 merely meant to say that
if the motives of the author or the signers of
that paper were such as, 1 submit, they are
capable of being construed to be, then the
protest as written would answer the purpose
very effectually.
Mr. PUGH. I have but a few words mow
to say. 1 indorse all that has been said by
the gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr.
Ridgely) in this respect. There is nothing in
that paper that I am not prepared to meet
here or anywhere else. But that is why I
object to it.. We decided here, a majority of
us, that this is a question about which we
would not debate. And here a debate occurs
in spite of us, that is to say, the gentlemen
upon the other side are all heard in this paper,
which we have no opportunity to answer,
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has full
opportunity at any time.
Mr. PUGH. I know, after it has been
printed. But we have no opportunity now.
The PRESIDENT. The record i» open at any
time. |
