proposition asked us to rescind what was
done, and set forth the very arguments and
reasons stated in this protest. And the yeas
and nays were called on it, and the votes of
all the minority who were present were re-
corded in favor of his resolution.
And there is another thing I wish to say.
These gentlemen say they protest in the name
of the people they represent., in the name of
the law-abiding people of this State, and in
the name of certain principles of constitu-
tional law. Now I deny their right, under
parliamentary law, of the members of a leg-
islative body to protest in the names of any
body but themselves. They are asking as a
privileged question to put upon the record
their protest against the action of this body.
Now they have no right to protest in any but
their own names. This convention repre-
sents the law-abiding people of this State;
and not the minority or any individuals in
this convention. And they have no right to
put upon this record that they represent the
law-abiding citizens of this State. If they
are going to protest, let them protest in their
own names.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I would call the atten-
tion of my colleague (Mr. Stirling) to the fact
that this protest says "all the law-abiding
people."
Mr. STIRLING. That makes it worse. It
should not go upon the journal as long as it
characterizes the action of this convention as
the action of thirty-three delegates; and as
Ion;." as it does not confine the protest to the
individual members who sign it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I only rise for a personal
explanation to protect myself, The gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) has used
this language, I think: " The gentleman from
Kent may say what he pleases in regard to
imputing to him motives." And then the
gentleman proceeds to say-that the notice of
the number of votes given was for the pur-
pose of emasculating the resolution. Now
the previous language used by the gentleman,
giving me the privilege to say what I pleased
about imputing motives) would seem to im-
port that. the gentleman had some sinister
motive to impute to me.
Mr. STIRLING, If the gentleman thinks
that saying "thirty-three delegates" in-
stead of "the convention," is sinister, then
I impure the sinister' motive. I say there
was that reason apparent upon the face of the
paper.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Certainly avowed, and he
must be a fool who does not see it upon its
face. The expression is used to show pre-
cisely how many votes that resolution had in
its favor. Is not that legitimate? There is
no secret motive, no curtain, no concealment,
no evasion, no anything; it just states how
many gentlemen of this body voted for it
and the journal shows that.
Mr. SCHLEY. I call the gentleman from |
Kent (Mr. Chambers) to order; he has
already spoken twice upon this question.
The PRESIDENT. If any gentleman insists
upon the enforcement of the rules, the gen-
tleman from Kent. having spoken twice upon
this subject, will not be entitled to speak
again, if any other, gentleman desires to
speak.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no desire to argue
this question. But do not mean that gen-
tlemen shall throw out unfounded imputa-
tions against me. I mean to state what is
the fact, and nothing more.
Mr. RIDGELY. If it is in order to amend
the motion to enter this protest upon the
journal, then I move to amend this motion of
the gentleman from Kent, by adding the fol-
lowing :
"Provided, nevertheless, that in permit-
ting said protest to go upon the journal, this
convention, so far from conceding that the
statement of law or fact made therein, is well
founded, on the contrary hereby reiterates
its approbation of the justice, right and pro-
priety of the resolutions passed by this body,
and referred to in said protest."
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman can offer
that as an independent order,
Mr. RIDGELY. 1 wanted it incorporated
into and made part of the order to enter this
protest upon the journal.
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll. 1 did not intend to
make any remarks upon this question. But
as this debate has gone on to some extent,
and as it is a matter of some importance as a
principle, and not as a precedent, I will ad-
dress myself very briefly to the convention.
We have witnessed precedents of this kind
in the State of Maryland, and I have never
known where a proposition of a similar char-
acter has been rejected by the majority.
The PRESIDENT. The chair will remind
the gentleman of the case in Frederick.
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll. It is true the mem-
bers of the minority here have had abundant
opportunities of explaining their opposition
to measures adopted; and they will still have
abundant opportunities of expressing their
opposition to the views of the majority in the
further progress of this convention. But as
I have myself enjoyed the privilege of enter-
ing protests upon the journal of another de-
liberative body; and.as I believe it is a priv-
ilege which ought to be extended to minori-
ties everywhere; and as this protest is couched
inrespectful language, I shall be the last one
to propose any objection to it. As the gen-
tleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely)
has said, I think this protest is couched in
respectful language, in much more respectful
language than many of the arguments that
have been recorded upon our journal of de-
bates. I think it is a calm statement of what
is supposed to be the facts, and of their view 8
upon the subject.
In the session of 1860, when the police bill |
