Mr. HEBB called for the yeas and nays
upon this question, and they were ordered.
The question being then taken by yeas and
nays. it resulted—yeas 26, nays 42—as fol-
lows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President-
Blackiston, Bond, Brown, Chambers, Clarke,
Daniel, Duvall, Gale, Harwood, Henkle,
Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson. Lansdale Larsh
Lee, Mare, Marbury, Miller, Morgan, Parran,
Ridgely, Smith, of Carroll, Turner, Wil-
mer—26.
Nays—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Carter, Cunningham, Davis, of Wash-
ington, Dellinger, Earle, Ecker, Farrow. Gal-
loway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hop-
kins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Ken-
nard, Kin?, Mayhugh, McComas, Murray,
Negley, Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Purnell Rob-
inette, Russell, Schley, Scott, Smith, of Wor-
cester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Todd,
Valliant, Wickard, Wooden—43.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays,
the following explanations were made by
members as their names were called :
Mr. ABBOTT. There is nothing; in that pro-
test that I object to very decidedly, any more
than I do to one-half or two-thirds of what
is already upon our journal of debates. As
I understand it, it is an attack upon the ma-
jority of this convention, an attack upon the
general government, and an attack upon the
loyal people of this State. Our journal of
debates is full of that sort of stuff, and I
think we have had enough of it. I believe
this is offered here only to take up time and
prolong lhe session of the convention. I
vote " no "
Mr. HARWOOD asked to be excused from
voting. Not excused, and voted "aye."
Mr. NEGLEY. I would be perfectly willing
to vote for ii protest, drawn in respectful lan-
guage agninst the resolutions to which this
protest refers. Believing that the minority,
by the springing of the previous question,
have not had an opportunity to be heard
upon tins subject, they can fall back upon
the parliamentary right of a minority, to
enter a respectful protest. But this protest
does not stop there; it goes on to assert
something about the hill of rights, which was
fully and amply discussed in this body, and
then goes on further to make assertions
about the power of the federal government,
with its detectives and its spies. Now I can-
not vote fur that. If they will draw up a
protest in regard to these two resolutions
that were passed without their having the
privilege of discussing them, and do it in a
respectful manner, assigning their reasons for
doing so, then I will vote for the insertion
of that protest upon the journal, because
they can claim it as a parliamentary right,
which no majority can deny to them. But
this protest goes far beyond that; it goes
into a discussion of matters which we have |
already discussed, and upon which the pre-
vious question was not called. It therefore,
I think, exceeds the just limits of a protest.
I vote " no."
Mr, STIRLING. 1 desire to say that as the
gentlemen who had this protest in hand
have declined to strike out that part where
they profess to protest in behalf of all the
law-abiding citizens of this State, 1 must
vote "no."
Mr. VALLIANT. I have several reasons for
voting; in the negative upon this question—
but I will content myself with stating one of
them. One leading reason which will actu-
ate the vote I shall give is this: While 1 ac-
cord to the minority the privilege of entering
their protest against the action of the ma-
jority, 1 take this view of that privilege.
They have a right to state their reasons for
entering the protest, when the reasons per-
tain to the protest itself. But 1 cannot con-
cede to the minority, or to any party making
a protest, the right to discuss the principles
contained in the resolution or other matter
against which they protest. This is a dis-
cussion of the principles contained in the
resolutions against which they protest. For
that, among other reasons, I vote "'no."
The convention accordingly refused to per-
mit the protest to be entered upon the jour-
nal.
AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.
The convention then proceeded to consider
the amendments of the rules, of which Mr.
VALLIANT had previously given notice.
Mr. VALLIANT, 1 dislike very much to
take up the time of the convention upon any
proposition. But 1 really think that the
amendments I have submitted to these rules,
are entitled to the careful consideration of
the convention. 1 now regard them of more
consequence than 1 did when 1 submitted
them, or rather gave notice of them. The
forty-second rule now reads :
"All questions, except those otherwise
herein provided for, shall be determined by
a majority of the members present, &c."
Now, if the amendment to the forty-fourth
rule which 1 propose shall be adopted by the
convention, it will do away with the only
exception to the rule of deciding all questions
by a majority of the members present. There-
fore, the clause in the forty-second rule—
'' except those otherwise herein provided
for"—will besuperfluous. For that reason
I apprebend it ought to be stricken out.
But I have astronger reason for the amend-
ment 1 propose to the forty-fourth rule. That
portion of the forty-fourth rule to which I
refer, now reads:
"But should a report or article on its final
passage he declared rejected, for the want of
a majority of the members elected, the motion
for reconsideration may be made by one |
