calling the previous question upon amend-
ments on the second reading. My view of it
is that the effect of calling the previous ques-
tion then is identically the same—first to
bring the vote upon the amendments and
then upon the main question. The effect is
simply to decide that there shall be no
further amendments offered, and it therefore
goes over regularly for a third reading, and
then to be adopted into the Constitution.
With that view of the amendment I am for
it; because it seems to me that under any
other plan we should never get at the end of
debate, or amendments, if gentlemen were
disposed to offer them—I do not pretend to
say that they would be. Under the rule as
offered, there may be amendments pending,
upon the second reading, and under the pre-
vious question we may take a vote upon
them, but the previous question does not ex-
tend to the main question, and therefore gen-
tlemen may offer other amendments, in as
many other forms as they please. Thus the
amendments may become interminable and
we cannot get to a second reading. But if
we are allowed to call the previous question,
to operate first upon the amendments and
then upon the main question itself, it seems
to me that the force and effect of that is
merely to adopt the report, upon the second
reading, and therefore to pass it over to a
third reading, when we may adopt it in the
Constitution. The effect is to say that no
further amendments shall be offered; and it
therefore will put an end to the interminable
offering of amendments as well as debate. I
think that coming too a vote upon a clause or
a section by the previous question is only
doing that in a direct way which is done
otherwise by tacit acquiescence. When you
come to the main question after voting upon
amendments, you simply adcopt the report
upon its second reading and pass it over to a
third, declaring thereby that no further
amendments shall be adopted. Therefore, as
I understand it, this is the ordinary rule o
legislative proceedings which the amendment
provides for; and I am entirely ready to vote
for it. I do not see how its adoption can lead
to any confusion at all. We may upon any
question that may arise here, whether of a
political character or not, want to get at the
end of amendments and the end of the ques
tion, and pass it over to athird reading; and
I humbly conceive that unless there is some
rule of this description, we can never arrive
at that result. Therefore, while I want every
matter to be fully considered here, and wan
to give the utmost indulgence consistent with
the proper dispatch of business, while I ad
mit that I have no doubt that the intentions
of the gentleman, as he has stated, are pure
and that he does not desire to squander the
time away more than any other member, ye
I think the power has been wisely invested in
all political and legislative bodies, upon all
subjects, whether political or otherwise, to |
put an end to debate in certain modes, and
to call for the question, and have a direct
vote upon the proposition before the body :
and it is for these reasons that I am in favor
of the amendment submitted by the gentle-
man from Allegany, which I regard as ac-
complishing this end.
Mr. HENKLE. There is one difficulty which
to my mind is prevented by this amendment,
not with standing the remarks of the gentle-
man from Baltimore (Mr. Daniel.) Let me
illustrate: Suppose that on the second read-
ing of a section, A. should get up and offer
an amendment which is objectionable in it-
self, and then B. gets up and offers an amend-
ment to the amendment which is also objec-
tionable. There the amendatory power ceases.
Both of the amendments are objectionable to
a r^^^rit^ ^ thi^ ^ou^e t^n^^r th^ ^^r^
ation of this rule the previous question is
called; you first take a vote on the amend-
ment to the amendment, then on the amend-
ment, then you are absolutely to vote upon
the section, and are thereby prevented from
offering all further amendment to it.
The PRESIOENT. ^ote down the previous
question, and then the section is again open
to a^mendment.
Mr. HENKLE. If that can be done I am
satisfied with the rule.
Mr. CLARKE. After the call for the main
question has been snastaine'd by tire House
can you vote it down ?
The PRESIIOENT. Not after the previous
question Iras been ordered.
Mr. HENKLE. That is the difficulty I have
upon this suloject. Suppose you have a par-
ticufar article under ceonsideration, A. in his
great haste to get his peculiar views incor-
porated upon it, gets up and offers an amend-
ment; B., equally in a hcarry to have iris
views incorporated upon it, gets up and pro-
poses an amendment to tire amendment;
then the power to offer amendments ceases :
both the amendments are olojectionable to the
^ majority of the House, and the section or
article itself may also be objectionable; yet,
under this rule, the previous question may be
called, and you vote first upon the amend-
ment to the amendment, then upon the
amendment and finally upon the article
itself; and thus you close up the door to all
fua-ther amendment.
The PRESiroENT. The Convention can vote
down the call for the previous question, and
have the power to amend as before.
Mr. CLARKE. Before you vote upon the
amendments, you have first to order the pre-
vious question, if the call for the previous
question is sustained, then yon must proceed
to vote under it; and until the previous
question is exhausted no motiona is in order
to vote it down.
Mr. 'DANIEL. You can move to reconsider.
Mr. HENKLE. That will be more trouble
than to adhere to the old rule.
Mr. HERR. W^hen the previous question is |
