called, and that call is sustained by a major-
ity of the House, that signifies that the
House is ready to vote upon the subject.
The effect of the previous question is merely
saying that the House is ready to vote upon
the proposition before them. My amendment
goes further than the rule which formerly
prevailed in Parliamentary bodies. Formerly
the rule was that ordering the previous ques-
tion caused the House to drop all amend-
ments, and take a vote upon the main propo-
sition. But my amendment, like the rule of
the House of Representatives, allows you to
vote upon the amendments, and then upon
the main question.
Mr. KENNARD. I would say a few words
upon this subject before the vote is taken
upon the amendment. When the subject
of the previous question came up in the
committee for consideration, I was inclined
to adopt the rule in force in the House of
Representatives, and which I believe is in
substance incorporated in the amendment
submitted by the gentleman from Allegany.
(Mr. Hebb.) But upon a further review of
the application of the rule upon the pre-
vious question as so constructed, and so uni-
formly and generally applied everywhere in
all legislative bodies, one of my colleagues on
the committee, the gentleman from Prince
George's County, (Mr. Clarke, ) said that that
rule would not apply to a subject matter
under consideration on its second reading.
That raised a difficulty in my mind in refer-
ence to the application of the previous ques-
tion in the form in which I preferred it.
The gentleman said that according to his
late legislative experience, the main ques-
tion could not be called upon a bill or
other matter upon its second reading; that
we could not vote upon the main question;
and hence the operation of the previous ques-
tion under a rule so constructed could not
be applied. That was one of the reasons why
I consented to the rule upon the subject as
reported here from the committee. When
that rule was presented to me for considera-
tion, it appeared to my mind to be a very
novel rule, and one which I feared the Con-
vention would not understand; I did not my-
self understand it as clearly and distinctly as
I could have desired. But the gentleman
advanced some very pood reasons for it; and
I myself submitted it to the judgment of sev-
eral members of the Convention who from
their experience I considered competent to
judge concerning it, and they stated that
they thought the rule would answer the pur-
pose, I therefore consented to report it to the
Convention.
All I have to say is this: I prefer the pre-
vious question as it is readily applied in all
legislative bodies, and I would like to have
this matter fully settled now, so that the
minds of the members of this Convention
may be fully informed upon it; so that the |
Chair itself may understand it; so that there
may be no difficulty; so that when the pre-
vious question is called upon the second read-
ing of any subject matter belore the Conven-
tion, and the call for the previous question is
sustained, there may be no doubt whether we
are required to vote upon the main question,
which is the second reading of the subject
matter before the Convention, if the judg-
ment of the Convention is that it relates only
to amendments, then I shall like the idea
very well. But if that question is not settled
now, it will create difficulty hereafter. If
the operation of the proposed rule upon the
previous question is to cut off all debate and
bring the house to a vote upon the pending
amendments, and then have the article go
over to the next reading, I think it will be a
very good rule. The previous question in the
form reported by the committee, has difficul-
ties about it, as has already been stated It
would open the gates to an interminable cur-
rent of amendments, and no one could tell
when it would stop. Under the operation
of the rule reported by the committee, the
Convention can immediately cut off all de-
bate upon pending amendments, but it would
not he within our power to cut off other
amendments upon which debate would arise
until the previous question is again applied.
Hence I prefer the substitute of the gentleman
from Allegany (Mr. Hebb) if it be under-
stood that the action of the Convention, when
we come to vote, will be not upon the main
proposition, but upon pending amendments.
Mr. CLARKE. Before the question is taken
upon this amendment I would like to submit
an amendment to the amendment; to strike
out after the word "debate," in the fifth
line, the words "and to bring the Conven-
tion to a direct vote upon pending amend-
ments, and the special matter to which they
relate; " and insert—"and to bring the Con-
vention to a vote upon pending amendments,
and the clause of the Constitution then under
consideration," Instead of leaving the mat-
ter indefinite as the proposition now stands,
my amendment simply defines how the pre-
vious question is to be understood, and what
the Convention is to vote upon; that is, the
previous question is to be exhausted by first
taking the vote upon the amendments, and
then upon the clause of the Constitution un-
der consideration.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. If I understand the
amendment of the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke) it is simply to substi-
tute the word " clause" for the words "spe-
cial matter,"
Mr. CLARKE, Yes sir. For instance, sup-
pose the Court of Appeals is the special mat-
ter under consideration. According to my
construction of the amendment by the gentle-
man from Allegany (Mr, Hebb) we would
be compelled to vote upon the whole propo-
sition in relation to the Court of Appeals. 1 |
