would move to insert the word "section," if
the gentleman would prefer it.
Mr. HEBB. I think the term " special mat-
ter ' brings it down to a more narrow compass
than the word "section" or "clause,"
tor a section, or clause may embrace several
special matters.
Mr. CLARKE. I move to amend the amend-
ment by striking out the words "special mat-
ter" and inserting "distinct proposition."
Mr. HEBB. I suppose it will always be for
the Chair to decide what is the special matter
to which the amendments relate.
The PRESIDENT. It will be for the Presi-
dent to decide when the question comes prop-
erly before him.
Mr. SCOTT moved to recommit the rule
under consideration to the Committee on
Rules; but at the request of several members,
he withdrew the motion,
Mr. CLARKE. I think my amendment will
render the rule more certain and explicit.
The term " matter " I think may embrace a
great many propositions. I therefore move
to insert "distinct proposition" in place of
"special matter,"
The question being then taken upon the
amendment to the amendment, it was not
agreed to.
The question was then stated to be upon
the amendment of Mr, HEBB,
The reading of the amendment was called
for, and it wars read as follows :
Strike out Rule 54, and insert the follow-
ing as Rule 54:
" The previous question shall be always in
order in Convention, and shall be in this
form: ' Shall the main question be now
put?' It shall only be admitted when de-
manded by a majority of the members present,
and its effect shall be to put an end to all de-
bale, and to bring the Convention to a direct
vote upon pending amendments, and the special
matter to which they relate. On a mo-
tion for the previous question, and prior to
the seconding of the same, a call of the Con-
vention shall be in order, but after a ma-
jority shall have seconded such motion, no
call shall be in order prior to a vote upon the
main question; and on the previous question
there shall be no debate."
The question being taken upon the amend-
ment, it was adopted.
The PRESIDENT. Are there any further
amendments to be offered to this rule?
Mr. BRISCOE. As I understand the opera-
tion of the rule which has just been adopted,
it cuts off all amendments upon the second
reading. Any member upon this floor, when
any article of the Constitution is under con-
sideration, can call the previous question,
and if the call is sustained that will cut off all
debate and bring the House to a vote upon
the whole subject matter. Now that seems
to me to be entirely opposed to all the pre-
cedents established by the Legislature of this |
State. I know the previous question has
lever applied in ibis way in the House of
Delegates, because while considering asubject
upon its second reading the deliberative body
so considering it is engaged in perfecting the
subject under consideration, and lair and am-
ple opportunity is always given in a delibera-
tive body for such consideration. But as the
rule here now stands it provides for the ope-
ration of a, clear, unqualified and despotic
gag rule, to be applied by the votes of at mere
majority. I understand it has been indica-
ted by gentlemen upon the other side that
such a rule as this is in operation in the
House of Representatives. I am not clearly
advised upon that subject. But I know it
does not apply in the Senate of the United
States, for there the previous question cannot
be moved upon either the second or third
reading. Nor is such a rule known in the
Senate of Maryland, and it never has been
known in any deliberative body in this State
before. But if the object of this Convention
now be to apply, for the first. lime in this
State, this rule to the deliberations of this
Convention, it seems to me that we have not
properly considered the effect of its adoption.
For what are we assembled here? We are
assembled here to perform a grave and important
work, one which might yell demand
the highest statesmanship of the greatest in-
tellects of the land. And if upon the im-
pulse of the moment—and gentlemen who
have had experience in bodies like this know
what slight circumstances sometimes control
their action—if upon the mere whim of a
bare majority of this body, all debate and
discussion may be cut off and no opportunity
allowed for any deliberation upon the pro-
positions that may be belore us, what guar-
antee have the minority of this body that our
right will be respected? Tire previous ques-
tion was originally designed to cut off un-
necessary discussion; not motions to amend
imperfect propositions under consideration.
lam satisfied there is no committee, to which
has been referred any article of the Constitu-
tion. who are infallible, and I know this Convention
is not likely itself to be infallable in
its conclusions. Yet we have brought ourselves deliberately
and conclusively to this
point, that we put it into the power of a ma-
jority, at any time to cut off' all motions
to amend any proposition we may have
before us for consideration. I say it is the
first time that any deliberative body in this
State has ever brought itself into this condi-
tion. I do not say it comparingly, for 1
aim willing to fake the consequences of it.
But it seems to me that we are establishing a
precedent, and I think we ought to act cau-
tiously and deliberately in doing so; and
rather than we should undertake to do it
now, I will renew the motion of the gentle-
man from Cecil, (Mr. Scott.) to recommit
this rule to the Committee on Rules. |
