The question having been taken upon the
motion to recommit, it was not agreed to.
Mr BRISCOE. I move, then, to amend the
rule by adding to it the following:—
" But the application of this rule shall not
apply to reports or articles under consider-
ation upon their second reading."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I rise to a question of
order; that an amendment to this rule can-
not be received at this time. The time to
have offered this amendment was when the
amendment of the gentleman from Allegany
(Mr. Hebb) was before the Convention. But
that amendment having been adopted, it is
not now in order to move to amend it.
Mr. BRISCOE, The amendment of the gen-
tleman from Allegany now stands substan-
tially »as the report of the committee; it is
in totidem verbis the report of the committee,
and is susceptible of amendment. I am not
disposed to press my amendment, but I will
offer it.
The PRESIDENT. The President is of the
opinion that while the report of the com-
mittee is before this body for consideration,
before the body proceeds from the consider-
ation of any one rule to another, it is com-
petent to amend that rule in any form. The
Chair therefore rules the point of order of
the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr.
Stockbridge) to be not well taken, and that
the proposed amendment is in order. It is
true the amendment of the gentleman from
Allegany (Mr. Hebb) has been adopted, but
the Convention not having yet passed from
the consideration of that rule, it is suscept-
ible of further amendment.
Mr. DANIEL. Before this amendment is
voted upon I desire to make a remark or two
in reference to what has beau said by the
gentleman from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe.) In
the first place it seems to me that the effect
of the gentleman's speech is a direct impu-
tation upon the majority of this House.
Mr. BRISCOE. if the gentleman will permit
me, I will simply say that I disclaim any in-
tention of intimating that the power, which I
hold bias been given to the majority of this
House, would beexercised under any circumstances.
I only stated that a power bad been
given to it which heretofore has never been
given to any deliberative body in this State.
1 did not intimate that the majority of this
House would exercise that power; far be it
from me to intimate anything of the kind.
Mr. DANIEL. I accept the gentleman's ex-
planation as to what he intended. But I
still say that the effect of his language is that
this House may possibly use some gag-law to
exclude proper amendments, and proper de-
bate and consideration. Now I disclaim
any such intention for the majority. So far
as I have heard members speak upon any of
these questions, they have evinced a desire to
allow lull and fair opportunity for consider-
ation. Therefore it is that I say I do not |
believe any gag-law will be applied, or any
improper effort made to cut off the minority
of this House from fully debating any propo-
sition which may come before us for consid-
eration, Who is responsible for the result of
our action here; or the result of the action
of any deliberative body, but the majority
of the body? Is it not the interest of the
majority—if I may use the term—to see that
its legislation is properly perfected before it
goes before the people? is it not for their
interest more than for the interest of the
minority to see that proper clauses are put
into the Constitution, and proper consider-
ation given to amendments, or any other
matter considered by them, before it goes
before the people for their approval? Then
the majority of the House being responsible
for the action of the House, and not sitting"'
here to finally act upon the Constitution they
are instructed to prepare, that final action
being for the people who are to pass judg-
ment upon our work, that should remove all
ground for the importation, even by inference,
that the members of this House, or a major-
ity of them, will seek by improper means, to
cut off debate before any matter has been
properly considered.
The gentleman from Calvert says that the
effect of the rule we halve adopted will be to
put it in the power of a majority by the pre-
vious question to cut off debate upon amend-
ments, and make us vote upon the main
proposition. Now let us reverse his proposi-
tion, and suppose that that is not done, then
the reverse will be true, that we will put it in
the power of the minority of this House to
propose interminable amendments and have
interminable debates, if the proposition of
the gentleman is true that by the adoption of
this rule we put it in the power of the ma-
jority to cut off debate and bring us to a vote
upon pending amendments, then the reverse
is true that if some such rule as this be not
adopted it will be in the power of the mi-
nority to offer interminable amendments and
keep up interminable debates.
Mr, BRISCOE. It will always be in the
power of a majority to fix an hour at which
the vote must be taken.
Mr. DANIEL. I am not sure that is 80.
However, I have said all I desired to say.
Mr. BRISCOE. I only wished to correct the
conclusion to which the gentleman seemed to
be arriving. So far as parliamentary rule is
concerned, the language I used does not in
fact lead to that conclusion.
Mr. CLARKE. I would like to ask the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel) this
question: If it is insulting to the majority of
this House to say that they may exercise this
power, then why does that majority seek to
obtain such apower? Now if the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Calvert (Mr.
Briscoe) is adopted, you can order the pre-
vious question under the rule already adopted |
