Conservatism I where is it found? In the
breast of faction, or cabal, or primary meet-
ings, or Conventions, or Legislatures of sov-
ereign States? No such thing. Conserv-
atism has its true home in the bearts of the
people. Who was it saved your State when
she was trembling on the verge of that fiery
gulf into which secession has dragged many
of our poor unfortunate sister States. Who
saved Maryland—your Maryland and mine?
Little cabala? Little cliques? Legislatures?
It is a fact. notorious to the people of the
State that these were doing their best to drag
her out of this Union which Washington
founded and loved, and bade us with his
parting breath cling to. Who salved Ma-
ryland? Governor Hicks? I honor him.
He is my personal friend. I have a high es-
teem for him; hut his arm was too short.
The Legislature of Maryland? Well, that is
past history. But answer me", if you can,
when the Legislature of Maryland saved Ma-
ryland from secession. No, sir, it was the
people, the sovereign people, the hone and
sinew of the land, the men proposed to be
tied up and restricted in their unalienable
rights. They were the people who saved
Maryland. Who are the true conservatives?
The glorious people. I shall never forget the
scenes which 1, as one humble individual,
passed through at the time of the meeting of
that Legislature. I went up to Frederick
city, knowing some of the members, and
trusting in God that I might do some little
to prevent the passage of—
The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks it his
duty to interpose at this point, considering
the gentleman as transcending the rule by
going into this minute discussion of matters
cot involved in the question pending,
Mr. BRISCOE. I hope the gentleman from
Howard will be permitted to go on,
The PRESIDENT. If this discussion is per-
mitted to go on, it will lead to a discussion
of extraneous inalters; for if permission is
given to one gentleman, it must be given to
another gentleman.
Mr. SANDS, if the President will allow
one word of explanation, I will endeavor to
make plain what I believe to be the bearing
of this argument. The amendment before
the Convention says that the people are to be
restricted in an unalienable right to reform,
alter or amend, at any time they think prop-
er, their organic law. My argument is that
they are the safest depositories of that power.
I have no disposition lo continue it. But 1
say that, believing that the people can be
more safely trusted than any clique, or party,
or faction, or Legislature whatever—believ-
ing that the people of the State stood by
the Government when these were trying
to drag it down—1 shall vote against the
amendment on the ground that I can trust
the people better than I can any man or set
of men. |
Mr. THOMAS demanded the previous ques-
tion, and the demand was sustained.
The amendment moved by Mr. Bond was
rejected.
The original amendment, moved by Mr.
Jones of Somerset, was rejected.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, moved to
amend by striking out all alter the word
"whole."
The CHAIR ruled the amendment out of
order, the previous question not being yet exhausted,
the vote not halving been taken upon
the section,
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
Mr. CLARKE. I call for the yeas and nays
upon the whole section. I understand the
rule of order to be this, in relation to the
previous question, as adopted by the Con-
vention :
" Its effect shall be to pat an end to all de-
bate, and to bring the Convention to a direct
vote upon pending amendments, and the spe-
cial matter to which they relate."
The main question here is the adoption of
the section, just as I contended the rule would
operate the other day when we adopted it.
The rule proposed by the committee would
not now have brought us to a vote upon the-
section at all. We should simply have voted
upon the amendments, and the section would
then have been open to amendment, and
after the amendments were exhausted we-
should have passed to the next section with-
out a vote upon this. But this rule brings
us at once to a vote upon this section, and
upon that question I call the yeas and nays.
Mr. DANIEL. It is merely upon the adop-
tion of the section upon its second reading.
The PRESIDENT. It is not usual to take a
vote upon a section upon Its second reading.
Mr. CLARKE. I agree that it is not under
the ordinary parliamentary rule, nor would
have been required if the House had adopted
the rule reported by the committee. But the
House has determined to order the main ques-
tion upon the section. We have had two
amendments and voted upon them, and the
rule now requires us to vote upon the special
matter to which they relate. These amend-
ments relate to this section.
Mr. STIRLING called the gentleman to order,
inquiring whether there could be adiscussion
on the point of order before its decision by
the Chair and an appeal.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair has the right to
invite the discussions with a view of eliciting
the sense of the Convention before giving his
decision. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. CLARKE resumed. The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Negley) the other day,
when we had this report under consideration
suggested this very difficulty, and stated that
if we adopted the rule which was offered by
the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Hebb) and
which is now incorporated in those rules, the
result would be that the Convention would |
