be tying its hands, that having put amend-
ments and calling the previous question, the
Convention must come to a vote upon the
proposition then before the Convention, which
would cut the Convention off from further
power of amendment. That was conceded in
the argument, corresponding with the view I
take of it. I do not see how any other con-
struction can be placed upon a rule so plain
and unambiguous. It is as plain as if it were
printed like A B C before you, and you
were called upon to read it.
Mr. DANIEL. It seems to me there is no
difficulty about it. I understand that the
Convention have called the previous question
because they want no further amendments.
They want to vote upon the section as it
stands. They have voted down the amend-
ments; and now upon the main question any
member has a right to call for the yeas and
nays; but it is simply upon the second read-
ing, precluding further amendment, and or-
dering the section to be engrossed for a third
reading.
Mr. NEGLEY. The very difficulty I sug-
gested the other day now arises at the very
first article of the bill of rights; I suggested
then—but the Chairman of the Committee
relieved my mind, and I was under the im-
pression that the difficulty was removed— this
difficulty. Suppose, we have an article before
us. It is not to be presumed that the com-
mittee upon any subject upon which this Con-
vention deliberates embodies the entire wis-
dom of the entire body. It is not only pos-
sible but very probable that the report of the
committee as it comes before the Convention
will be susceptible of emendation. The very
first article of the report is susceptible of
emendation, and as soon as it is rend, upon
its second reading, a member rises and is anx-
ious to offer an amendment representing his
peculiar views. The article is itself imperfect
and the amendment of A is imperfect. B
has another peculiar view, and he rises and
offers an amendment to the amendment; and
here the parliamentary process of emendation
stops. Then we have before us an imperfect
article, an amendment more imperfect, if you
please, and a atill more imperfect amendment
to the amendment.
There is a call for the previous question,
and it is sustained What is the operation
of that? You vote down the imperfect
amendment to the amendment. You vote
down the imperfect amendment, and you
stop all amendment of the imperfect article.
But the chairman of the committee suggested
the idea that the rule would not have that
operation; that we could vote down the bad
amendment to the amendment, and vote
down the bad amendment, and then the
original article not being on its third reading,
it would still be susceptible of amendment,
Mr. CLARKE. I think the gentleman mis-
apprehended the explanation of the gentle- |
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Kennard.)
The rule as reported by the committee is just
what the gentleman ascribes to the explana-
tion of the gentleman from Baltimore city.
The rule of the committee read in this way :
" Sec. 2. The previous question shall be in
this form: 'Shall the previous question be
now put?' It may be called on any amend-
ment offered to the report of any committee,
when the same is on its second reading; and
when demanded by a majority of the mem-
bers present, it shall, until it is decided, pre-
clude all further amendment and debate on
the question before the Convention, but shall
not preclude further amendments while the
said report is on its second reading."
That is the rule which the committee re-
ported and desired adopted, and it carries
out just what. the gentleman desires done;
but the Convention saw fit to reject it.
Mr. NEGLEY. I knew that the rule of this
Convention carried that out, but I under-
stood the chairman of the committee to sug-
gest that the amendment of the gentleman
from Allegany would substantially attain
the same object. That was my understand-
ing of his explanation, that if we adopted
the amendment of the gentleman from Alle-
gany we still would not tie our hands; or,
in other words, the majority of this Conven-
tion would not do the absurd and foolish
thing of tying ifs own hands.
Mr. BARRON inquired whose duty it was to
decide this question of order?
The PRESIDENT replied that it was the duty
of the President; but that he had the right
to permit this discussion to continue.
Mr. NEGLEY resumed: I am as desirous
that unnecessary debate shall be cutoff as
any man can he, and I shall vote to sustain
the previous question and vote down unne-
cessary amendments as often as gentlemen
offer them. But it will not do for the majority
of this House to tie its own hands.
The direction of its rules must of course be
presumed to be in the hands of the majority.
Mr. BARRON renewed the question of order.
The PRESIDENT said: The President has
the unquestionable right upon points of
order, if he desires it, to hear or to ask the
opinion of any gentleman in the Convention.
It is not to be supposed that the President at
all times will be prepared to enunciate his
views without hearing the views of other
gentlemen in the Convention. He is de-
sirous of hearing the views of gentlemen
upon both sides upon this question, reserv-
ing to himself the right, to decide the ques-
tion, the decision being subject to approval
or reversal upon appeal. The gentleman
from Washington will proceed.
Mr. NEGLEY resumed: I was about to say
that I hoped that the majority of this Con-
vention would not tie its hands by the force
of the rules, compelling the Convention to
adopt matters which their judgment did not |
