approve. By allowing the opportunity of
amendment we can control it. We can call
the previous question and vote down amend-
ments. It is not to be presumed that they
will be offered eternally. The opposition
will get tired of it; or if they do not, we
can introduce a rule to limit it in some way.
I am opposed to our tying our own bands.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. This whole matter, it
seems to me, elucidates what took place at
the time of the adoption of this rule. While
the report of the Committee on Rules was
under consideration, the gentle-main from Al-
legany proposed the rule which is now the
54th rule. As originally proposed, it was in
these words:
" It shall only be 'admitted when demand-
ed by a majority of the members present,
and 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 sec-
tion of the Constitution then under consid-
eration."
It was suggested, precisely as the gentle-
man from Washington (Mr. Negley) has now
suggested, that that might compel us to act
upon an imperfect section. To obviate that
very difficulty, that if the previous question
was called it would require a vote at once on
the section, the gentleman from Allegany,
after consideration, amended his original
proposition by striking out the words "and
the section of the Constitution then under
consideration," and inserting the words
"and the special matter to which they re-
late." After full explanation upon all sides
that amendment was received into the rules
and is now the 54th rule. I thought it was
understood on all aides that it applied to the
amendments then pending and the special
matter before the Convention, whether that
was a whole section or pan of a section.
Many sections might come before the Con-
vention embodying entirely distinct proposi-
tions and different special matters.
Mr. CLARKE. It will be remembered that
when the gentleman from Allegany submitted
his modification of his original proposition,
inserting "special matter" instead of "sec-
tion," the question was put to him what he
meant by special matter. An explanation
was asked and demanded from this side of
the House, and he remained quiet and did not
open his lips. He could not give an expla-
nation.
Mr. HEBB. I stated that it was for the
President to decide when the question arose.
1 did not remain silent.
Mr. CLARKE. That agrees exactly with
what I was saying. He said it would be for
the President to decide, and failed lo give us
any explanation. Then as a direct explana-
tion and definition of the rule offered by the
gentleman, I offered the amendment to strike
out the words "special matter" and insert
"distinct proposition." That was some |
thing, as I told the House then, which was
tangible, and upon which the President, when
he brought his mind to act upon the subject,
would be able to decide. That was voted
down. The gentleman from Baltimore city
rose and said that the words "special mat-
ter" would be definite enough, and could be
determined; it might be this, or that, or the
other. I then intimated to the House that
they would find by the adoption of this inex-
plicable language, that whenever the point
was raised what the main queation applied lo,
we would have this same discussion.
Now I ask the gentleman to tell me what
is the special matter here. Is it that "all
government of right originates from the peo-
ple?" That is a distinct proposition. That
is a special matter, if I were disposed to go
into a discussion of that matter, I might, say,
as some do, that government is of divine
origin; that it does not originate from the
people, that if you examine the history of
the world, a great many of the present gov-
ernments will be seen to be founded on force.
We come then to the next clause, " is founded
incompact only." Now what does "com-
pact" mean?
Mr. PUGH. If the words "distinct propo-
sition " were substituted for the words "spe-
cial matter" as the gentleman proposed,
would he have more light on the subject?
Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir; as I halve stated,
my view is that the question whether "all
government of right originates from the peo-
ple," is a distinct proposition.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Is that the one to which
these amendments relate?
Mr. CLARKE. No; I was speaking of that
part of the section. The amendments would
refer to the last part. But my amendment
was not adopted, and therefore the question
is what special matter it is to which the
amendments relate.
Mr. CUSHING. The Chair has already de-
cided what the special matter is; that it is the
first article of this Declaration of Rights.
Mr. CLARKE. That is the very ground 1
took, and I called the yeas and nays upon it;
and when I called the yeas and nays upon it
the gentleman from Baltimore city expressly
said that it did not refer to the section. 1
contend that it is impossible under the rule
we have adopted to determine what it does
apply to. Government "is founded on com-
pact, only." Is that a special matter? It is
adistinct proposition. " And instituted solely
for the good of the whole." A great many
governments are instituted which are not for
the good of the whole; and if the Convention
carries out some of the dogmas which it is ex-
pected will beadvocated here, I would like to
take issue upon the question whether the
government we should form would be for the
good of the whole. Then comes the right of
revolution. That is another proposition. 1
am only showing, and I think gentlemen see |
