the drift of my remarks, that we have got
ourselves into the very difficulty I predicted
we would be in whenever that rule came up.
My construction of the rule is that it applies
to the article, and upon that I called for the
yeas and nays.
Mr. THOMAS. Before the question is de-
cided, I wish lo refer the Chair to page 83 of
the Journal, (May 20th,) where Mr Briscoe
submitted the following amendment to Rule
54, to add the words :
—" but the application of this rule shall not
apply to reports or articles under considera-
tion upon the second reading."
That was decided in the negative, indicat-
ing, as I understand it, that the previous
question may be called upon the second
reading.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair has no diffi-
culty with regard to this question The rule
is very clear and very explicit. The Conven-
tion has determined to reverse the well known
parliamentary rule relating to the previous
question Under parliamentary law the pre-
vious question is not known upon the second
reading of a bill, because it is read. by section,
and subject to amendment without any lim-
itation or restriction. This Convention, how-
ever, has determined to reverse that rule and
adopt the standing rule that the previous
question shall be applicable to the second
reading. I see but one construction that can
be placed upon this 54th Rule. After the
previous question has been called and sus-
tained, the vote must be taken upon the sec-
ond amendment, then upon the first amend-
ment, and then it brings us to a direct vote
upon the section, which precludes all amend-
ment. After the vote Iras been taken upon
the section, there is no way to reach that
section except by reconsideration; and the
reconsideration would place the matter ex-
actly in the position where it originates.
The Convention has also reserved to itself the
privilege of amending the hill upon its third
reading. Here also the standing rule has re-
versed the usual parliamentary rules. It was
the desire of the Convention to make the pre-
vious question applicable to the second read-
ing, and for that reason the committee
attempted to distinguish between the main
question and the previous question. There
is no such distinction known in parliament-
ary law. The previous question is the main
question; it includes the main question and
the pending amendments. Under the 54th
Rule it is applicable not only to the amend-
ments but brings the House to a direct vote
upon the section, the special matter to which
the amendments relate. If that had not been
inserted, it would have been competent for
the Convention to take the vote upon the
amendments, and after the vote upon the
amendments the section would have been
still open to amendment. But as the rule
stands, the President rules the point taken by |
the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Clarke) to be correct, that the question must
now be taken upon the section, upon which
he has called the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MILLER demanded a division of the
question.
The question was stated upon the first
branch of the section, as follows :
"That all government of right originates
from me people, is founded in compact only),
and instituted solely for the good of the
whole."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Is the question now be-
fore the Convention: Shall this article be
adopted? or. shall this be considered the sec-
ond reading of this article ?
The PRESIDENT. It is only upon the second
reading, it then passes over to a third read-
ing, when it will be perfectly competent for
the Convention to reject the whole.
The question being taken the result was—
yeas 83; nays 0—as follows :
yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron,
Belt, Berry of Prince George's, Billingsley,
Blackiston, Bond, Briscoe, Brown, Carter,
Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Cunningham,
Cushing, Dail, Daniel, Davis of Charles, Da-
vis of Washington, Dellinger, Dennis, Earle,
Ecker, Edelin, Galloway, Greene, Harwood,
Hatch, Hebb, Henkle, Hodson, Hoffman,
Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, John-
son, Jones of Cecil, Jones of Somerset,
Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh, Lee, Mace,
Marbury, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Miller,
Morgan, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman,
Parker, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Rob-
inette, Russell, Sands, Schley, Scott, Smith
of Dorchester, Smith of Worcester, Snea-
ry, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope. Sykes,
Thomas, Thruston, Todd, Valliant, Wickard,
Wilmer, Wooden—83.
Nays—None.
So the first clause was unanimously adopted.
The question being then taken upon the sec-
ond branch of the article, the result was—
i yeas 72: nays 11—as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron,
Belt. Blackiston, Bond, Brown, Carter, Chambers,
Clarke, Crawford, Cunningham, Cush-
ing Dail, Daniel, Davis of Charles, Davis of
Washington, Dellinger, Earle, Ecker, Edelen,
Galloway, Greene, Harwood, Hatch, Hebb,
Henkle, Hodson, Hoffman, Hollyday, Hop-
kins, Hopper, Horsey, Johnson, Jones of Cecil,
Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh, Mace, Marbu-
ry, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Morgan, Mul-
likin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Pe-
ter, Pugh, Purnell, Robinette, Russell, Sands,
Schley, Smith of Worcester, Sneary, Stir-
ling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Thruston, Todd, Valliant, Wickard, Wood-
en—72.
Nays—Messrs. Berry of Prince George's |
