for. We have allowed the majority of the
members present, except in certain cases, to
determine everything. That is the rule of
all bodies of this sort. Resides, if we submit
the constitution to the people, and if they ratify
it, I say it cures all that is behind it.
Mr. GREENE, I move to reconsider the vote
by which the fifty-third rule was adopted;
and if that motion prevails I shall immedi-
ately move to strike out the provision that a
majority of the members elected shall be ne-
cessary to amend a report upon its third read-
ing. I think that will obviate the difficulty.
Mr. PUGH. I intended to suggest that that
is in effect the motion I made; because at the
time the object for which the rule was to be
suspended was distinctly stated. The object
was stated to be in relation to action upon
this amendment.
The PRESIDENT. The chair cannot enter-
tain a motion while the point of order is
pending.
Mr. PUGH. We are acting under the rule
which allows the convention to suspend any
rule which interferes with the action of the
body. That is the object for which the forty-
ninth rule was adopted. That was the inten-
tion of the framers of that rule, undoubtedly
that three-fifths of the members assembled in
this convention should determine that for the
time being, in order to accomplish a certain
stated purpose, a certain rule should not oper-
ate. They have so determined by one of their
rules, just as binding as any other rule, and
you must take the thing as a whole, for we
are acting under the rules and in conformity
with one of them. The convention have de-
termined that for the time being, for a specific
purpose stated, the fifty-third rule shall not
operate. I submit this point that in conform-
ity to the rules as a whole, this body have the
right, by a vote of three-fifths of the members
present, to suspend the rules for any purpose;
and having determined to do that, I submit
that there can be nothing in the rules to con-
flict with that action.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Cecil
(Mr. Pugh) has moved to suspend the fifty-
third rule. That fifty-third rule requires that
a motion to alter or amend a report upon its
third reading should, receive the sanction of
the majority of the members elected to the
convention, in order to prevail. After that
rule has been suspended it throws us back
upon the general principles of parliamentary
law, if those general principles are not in eon
flict with any other standing rules of the
house. If that general principle of parlia
mentary law is in conflict with any other
standing rule of the house, of course the par
liamentary law must give way to the rule
adopted by the convention.
The convention has decided under the forty
second rule that all questions without any
limitation, shall be decided by a majority of
the members present, except in the cases pro |
vided for. The fifty-third rule ie one of those
cases provided for. Therefore it was necessa-
ry to suspend that rule in order to enable the
majority to control this question The parli-
amentary practice standing in direct opposi-
tion to the forty-second rule is also controlled
by the forty-second rule. So that when you
suspend the rule requiring more than a major-
ity, the forty-second rule puts it in the power
of the majority of the members present to
control the question. That is the judgment
of the chair. The amendment is therefore in
order.
Mr. SCHLEY. I move to amend the amend-
ment so as to strike out "seventy-nine" and
insert "eighty."
The PRESIDENT The section was opened,
under the fifty-third rule to the specific amend-
ment indicated,
Mr, SCHLEY. This is a part of the amend-
ment, or the consequence of it.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman only moved
to open the report lo give Kent county two
members instead of one.
Mr. CUSHING demanded the yeas and nays
on the amendment submitted by Mr. HOLLY-
DAY, and they were ordered,
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 46, nays 19—as follows:
Teas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Belt, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Briscoe,
carter, Chambers, Clarke, Daniel, Dellinger,
Dent, Duvall, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Greene,
Hoffman, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey,
Kennard, King, Larsh, Lee, Markey, Miller,
Mullikin, Nyman, Parker, Parran, Pugh,
Purnell, Ridgely, Sands, Scott, Smith, of Car-
, roll, Smith, of Worcester, Stirling, Swope,
Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Turner, Wooden—46.
Nays—Messrs, Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Barron, Cunningham, Cushing, Davis,
of Washington, Farrow, Hebb, Keefer, May-
hugh, McComas, Murray, Negley, Russell,
Schley, Stockbridge, Wickard—19.
When their names were called,
Mr. BELT said: I was in favor of the propo-
sition supported by my colleague (Mr. Clarke,)
who introduced into this house what I regard
as the only true principle of representation,
that you should place it upon the sound basis
of population, and district the State, dividing
it so that every man in it, every resident
voter, should vote for one man. That not
being adopted, the convention having decided
to come down to a more arbitrary standard,
? my preference was to have the standard fixed
as it is in the present constitution. Seeing
that that will not bedone, and that giving to
Kent county one other member is an approach
to it, I shall, simply on that theory vote for
it, and upon no other ground. I have strong
- objections to the proposition as at first an-
nounced, giving an addition to Kent that is
not extended to Charles, St. Mary's, and other
- counties, but that is excluded from the ques- |
