Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of
Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Galloway,
Greene, Hebb, Jones, of Cecil, Kennard,
King, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Russell, Schlosser,
Scott, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Stirling,
Stockbridge, Swope, Todd, Wooden—35.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Billingsley, Blackis-
ton, Brown, Chambers, Crawford. Dail, Da-
vis, of Charles, Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Hen-
kle, Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson, Lansdale,
Lee, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Par-
ran, Peter, Smith, of Dorchester, Turner—25.
The section was accordingly adopted.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, when his name was
called, said: I was cut off by the previous
question from explaining my views upon this
question, and I will therefore avail myself of
this opportunity to explain my vote. I have
heard it said over and over again that gentle-
men could not understand why members could
not vote for this oath, unless it was because
they were traitors. Now I think I have a rea-
son for not voting for this oath, one certainly
satisfactory to myself, and I think it will be
satisfactory to this convention; at least every
member who will divest himself of passion,
and let reason have sway. I do not think I
am the material of which to make a traitor.
That I might be driven to rebellion is possi-
ble; but that, thank God, I have never as
yet felt the necessity of doing. I hold that
this convention has no power to pass one
single section, paragraph, line or word in this
constitution, and adopt it and make it bind-
ing upon the people of this State at the elec-
tion when this constitution shall be submil-
ted to them for their ratification or rejection,
and I shall vote against this oath, because I
believe there is no such power in this conven-
tion . This oath to me would be just as easily
taken, and as easily kept, as the one I took
when I took my seat in this body. I can con-
scientiously take it, and I am sure I would
keep it. Beat I shall refuse to take it, and I
expect to vote without talking it, for that is
my determination, as I advertise here before-
hand. My reason for not taking it is not because
it is so very objectionable in its feature
or form, but because you have no right to re-
quire me to take in. If you will, put it in the
constitution, and let it go forth to the people
for their ratification. If they ratify the con-
stitution, and the oath with it, then I shall
not have the slightest objection, at any sub-
sequent election, to take it; and if I violate
it I will abide by the consequences. I vote
"no.''
After the result of the vote had been an-
nounced,
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, said: I now rise to
a personal explanation. When the gentleman
from St. Mary's (Mr. Billingsley) was making
his speech, the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Barron) interrupted him for a consider- |
able length of time. I arose and said that 1
hoped the gentleman from St. Mary's would
take his scat if he wars not allowed to proceed
without interruption. The chair made some
remark in reference to the gentleman from
Charles, myself, which I did not distinctly un-
derstand. I understood the chair to say that
the gentleman from St. Mary's would be al-
lowed to proceed without the interposition of
the gentleman from Charles.
The PRESIDENT. The president said that
the gentleman from Charles (Mr. Davis) need
not interpose, because the chair would see that
the gentleman from St. Mary's (Mr. Billings-
ley) was protected in all his rights.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, When one member
interrupts another, particularly for any consid-
erable length of time, I do not think it is at all
out of place for any friend of the member who
is interrupted to request him to take his seat
until be can proceed in order. I thought the
remark of the chair was entirely uncalled for,
and intended to be very unkind.
The PRESIDENT, The chair bad no unkind
feelings towards the gentleman; not the slight-
est. The chair only desired to assure the gen-
tleman from Charles (Mr. Davis) that he need
not interpose, because the chair would see
that the gentleman from St. Mary's was fully
protected in all his rights.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. The gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Barron) continued to in-
terrupt the gentleman from St. Mary's.
The PRESIDENT. The chair does not deny
that fact, beclause the chair interposed at
once upon the suggestion of the gentleman
from Charles.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. I accept very will-
ingly and gladly the explanation of the pres-
ident.
The PRESIDENT, The president does not
know that he has any explanation to make,
because there is no difference in point of fact
between the gentleman from Charles (Mr. Da-
vis) and the chair. The only point is that the
chair assured the gentleman from Charles that
he need not interpose as the chair would see
that the gentleman from St. Mary's was fully
protected.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. I think I had the
right.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has the
right, no doubt. But the chair did not in-
terpose from any unkind feeling.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. I am glad to hear
that. I did not understand the remarks of
the chair, and I wished to do so; tor the
reason that gentlemen on this floor called my
attention particularly to the fact, that the
chair had been unkind to me in his remarks;
and I myself had thought so. I never wish
to be captious, and I never object to any
thing said to me until I am sure it is in-
tended to be objectionable, or unkind to me.
The PRESIDENT. I assure the gentleman
that I do not entertain the slightest unkind |
