of the report of the committee on the judi-
ciary department.
Mr. FARROW, (seconded by Messrs. HEBB
and GREENE,) moved to reconsider the vote
by which the twenty-ninth section of the re-
port was adopted.
The section was the following :
" Sec. 29, It shall be the duty of the or-
phans' court of the several counties and the
city of Baltimore to bind out, until they ar-
rive at the age of twenty-one years for males,
and eighteen years for females, all negroes
emancipated by the adoption of this consti-
tution, who are minors, incapable of sup-
porting themselves, and whose parents are
unable to maintain them, subject to such reg-
ulations as are now or may hereafter be pre-
scribed by law; and in all cases the prefer-
ence shall be given to their former masters,
when in the judgment of the said courts
they are suitable persons to have charge of
them."
Mr. MILLER. I rise to a point of order,
whether the gentleman from Worcester (Mr.
Farrow) is entitled to make that motion. My
friend from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely)
who has looked at the authorities can make
the question clearer than I can, but I will
simply suggest that the point of order is this :
The motion is, after the convention has passed
upon this section as an entirety, to open it for
consideration as a whole section. The gen-
tleman from Worcester, who makes the mo-
tion, only voted in favor of incorporating one
branch of that section into the constitution.
He voted against the incorporation of the
second branch of the proposition. In order
to get the whole section open for considera-
tion, I say that the motion to reconsider must
come from some member of the convention
who voted in favor of both branches of that
proposition.
Mr. RIDGELY. When that section was un-
der consideration, and the house was called
to pass upon it, a division of the question
was asked for. It is on page 545 of the jour-
nal, [August 26.] On the first branch of the
proposition the gentleman who moved the re-
consideration voted in the affirmative. On
the second branch of the proposition they
voted in the negative. The point is this: that
on taking the vote on the second branch of
the proposition, the proposition became an
entirety. The vote being taken on the first
branch of the proposition, but half the vote
was taken. It became necessary to take the
other half of the vote to perfect the vote upon
the proposition. The vote being taken on
the second branch of the proposition, the
proposition became an entirety; and now it
exists as an entirety. It is in your constitu-
tion; and the motion to reconsider that as an
entire proposition must come from a member
who voted for it as an entire proposition, and
not from a member who voted for but one-
half. |
The only authority I have upon the sub-
ject, which is a very remote one, because 1
have not found that this question has ever
been raised, although I have made a very dil-
igent search through all the manuals that have
been in my reach, is one supporting the last
view that the proposition only becomes an
entire proposition after the question has been
taken upon all its branches, it is Jefferson's
Manual, page 184, sec. 36.
"When a question is divided, after the
question on the first member, the second is
open to debate and amendment; because it
is a known rule that a person may rise and
speak at any time before the question has
been completely decided, by putting the neg-
ative as well as affirmative side. But the
question is not completely put when the vote
has been taken on the first member only. One-
half of the question, both affirmative and
negative, remains to be put,"
And until the other half is put, the House
does not determine the question. That being
put, the question then becomes an entire ques-
tion, It is not susceptible of reconsideration by
branches. No motion could be entertained
to reconsider one branch of an entire propo-
sition. The only motion that could be en-
tertained would be a motion to reconsider
the whole proposition. The question is who
is entitled under the general rule to move a
reconsideration under' circumstances of this
kind, as having voted in the majority. I hold
that according to all reasonable views of the
subject, the party must show that he was
friendly to the measure, that he voted for the
whole proposition as an entire proposition.
If the question bad come before the house as a
whole proposition bewould have been found
with the majority. It is very clear that the
parties here who propose to reconsider were
unfriendly to the second branch of the prop-
osition, and could not have voted for the
proposition as a whole. Therefore the point
is raised that they are not competent as friends
of the proposition that was adopted, being
with the majority, to move to reconsider.
Mr. STIRLING, There is nothing in the
rules upon this subject except the proposition
in the 44th rule, which says :
' ' Rule 44. When a question has once been
decided in the affirmative or negative, a mo-
tion of reconsideration shall be in order, if
made by one member and seconded by two
others who voted in the majority; and no
motion for reconsideration shall be post-
poned or laid on the table."
Then the rule in regard to the division of
the question is this :
Rule 40. Any member may call for the
division of a question, which shall be divided,
if it comprehend propositions in substance so
distinct that, one being taken away, a sub-
stantive proposition shall remain for the de-
cision of the convention."
The principle of the right of division orig- |
