inates from the fact that nobody has a right
to say, when two propositions are put in such
a form as to make one question, that a mem-
ber who is in favor of one of them shall not
vote for it unless be will vote tor the whole.
You have no right to say to a member, yon
must vote for the whole or against the whole.
The very reason for the rule allowing the
division of a question is to enable members
to vote for one portion of it who are unwill-
ing to vote for the whole. The idea that a
man must be friendly to a whole proposition
in order to have a right lo divide it, would
destroy the whole right of division. So
far as friendliness is concerned, it is often the
case that a member votes for a proposition
with a distinct statement that he intends to
move a reconsideration, and votes for it for
that reason.
After the proposition was divided, the ques-
tion was first on the first branch, and the
yeas and nays were taken on that, and then
the question was taken on the second branch,
and the yeas and nays were taken on that.
Now the rule is that any vote taken in the
convention may be reconsidered on motion
of any person who voted in the majority in
that vote. In this case, it is the more evi-
dent that a member voting for the first branch
can move to reconsider, because the first
branch of the proposition is really the sub-
stantive portion of it. The latter branch is
only a provision that the thing required to
be done by the first branch, shall be done in
a particular way. The first branch was the
real substantive thing. Strike out the first
branch, and the second falls as a matter of
course.
Mr. MILLER. If that were so, under the
rule you would have no power to divide it.
Mr. STIRLING. I think it could bedivided;
because the first branch was a substantive
proposition in itself. At any rate it was de-
cided that it could be divided, and that de-
cision cannot now be reversed. That decision
must stand. A division presupposes that
members will vote for one part and against
another. The power to vote under the rule
for reconsideration, is connected with the
power to change the vote, if it should be
effective But if you adopt the rule contended
for you say that a member voting for a prop-
osition that may prevail, upon a division of a
question, shall not move to reconsider; which
is a restriction of the right of reconsideration.
The gentleman says that somebody must
move the reconsideration of the section as a
whole who voted for it as a whole. There is
not a member of the convention who voted
for it as a whole. The vote was taken by
divisions. There were two questions, two
calls of the yeas and nays, and I hold that a
member who voted in the majority upon
cither of those two questions may move to
reconsider the vote upon that question.
Mr. PUGH. I was the party who called for a |
division of the question. I had no idea at that
time that in exercising my right to call for a
division of the question, I was putting myself
in such a position as to cut myself off from the
right that every member has here, when he
votes for a proposition that is carried to call for
its reconsideration if be wishes it to be re-
considered. I did not intend, when I called
for a division of the question to vote for
either branch of it; but there were several
members here who were perfectly willing': to
vote for the first part of it. But if I had de-
cided at that time lo vote for it, I should not
have been under the impression which the
gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridge-
ly) seems to wish to prevail here, that invot-
ing for that proposition which, as the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling)
says was the substantive proposition, the
question for the consideration of the house,
1 had cut myself off from being in a posi-
tion to move a reconsideration of the ques-
tion.
The gentleman from Baltimore county has
referred to Jefferson's Manual, and probably
he has some other authorities to refer to. 1
refer to our course in this convention from
its commencement until now.
Mr. STIRLING. It has been suggested to me
that the journal will show that upon the pre-
cise point of a divided question the motion to
reconsider has been entertained.
Mr. POSH, Yes, sir; that is the practice
of this convention. No man who ever voted
for any proposition has been denied the right.
No man here has ever questioned the right
of the member who voles in favor of any
question to move a reconsideration. The rules
show that the motion may be introduced by
any member who voted for the proposition.
It would be more particularly unjust now
since it has heretofore been the practice of the
convention to concede that rule for all who
voted in the majority in any instance.
Mr. HEBB. With regard to this question, 1
will say that those who voted for the first
branch of this proposition have the right
either to move the reconsideration of that
branch of the proposition, or to move the
reconsideration of the whole proposition.
After the first branch of the proposition was
adopted, and the second branch was adopted,
the chair passed over the proposition, in
other words, by the. consent of the whole
house the proposition was passed on its sec-
ond reading. Therefore every' member, in
that light, can be considered as entitled lo
move a reconsideration of the whole proposi-
tion. Those who voted in the majority on
the first branch of the proposition, could
move a reconsideration of that branch. Cer-
tainly these members could move a reconsideration
in one case or the other; and it is»
immaterial which.
The PRESIDENT. As the president under"
stands this subject, it arises on a section of |
