the report introduced by a member. Another
member, under the rules of the convention,
called for a division of the question—a divi-
sion of the section, under the impression
that the section contained two questions
about which members could differ in opinion,
adopting the one and rejecting the other,
The adoption of one, and rejection of the
other branch, would of course have incor-
porated the branch adopted to the exclusion
of the other branch.
In this state of the case, the question
arises, and the chair is of opinion that it has
never yet been formally decided by the con-
vention, whether it is competent for a mem-
ber to move to reconsider that action, who
voted for one branch of the section and did
not vote for the other.
The object of reconsideration is to enable
the convention to retrace their steps, if an
error has been committed by surprise or in-
advertence, or if there should be a change in
the judgment or determination of the con-
vention. There is a. very broad latitude
allowed by our rules, for the motion to recon-
sider may be made at any time. This privi-
lege however is conceded only to those who
voted in the majority upon a question, it
is from them only that this motion can
emanate.
The subject then resolves itself into this
simple question: Is this section susceptible of
division under our rules? Does it embrace
distinct subjects? If so, in the judgment of
the chair any gentleman voting for either of
the branches of this section can move a re-
consideration. You cannot divide the sec-
tion now. If a gentleman that voted for the
flint branch of the section moves a recon-
sideration, it opens the entire section. Or if
a gentleman who voted in the affirmative
upon the second branch, and who may have
voted against the first branch, moves a re-consideration,
the whole question is open,
The effect of it is to give those who voted
in the majority upon either of these ques-
tions an additional privilege that is not
conceded upon a simple isolated question.
That is the only effect of the parliamentary
law, to give a member a double advantage,
in dividing a question; because if a member
who voted in the majority upon either branch
moves a reconsideration, the necessary conse-
quence of opening that branch is to open the
other. It is therefore the judgment of the
chair that the motion to reconsider is in order.
Mr. RIDGELY demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken upon reconsider-
ing the adoption of the section of the judi-
ciary report providing for the apprenticeship
of colored minors, the result was—yeas 38,
nays 23—as follows :
Yeas— Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun
Baker, Brooks, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel
Dellinger, Dent, Duvall, Ecker, Farrow, |
Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Henkle, Hopper, Kee-
fer, Kennard, Lansdale, Marbury, McComas,
Mitchell, Negley, Parker, Pugh, Purnell,
Russell, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Sneary,
Stirling, Stockbridge, Thomas, Wickard,
Wooden—38.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Belt, Brown, Carter, Crawford, Davis, of
Washington, Galloway, Hoffman, Hollyday,
Horsey, Jones, of Cecil, Larsh, Lee, Markey,
, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Parran, Ridgely,
Swope, Sykes, Todd, Valliant—23.
When their names were called,
Mr. MILLER said: I conceive the article
adopted to ie but a recognition of the exist-
ing laws of the State in reference to appren-
ticeship. All negro minors under the eman-
cipation clause after the constitution is
adopted, will become free and subject to the
operation of these apprentice laws; and it is
a matter of perfect indifference to me whether
the convention adopt this section or not.
Having voted however originally for the
proposition to incorporate this provision into
the constitution, and supposing that the ob-
ject of the reconsideration is to strike it out,
for the sake of consistency I vote " no."
Mr. SCOTT said: I was not here when this
question was up before, and I deem it due to
myself to say that us we have abolished
slavery by the action of this convention with
a considerable flourish of trumpets, I shall
with a great deal of pleasure vote to reson-
sider the matter in order to put an end to an
institution which we first declared was abol-
ished, and the existence of which we then
covertly attempted to prolong, I vote
' ' aye,' '
Mr. NEGELY at first voted "no, " but after-
wards said: As the gentleman from Wor-
cester moves the reconsideration, and as the
section can only affect the Eastern Shore,
1 will change my vote and vote "aye."
The motion to reconsider accordingly prevailed.
The question recurred upon the adoption
of the twenty-ninth section.
Mr. SYKES demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 18, nays 43—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Belt, Carter, Farrow, Hoffman, Jones, of Cecil,
Larsh, Markey, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Mullikin, Parran, Purnell, Ridgely, Swope,
Todd, Valliant—18.
Nays—Messrs. Abbutt, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Brooks, Brown, Chambers; Crawford,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of
Washington, Dellinger, Dent, Duvall, Ecker,
Galloway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Henkle,
Hollyday, Hopper, Horsey, Keefer, Kennard,
Lansdale, Lee, Marbury, McComas, Negley,
Parker, Pugh, Russell, Schley, Schlosser,
Scott, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes,
Thomas, Wickard, Wooden—43. |
