that rule will not be adopted. We had a
very full discussion on the propriety of adopt-
ing this 42d Rule, when it was under con-
sideration by this Convention. It was then
shown that under the law which called us
together, this body consisted of 96 members,
50 of whom should constitute a quorum.
Now if the amendment proposed by the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Cushing)
be adopted, then 26 members of this Conven-
tion may pass any article which may be pro-
posed to be inserted in the Constitution which
we were sent here to frame. Now would the
people be satisfied with a Constitution, the
organic law of their State, which had been
passed by but 26 of the 96 members of this
Convention? Would not the people regard
the Constitution submitted to them as having
received more attention and consideration,
and as embodying more wisdom, if we re-
quired that each article should receive on its
final passage the affirmative votes of at ma-
jority of all the members elected to this Con-
vention, rather than a mere majority of the
members present ?
I do hope this Convention will hesitate
long before they adopt this amendment. I
am satisfied its adoption will lead to hasty
action upon the part of this Convention, and
that many articles will be passed upon with-
out due consideration. I hold that no body
called together as this body is, should pass
finally any portion of the Constitution it
may frame, without giving in its favor the
votes of a majority of all the members elected
to that body. Such is the wise and discreet
rule adopted by all deliberative bodies from
time immemorial. Gentlemen may say that
this rule was not followed by the Convention
of 1850. That is true, and I do not know
why it was that that Convention did not
have such a rule as this. But in most de-
liberative bodies—for I believe that Conven-
tion was an exception to the general rule—
the final passage of any subject-matter be-
fore it requires the affirmative vote of a ma-
jority of all the members elected.
I hope either that the gentleman will with-
draw his amendment, or that it will be voted
down by this Convention, for I consider this
rule as it now stands the greatest safeguard
we have for the proper consideration of every
matter before us.
Mr. CUSHING. I have made the motion to
change this rule from a conviction that it
would tend to the progress of business be-
fore this Convention to have the decision of
all questions rest upon the general rule, the
votes of a majority of the house. The gen-
tleman from Prince George's (Mr. Berry) ap-
parently bases his remarks upon the assump-
tion, in his own mind, that at no time will
there be more than fifty members in the house.
But with the spirit which the gentleman has
shown, and which I believe actuates all the
other members of this Convention, then on all |
occasions of important votes there will be a
full attendance here of the inembers of this
Convention. All that the gentleman has to
do to insure that a majority of all the mem-
bers elected shall vote for the final passage of
any article, is to secure the attendance of the
members elected to this Convention. If the
members will not come, if the assumption of
the gentleman is correct that only fifty mem-
bers will be here, then after this Convention
has remained here as long as the other Con-
vention did, this rule would require us to go
home without passing' one article of the Con-
stitution which we are sent here to make, and
the whole decision of the questions before us
may be lost for want of the votes of the ma-
jority of the members elected, unless in each
case the votes of three-fifths of the members
present can be secured for a suspension of the
rules.
Mr. STIRLING. It seems to me that the
amendment proposed by my colleague is ob-
viously a proper one. And it strikes me
—if I am incorrect, some gentleman in the
Convention more familiar with parliamentary
rules can correct me—it strikes me that the
ordinary parliamentary rule in every body is
that a majority of a quorum decides the ac-
tion of the house.
The rule as it now stands, and which it is
proposed to amend, is a practice established
by the Constitution of this State, and is an
exception to the general rule. The reason
for that rule as applied to our Legislature is
one which has no application to this Conven-
tion. On the contrary, the circumstances
which induced the former Convention to
place that restriction upon the action of the
Legislature, are precisely opposed to the cir-
cumstances under which this Convention is
assembled. This Convention has been called
together, charged by tire people of this State
with the duty of making a Constitution.
We are here, however, only for the purpose
of putting in such articles in the Constitution
which we may think best adapted to the re-
quirements of the people of the State, upon
which the people are to pass finally, not this
Convention. And to adopt a regulation in
regard to our action which will prevent us
from accomplishing what we are sent here to
perform, unless a majority of all the members
elected shall agree to it, is, I think, a contra-
diction ill terms.
Now the Legislature is not sent here to
pass any particular law, but to exercise a
general supervision over the interests of the
State subject to legislative action. It is a
body which sits for a long period of time,
and there may be a necessity to guard against
hasty action. And in order to promote de-
liberation in regard to acts which affect the
people of the whole State, and the errors
in which cannot be corrected except by
electing a new Legislature, this provision
was put in the Constitution, that whatever |
