was done by the Legislature should be done
by the majority of the whole Legislature.
But we are sent here for a different purpose,
'with a specifc duty to perform; and the pre-
sumption is that any article we may act
upon will receive the votes of a majority of
the members. And to continue this restric-
tion upon our action is merely to put it in
the power of a minority of this house, when-
ever there is not a full attendance, by their
own act of absenting themselves to prevent
the passage of any article. In the Legisla-
ture it sometimes takes them several trials to
pass a law, for which it is perfectly well
known a majority of the inembers elected
would vote if present. Should there be, say
thirty-eight or forty members present, and
you get thirty-seven votes for a bill, yet it is
lost for want of the Constitutional vote;
though nine-tenths of the members present
may be in favor of the hill, and but one-tenth
opposed to it, yet it is defeated.
Now what reason is there for applying
such an extraordinary rule to the action of
this body? There is no analogy between the
two cases. We ought to plant ourselves
upon the ordinary parliamentary rule, that
the votes of the majority of a quorum of the
members present shall decide the action of
the body. If there are fifty members pres-
ent and thirty of them are in favor of any
article, and twenty opposed to it, why should
it not pass? Why should nine or ten more
votes be required to pass it? it is not to be
presumed that every member absent would
vote with the minority, but that the same
difference would be shown in their votes as
in the votes of those present. In short, as I
have said before, the provision now contained
in this rule is an exception, contained in the
Constitution of Maryland, and foreign to all
general principles of parliamentary law. It
was made for a particular purpose, which
purpose has no bearing upon the work which
this body is sent here to perform, and I see no
reason why we should adhere to this ex-
ception.
Mr. CUSHING. I desire to state what will
be the probable operation of this rule as it
now stands, as has been suggested to me by
some gentleman here. The average attend-
ance in this house so far has been seventy-
three. Now, if we adhere to the rule .as it
at present stands, one-fourth of the members
elected to this Convention will have a veto
power upon the action of this Convention,
provided the average attendance here contin-
ues the same that it has been. And gentle-
-men are afraid to give to the majority pres-
ent the right to pass finally upon any article,
while they are willing to place a veto power
in the hands of one-fourth of the members
elected, if the average attendance here does
not exceed seventy-three members.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I unders
stand that all deliberative bodies, in provid- |
ing rules for their government, do not seek
to provide rules for a contingency which may
or may not happen—but they provide arbi-
trary rules for their government, to prevent
the occurrence of what might be inconsistent
with the wise action of the body. Now, sir,
the Constitution of the State of Maryland
provides that no measure shall become a law
unless it receive the votes of a majority of
all the members elected to each branch of
the Legislature, Although the Convention
which assembled here in 1850 adopted the
majority rule, yet they saw that such a rule
would be unwise, that it would lead to hasty
action by the Legislature, and for that reason
they required that a majority of all the mem-
bers elected to the Senate and to the House
of Delegates should be given in favor of any
measure before it should become a law,
Now, if, in the wisdom of the Convention
which assembled here in 1850, it was neces-
sary to place this check upon hasty action by
the Legislature, is it not much more necessary
in the case of a Convention assembled to
frame an organic law for a State, which law
may last for years? An act of the General
Assembly may be passed at one session, and
may be repealed at the next session. But we
do not have Constitutional Conventions as-
semble every year, although the course indi-
cated by the majority here I am afraid will
lead to that result. And every party in the ascendancy
at any time will want a change in
the organic law, and I should not wonder,
should the course advocated by the majority
here be carried out, if we have every two
years at least, a Constitutional Convention
assembled for the purpose of effecting some
change in the organic law.
This rule, adopted upon serious consideration
and after much discussion, was adopted
as a safeguard for our action here. The bill
under which we are called together provides
that there shall be ninety-six members; that
at least sixty-five shall be elected before this
Convention shall be called together, and that
fifty of the members elected shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business—and
if we are governed at all by the spirit of this
law, I say that at least fifty votes are essen-
tial to the passage of any article by us.
I hope the Convention will hesitate before
they adopt this amendment, for it will lead, I
am satisfied, to the result I have already
stated, that twenty-six members out of the
ninety-six members elected to this Conven-
tion will be enabled to adopt any article in
this Constitution they may see fit to adopt,
Mr. THRUSTON. When this rule was before
us for consideration I opposed its adoption,
because I saw it would obstruct very much
the business of this Convention. I think the
Convention Bill prescribing what number of
members should constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business, and what number
shall constitute a complete Convention, is a |
