amendments proposed by the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Cushing) the debate has
been permitted to embrace both amendments.
Mr. HENKLE;. Then I hope that this amend-
ment will not be adopted. It seems to me
that this is an effort to repeal what is obvi-
ously a very good rule, in order to make it
consistent with what is doubtless a very bad
rule The Convention in the very first place
put itself into a very inconsistent position.
After adopting the rule requiring the votes
of a majority of all the members elected to
pass any article, it subsequently passed a rule
requiring only three-fifths of the members
present to suspend that rule. That placed it
in the power of only 30 members to suspend
a rule requiring the votes of 49 members to
pass an article of the Constitution.
Gentlemen who favor the proposed amend-
ment have said that it would be better for the
expedition of business that this rule should
be changed. Is it not better to suffer a little
inconvenience than to run the risk of hasty
action, and the adoption of such measures as
will not be sanctioned by the people? I as-
sume that unless a measure proposed here
can receive the sanction of a majority of the
members elected to this Convention, it better
not be adopted.
In the first place it is perfectly familiar to
all here that the majority of this Convention
did not receive the votes of a majority of the
legal voters of this State. However, I will
not argue that question. But is it probable,
if any measure proposed here can obtain the
votes of but a minority of this Convention,
it will be a fair representation of the wishes
of a majority of the people of this State? In
the Legislature the votes of a majority of the
members elected to each house is required to
pass any act, even of the most insignificant
and local character. Yet it has been con-
sidered right that in order for any measure
to take its place upon our statute-books, it
should receive the votes of a majority of the
members elected to each house of the Legisla-
ture. Then, for much more urgent reasons,
is it obvious that proposed amendments to
the Constitution, which affect the organic
law of the State, should receive the votes of
a majority of the members elected to this
Convention. The organic law is supposed to
be permanent. We are not making a Convention
to be repeated, or altered or changed
to-morrow. It is to be hoped that the Con-
stitution we may adopt will be permanent.
I would like to see a Constitution framed
here that will stand for ages to come. But
can we expect such will be the case, if its
provisions are adopted by the votes of but a
minority of this Convention? If we change
the rule as proposed, then this Convention
places it in the power of 26 of its members
—less than one-third of the members elected
—to adopt the most important measure which
may be placed in this Constitution. |
We have been sent here, and it is expected
of us that we will frame an organic law which
will be approved by the people. Gentlemen
who favor this amendment have argued that
our action here is not final; but that what-
ever we may adopt must be submitted to the
people, and if it is not proper the people can
reject it. Now is that an argument to be
urged in support of inconsiderate, hasty, in-
judicious action here? Is it intended to de-
grade the action of this Convention below
the status of a mere act of the Assembly ?
This rule applies to legislative action. Why
not apply the same rule to the action of a
Convention called together to frame an or-
ganic law for the State, which we hope will
stand and live for ages to come? The people
have sent us here to do this tiling, and to do
it in an acceptable manner to them, and it is
to be hoped that our work may lie accepted
by the people. But in order to secure that
result it is desirable that whatever is passed
here shall be passed by as unanimous a vote
as possible. The State has incurred great
expense in calling this Convention together.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars must be
expended to defray the expenses of this Con-
vention. And it is to be hoped that Conven-
tions may not be frequently called. It is
scarcely fourteen years since a Convention
assembled here at great expense to this State.
it is said that Convention did not adopt this
rule; then that is areason why we should
adopt it, for in less than fourteen years we
have been called together to frame another
Constitution for this State, and it is "a con-
summation most devoutly to be wished,"
that we may not have another Convention
shortly.
The question recurred upon the amend-
ment proposed by Mr. CUSHING to the 42d
Rule.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, called the
yeas and nays upon that question, and they
were ordered.
The question being then taken, by yeas
and nays, it resulted, yeas 39, nays 43, as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Baker, Car-
ter, Cunningham, Cushing, Davis of Wash-
ington, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway,
Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones
of Cecil, Keefer, King, Larsh, Mace, Markey,
McComas Mullikin, Negley, Noble. Nyman,
Pugh, Robinette, Russell, Schley, Schlosser,
Sneary, Stirling, Sykes, Thruston, Todd,
Wickard, Wooden—39.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Audoun, Barron, Belt, Berry of Prince
George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Bris-
coe, Brown, Crawford, Dail, Daniel, Davis
of Charles, Dennis, Duvall, Earle, Edelen,
Harwood, Henkle, Hodson, Horsey, Johnson,
Jones of Somerset, Kennard, Lansdale, Lee,
Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Murray,
Parker, Parran, Peter, Parnell, Ridgely, |
