money, I know that the sentiment of the
people everywhere was against the action of
the last general assembly in this respect. I
do not care what decision this convention
comes to, I as one of its members, entertaining
the opinion I do, shall positively decline to
take this money out of the State treasury. I
therefore vote '' no."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. The gentleman from
Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely) submitted an
order to the convention, to which the gentle-
man from Queen Anne (Mr. Lee) proposed
an amendment. Upon which of those propo-
sitions is the motion to reconsider ?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Purnell.) Upon both,
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. There were two distinct
motions.
Mr. BELT. I never heard of anybody who
doubted on a question of this sort.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I made an inquiry of
the chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The chair understood the
motion to be to reconsider the whole subject;
the order of the gentleman from Baltimore
county (Mr. Ridgely) as amended, on motion
of the gentleman from Queen Anne (Mr.
Lee.)
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. It was not amended;
' the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Both the order and the
amendment were lost.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE, Then I vote "no."
The order submitted by Mr. RIDGELY was as
follows:
" Ordered, That the president of this con-
vention be allowed a per diem of six dollars,
and that the committee on accounts audit his
account accordingly."
To which Mr. LEE proposed to add the fol-
lowing:
" And that the committee on accounts be
hereby instructed to audit the mileage ac-
count of each member of this convention ac-
cording to the joint resolution of the general
assembly of this State at its last session, ad-
justing the mileage of the members of that
body."
The question was upon the amendment pro-
posed by Mr. LEE.
Mr. SCHLEY. I call for the order of the
day, the hour of eleven having arrived.
Mr. MILLER moved that the order of the day
be postponed until half past eleven o'clock.
Upon this question Mr. STOCKBRIDGE called
for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question was then taken by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 41, nays 21—as fol-
lows :
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Audoun, Barron,
Belt, Berry, of Baltimore county, Bond,
Brooks, Carter, Crawford, Cunningham Dail,
Davis, of Charles, Dellinger, Dent, Duvall,
Gale, Hatch, Henkle, Hodson, Hollyday, Hor-
sey, Jones, of Cecil, Jones, of Somerset, Lans-
dale, Larsh, Lee, Marbury, Markey, Mayhugh,
.Miller, Morgan, Negley, Ridgely, Schlosser, |
Smith, of Dorchester, Swope, Sykes, Turner,
Wickard, Wilmer, Wooden—41.
Nays—Messrs. Annan, Baker, Daniel, Eck-
er, Farrow, Greene, Harwood, Hebb, Hoff-
man, Keefer, Kennard, McComas, Mullikin,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Russell, Schley, Scott,
Stirling, Stockbridge—21.
The order of the day was postponed accord-
ingly,
Mr. GALE moved the previous question,
which was seconded, and the main question
ordered.
The question was upon the amendment of-
fered by Mr. LEE.
Upon this question Mr. STOCKBRIDGE called
for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question was then taken by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 38, nays 33—as fol-
lows ;
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Audoun, Barron,
Belt, Berry, of Baltimore county, Bond,
Brooks; Carter, Crawford, Dail, Dellinger,
Dent, Duvall, Gale, Hatch, Henkle, Hodson,
Hollyday, Jones, of Cecil, Jones, of Somerset,
King, Lansdale, Larsh, Lee, Marbury, May-
hugh) Miller, Morgan, Negley) Peter, Ridgely,
Smith, < of Dorchester, Swope, Sykes, Turner,
Wickard, Wilmer, Wooden—38.
Nays—Messrs. Annan, Baker, Cunning-
ham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Charles, Da-
vis, of Washington, Ecker, Farrow, Gallo-
way, Greene, Harwood, Hebb, Hoffman, Hor-
sey, Keefer, Kennard, Markey, McComas,
Mitchell, Mullikin, Nyman, Parker, Pugh,
Purnell, Russell, Schley, Schlosser, Scott,
Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Thomas—33.
The amendment was accordingly adopted.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the
following explanations were made by mem-
bers as their names were called :
Mr. DANIEL. Believing, as I have already
stated, that this proposition is contrary both
to law and principle, and calculated, if it pre-
vails, merely to despoil the treasury of so
much money, I shall vote against it. And if it
is adopted, I shall feel it to be my duty to re-
turn to the treasury of the State the amount
1 may receive under this proposition, I am
very sorry to see that a great many members
who have been here least are the most anxious
in advocating this amendment. I vote "no."
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. Some of my friends
around me seem to think that this is a mere
question of law. Now I do not differ with
them at all in regard to the construction of
the law. I believe the law is on the side of
those who contend that they have a right to
this extra compensation. But I do not believe
the people of the State so understood it.
I know I did not so understand it at the time
of the election. Believing that the people did
not understand the law in that way, I am
compelled to vote "no."
Mr. MITCHELL. I shall vote against this
order in the first place, because, notwithstand-
ing the elaborate arguments by which it is |
