the whole operations of the Convention can
do so, although a proposition may receive the
votes of 48 out of the 50 members present.
It rests in the power of two men therefore to
prevent the passage of an article, if the attend-
ance is not over 50.
With the average attendance we have had
here since the Convention met, it will be im-
possible to pass any section to any article that
may he presented here, if the majority of the
House disagree among themselves in their
views upon it. The only things that will he
passed, will he those things upon which mem
bers are divided strictly by a party vote. The
last Constitution was formed by a majority
not of the members elected to the Conven-
tion, but of the members present. Most of
the provisions were passed in that Convention
by a minority of the members elected to it,
Yet it has been reserved to gentlemen of this
Convention to bring that up as a reason and
an argument why the Constitution so formed
will not be accepted by the people, and cannot
command their vote. Was not the last Con
stitution founded upon exactly the same rule
which I propose that we shall adopt? Yet
that Constitution was accepted by the people,
although it was then alleged that the action
of the Convention was invalid, and that they
had violated the spirit of their duties by pass-
ing it without a majority vote. Why then is
it to be claimed here that our actions will not
be valid, and will not command the respect of
the people if the majority of the members
elected do not vote for every provision of it?
If the inembers elected are not here to vote
upon the provisions of the Constitution, it
strikes me that it is the fault of the members
who do not come. I think the question re-
solves itself into the very plain question wheth
er the members of this body desire to do the
work they were sent here to do, or do nut
desire to do it. If they desire to do the work,
they will take what is the clearly recognized
rule of all deliberative bodies that a majority
of a quorum shall decide all questions that are
before the body. I have hardly ever heard of
the application to any other rule, except in the
Legislature of Maryland, and that is because
the action of the Legislature is final; because
it passes laws affecting particular individuals ;
and because there is no appeal. Our acts are
not final; they do not relate to particular
individuals, but to the formation of the organ-
ic law, and the people are to decide upon
them at the polls.
Are we to stay hers then until we can con-
trol a full attendance of members, so as to
secure to every proposition 49 votes? The
law that called us together, designated 65 as
the number capable of performing all the work
required of this Convention. Yet we are re-
quired to bind ourselves that 49 out of 65 shall
be required to pass any part of the organic
law. It seems absurd to gentlemen that un-
der the possibility of an attendance of only |
50, 26 should decide; but the game discerning
mind that has taken in and comprehended the
absurdity of that proposition has not appar-
ently comprehended the absurdity of requiring
that upon an average attendance of this House
24 members, or upon an attendance of 50,
two members can stop the legislation of the
body. Now if there is anything ill the argu-
ment that 24 members ff this Convention
have more reason to control its legislation than
36 members, going upon the principle that
the lower the number the calmer the delibera-
tion, and that two is the filling number to
prevent any legislation at all, it that is the
idea of members, or if they do not want to
do the work before the Convention, then by
all means let us set them the example of the
majority of this House tying its own hands,
and proclaiming that a majority of the mem-
bers present at any meeting of this Coiiveiation
are not capable of decicliaig a pruposion put
before them, and finally reduce ourselves to
the necessity of changing thii> rule when we
come to deal with a question that may excite
a great deal of discussion, or else coine to a
dead lock.
lii reference to the remarks of my friend
from Prince George's (Mr. Berry) that these
propositions are brought up here day after
day, and the time of the House consiiined, I
will remind him that day after day means
more than once. this day upon which we
are considering this amendiiieiit, is only the
second. Upon the first day that the question
came up, on my first notice, no action was
taken; but I amended my proposition, and
under the ruling of the chair, it wont over to
the next day. aVIy sole object in bringing up
the question a second time to-day, is that troia
the nearness of the vote yesterday, I was coo-
vinced that when members came to reflect,
some of them would change their minds, and
I thought that other members who might be
disposed to change the rule to make it con-
form to the practice of deliberative bodies,
might be here. I will ask that the vote be
taken today, and I will consider that vote de-
cisive. It it is the will of the majority of
of the members to make this rule an ab-
solute one, I have no objection; but I must
honestly and sincerely tell tliem that they are
so binding themselves, and so far departing
from the principle which generally governs
legislation that they may possibly regret it.
Mr. STIRLING. I have but a few words to
say. if inembers of the Convention will
look at the Journal of yesterday, they will
find a practical exemplification of the working
of the rules of the Convention as it at present
stands,
Mr. MILLER. On what page ?
Mr. STIRLING. passim. We Had yester-
day a very large attendance of this body. We
have a large attendance this morning. THE
attendance yesterday consisted of 83 members.
If gentlemen will look at this Journal, they |
