The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 44; nays 37—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Baker, Bar-
ron, Carter, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel,
Davis of Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Far-
row, Galloway, Greene, Hebb, Huffman,
Hopkins, Hopper, Jones of Cecil) Keefer.
Kennard, King, Larsh, Markey, McComas,
Mullikin, Murray, Negley. Noble, Nyman,
Pugh, Purnell, Robinette, Russell, Sands,
Schley, Sneary, Stirling, Sykes, Thruston,
Todd, Valliant, Wickard, Wooden—44.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, Pres't; Au-
doun, Belt. Berry of Balto. county, Berry of
Prince George's, Billingsley, Blackiston,
Bond, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown. Chambers,
Clarke, Crawford. Davis of Charles, Duvall,
Earle, Edelen, Harwood, Henkle, Horsey,
Johnson, Jones of Somerset, Landsdale, Lee,
Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Parker,
Parran, Peter, Scott, Smith of Carroll, Smith
of Dorchester, Thomas, Wilmer—37.
So the amendment was adopted.
Mr. KENNARD, when his name was called,
said: I have uniformly voted " No" upon
every amendment that has been submitted to
the consideration of the Convention to change
this rule, but in consequence of the spirit
which has been exhibited in the course of the
discussion of the question this morning, my
views have changed, and I now vote—Aye.
The vote having been announced,
Mr. CLARKE said: I raise the point of or-
der that the amendment has not been adopted.
I understand the Chair to have decided that
the amendment was adopted; and in order to
raise the question in form, I appeal from that
decision of the Chair, in order to test the sense
of the House upon that question.
Mr. CUSHING. I suggest that the gentleman
cannot appeal now, after the decision of the
question.
Mr. CLARKE. An appeal would not have
been in order before. Any decision prior to
the taking of the vote was premature. The
appeal could only be properly taken after the
decision of the Chair had been made; and I
immediately after the Chair had decided that
the amendment had been adopted by a majori-
ty consisting of 44 members, being less than
49. I appealed from that decision.
Mr. CUSHING. I raise the point of order,
that the appeal is not now in order, because
the specific questeon had already been raised
by the gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr
Berry) and decided.
Mr. CLARKE. He raised the point out of
order. He could nut properly raise the point
until the vote had been taken aiad the Chair
announced its decision upon that vote. I
could not have taken an appeal upon that de-
cision of the Chair, to which, the gentleman
refers, because no vote had been taken upon
which it could be predicated,
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Purnell) overruled
the point of order raised by Mr. Cushing, and |
requested Mr. Clarke to reduce his point of
order to writing,
Mr. SAKES. I think thepointoforderis
cout of order, for the Convention having voted,
it has decided the matter. The decision of the
Chair was simply the announcement of this
result of the vote After the vote had been
taken—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Purnell) announced
that the hour had arrived for taking up the or-
der of the day, the Declaration ofKights.
On motion of Mr. HISBB,
The consideration of the order of the day
was postponed until one co 'clock.
Mr. CLARKE read hisstaatementofthe point
of order, as follows :
*' Mr. Clarke, ofPriiaceGeorge's, appealed
from the decision of tiae Chair, declaring the
amendment of the Standing Rules offered by
tine gentleman from Baltiiaiore city adopted
by a vote of 44 in the affirmative and 37 in the
negative, upon the ground that tiae Rules of
Order having been adopted by a majority of
the members elected to this Convention, they
can only be changed by a vote of tiae majority
of the members elected to the Convention,
and upon the ground that aaccordingtc) parlia-
mentary practice, where it taakes a majority of
the members elected to any deliberative body
to adopt a rule, it requires the same number
to change or repeal."
Mr. CLARKE said: My explanation of the
reasons for the appeal, states tiais fiact, "the
Rules of Order having been adopted by a ma-
jority of the ineiiahers elected to this Conven-
tion." That was the fact, that they were
adopted by a majority of the nieinbers elected
to the Convention. That being the mode by
which the Rules were adopted, I say they can
only be changed by the same rule. Take the
caae of a. bill before the Legislature, it is re-
quired to obtain a clear anajority in both
Houses, is it argued for a moment that you
can bring in that bill again at the next session
or at the same session by less than a clear ma-
jority? Such a proposition was never assert-
ed. The parliamentary practice is that the
majority of members elected being the mode
of adoption, the same mode of change or re-
jection must be pursued, until the Convention
shall prescribe some other rule forsaach altera-
tion of its Rules. I do not deny the power of
tha Convention to prescribe soinae other mode
of changing the rules; but that must be clone
by a vote of a majority of the members elect-
ed to the Convention; and when thus adopted,
F that would become a Rule of the Convention
Mr. CUSHING. Upon what dcoes the gentle-
man predicate his statement that the P>.ules
- were adopted by a vote of a marjority of the
members elected to the Convention ?
Mr. STIRLING. Were not the Riilaa adopt-
^A nnunirnronsfy? If so. under the gentle-
man's construction of parliamentary practice,
would it not require unanimous consent to
change them ? |
