Mr. CLARKE. My colleague and myself
Toted "No "
Mr. STIRLING. Then it will require a unan-
imous vote with the exception of two mem-
bers to change them !
Mr. CUSHING. The record on the Journal,
page 21, is this:
" Mr. Daniel called up for consideration
the Report of the Committee on Rules,
(page 49.)
" Said Report was then taken up, read the
third time and concurred in, and the Rules as
reported adopted as Rules for the govern-
ment of the Convention."
Upon what does the gentleman base his as-
sertion that the Rules wore adopted by a ma-
jority of the members elected ?
Mr. CLARKE. The Journal is silent with
reference to the mode in which it was adopt-
ed; and it being silent, this becomes like a
question of evidence. It becomes necessary
to go outside of the record and examine the
facts, the res gestae. Now there were only
two votes, so far as I know, cast against it.
That being the fact, it results that they were
adopted by amajority of the members elected
to the Convention.
Mr. DANIEL. If they had been voted for
then by a majority of those present, and not
by a majority of those elected, would they not
have been adopted ?
Mr. CLARKE. I think not. I should have
raised the same point of order then. I intend-
ed to do it, if the case arose. I took that view
in committee that unless the Rules were
adopted by a majority of the members elected,
I should raise that point of order. But we
were then acting under the Rules of the
House of Delegates; and they may prescribe a
different rule.
Mr. HEBB, The Rules under which these
Rules were adopted were the Rules of the last
House of Delegates; and the Rule requires
majority of the members present to adopt a
report.
"Rule 28. All questions except on the final
passage of a bill or a motion to suspend the
Rules, or those otherwise herein provided for,
shall be determined by a majority of the mem-
bers present; those dividing in the affirmative
rising in their places, those in the negative
continuing in their seats, and so, vice versa, un-
til a decision by the Speaker."
Mr. CLARKE. We have in all our proceed-
ings assimilated reports coming from Stand-
ing Committees to bills on their final passage.
We put this report through three readings.
Therefore when it came up for final adoption,
it came up as the passage of a bill would come
up. Therefore I regard Rule 28 as not ap-
plying; but we adopted the report under Rule
29th, although we did not follow it out en-
tirely. That Rule is :
"Rule 29. The question on the final pas-
sage of a bill shall always be determined by
yeas and nays, which shall be recorded on the |
Journal; and unless it shall thus appear that
a majority of the whole number of members
elected to the House have voted in the affirm.
tive, the bill shall be declared rejected."
Mr. HEBB. Then the Rules were not adopt-
ed at all.
Mr. CLARKE. Then I will raise the point
whether these are our Rules.
Mr. CUSHING. Reports of Standing Com-
mittees we regarded as bills; but was not this
a Special Committee ?
Mr. CLARKE. I regard any report from a
committee appointed here, as in the nature
of a bill.
Mr CUSHING, Then the report of the com-
mittee appointed to wait on Gen. Wallace
and others and invite them here, was in the
nature of a bill and should have been read
three times.
Mr. CLARKE. They did not bring in a re-
port.
Mr. CUSHING. The chairman of the com-
mittee reported to the Convention that they
had performed the duty assigned I them.
Mr. CLARKE. We had not then adopted the
Rules. Probably if we had adopted the Rules,
that would have had to go through three read-
ing's. I think the 29th Rule is the one under
which the vote should have been taken; and if
the President failed to call the yeas and nays,
it was an omission to which any member
might then have objected; hut the decision of
the Chair that they were adopted having been
acquiesced in, it may be contended that that
waived the irregularity, or the point might be
taken with considerable weight that the Rules
never have been adopted according to the
Rules of the House of Delegates by which we
were then governed. My last point is, that
according to parliamentary practice, the same
majority is required to reject or charade a pro-
vision, as was required to adopt it: that is, in
this case, a majority of the members elected.
Mr. DANIEL moved to lay the appeal on the
table.
Mr. CLARKE demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 49; nays 30—as follows :
Yeas— Messrs. Goldsborough, Pres't; Abbott,
Annan, Audoun, Baker, Berry of Balt. county,
Brooks, Carter, Cunningham, Cushing, Dan-
iel, Davis of Washington, Dellinger, Earle,
Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Hebb,
Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil,
Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh, Markey, Mc-
Comas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Noble, Ny-
man, Pugh, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Scott,
Smith of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Sykes,
Thomas, Thruston, Todd, Valliant, Wickard,
Wooden—49.
Nays—Messrs. Barron, Berry of Prince
George's Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond,
Briscoe, Brown, Chambers. Clarke, Crawford,
Davis of Charles, Duvall, Edelen, Harwood,
Henkle, Hodson, Horsey, Johnson, Jones of |
