Mr. SCOTT. I will not ask to have it with-
drawn, if the result is to be what the Chair
has stated.
Mr. CLARKE. Before we determine to
amend the Journal, I would like to know how
the question would then stand.
The PRESIDENT. The withdrawal of the
original proposition to amend disposes of all
pending propositions to amend, and leaves the
article as it was reported by the Committee,
and subject to amendment.
Mr. CLARKE. Than I object to the amend-
ment of the Journal. I would rather vote
upon the question as it now stands,
The PRESIDENT. The House can relieve it-
self from its difficulties by voting down the
pending amendments, when the question will
come up on the article as originally reported,
which will then be open to amendments.
Mr. CLARKE. Is it necessary to vote upon
an article upon its second reading unless the
previous question is called upon pending
amendments? For instance, when the propo-
sition of the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr.
Greene,) was adopted, it become the 14th
article of the report, and there was no occa-
sion for a vote upon it, unless other amend-
ments were offered to it, and the previous
question was called upon the pending amend-
ments.
Mr. STIRLING. The proposition of the
gentleman from Alleghany, (Mr. Greene,)
was adopted not as the article, but in place of
the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. Scott.) Some members may have voted
for the proposition of the gentleman from Al-
leghany, because they wanted to thereby get
rid of the one submitted by the gentleman
from Cecil; while they would have voted
against the proposition of tiro gentleman from
Alleghany had it been brought forward as an
independent proposition to stand in the place
of this 14th article. I know that it did so
get votes, merely as a substitute for the
amendment first offered. And I understand
the Chair to rule that after a proposition is
adopted it cannot be amended except on the
third reading by permission of the House
under the rules.
The PRESIDENT. It can be amended by
adding to it; not by striking out any portion
of it This was the case this morning; the
question was upon the amendment of the
gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. Scott,) as amend-
ed by putting in it the phraseology of the pro-
position of the gentleman from Baltimore
city, (Mr. Stirling.) The gentleman from
Harford, (Mr. Galloway.) moved to amend
the proposition as amended, by striking out
all after the word at the commencement, and
inserting other words which be proposed.
The Chair ruled that out of order, as it was
not competent to move to strike out what the
House by its vote had declared should be in-
serted. The only way that could be accom-
plished was by reconsidering the vote adopt-
15 |
ing it iii place of the original proposition to
amend. Having been adopted, it can only be
amended by adding to it; but it is not com-
petent to move to strike out what the House
has declared deliberately its purpose to put in.
Mr. NEGLEY, The amendment of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) hav-
ing been withdrawn, after the vote adopting
it halving been reconsidered, the question was
upon the original amendment offered by the
gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. Scott.) To that
amendment the gentleman from Harford (Mr.
Galloway) moved an amendment, and the
question is now upon that amendment to the
amendment.
The PRESIDENT. That is the question now
betore the House.
Air. NEGLEY, I hope it will be adopted,
for it varies but little from the article as ori-
ginally reported. It substitutes the word
" prohibited" for the word " abolished" at the
end of the first clause, and leaves out the
words " on persons or property" in the last
clause. In every other respect it contains the
words and spirit of the original article. And
those of us, therefore, who were in favor of
the article originally reported by the Commit-
tee on the Bill of Rights, can obtain what we
desire, by voting for the amendment of the
gentleman from Harford, (Mr. Galloway.) It
has been fully discussed, and I believe we have
all made up our minds on it.
Mr. HEBB. What has become of my motion
to amend the Journal, so that it shall read
that the amendment of the gentleman from
Cecil (Mr. Scott) was withdrawn ?
Mr. SCOTT. I do not desire to have my
amendment withdrawn.
The motion to amend the Journal not be-
ing pressed to a vote, was tacitly passed over.
Mr. GALLOWAY. I feel a delicacy in ob-
truding myself upon the attention of the House
at this time; but I desire to say a few words,
and but a few in favor of the amendment 1
have offered. In preparing this amendment
1 tried to adhere as closely to the original arti-
cle, as it came from the hands of the commit-
tee, as I possibly could, and I have therefore
made but two or three changes in the words
of the article. This article is one which has
met with the approbation of the people of this
State for a long period of time. It is adapted
to every section of the State, and I have never
yet heard a single murmur uttered against it.
And even when some four or five years ago
the question of calling a Convention was pre-
sented to the people, they voted it down,
showing clearly that they had no objection to
this article at that time, or any other article in
the Declaration of Rights or the Constitution.
Now if there is a disposition here to impose
a capitation tax, or in other words a poll tax,
1 (lo hold that such a tax is grievous and op-
pressive, and ought to be prohibited. It is a
tax upon our young men, who own no pro-
perly , and who stand to-day as the safeguard |
