coe, Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Davis of
Charles, Dennis, Duvall, Edelen, Harwood,
Henkle, Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson, Jones
of Somerset, Lee. Marbury, Mitchell, Miller,
Morgan, Parran, Smith of Dorchester, Tur-
ner, Wilmer—28,
Nays— Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Baker, Barron, Berry of
Baltimore county, Carter, Cunningham,
Cushing, Daniel, Davis of Washington, Del-
linger, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway,
Greene, Hebb, Hopkins, Jones of Cecil, Keefer,
Kennard, King, Larsh, Mace, Markey, McCo-
mas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, No-
ble,Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Robinette,
Russell, Sands, Schlosser, Scott, Sneary, Stir-
ling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Thruston, Todd, Valliant, Wickard, Wood-
en—52.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the
following explanations were made by gentle-
men, as their names were called :
Mr. BERRY, of Baltimore county. I am per-
fectly satisfied with the article in the bill of
rights as reported originally by the Commit-
tee on the Declaration of Bights. I shall
vote in favor of no amendment to it, and
therefore vote " no,"
Mr. MARBURY. I consider the principle in-
volved in the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stirling,)
as decidedly the most infamous proposition
yet presented to this Convention; and there-
fore I shall vote for the amendment offered by
my colleague, (Mr. Clarke,) as somewhat
modifying the horrid nature of that proposi-
tion. I vote ''aye."
Mr. MILLER, I prefer the original article
as reported by the committee; but as I con-
sider the amendment of my friend from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke) an improvement upon
the amendment of the gentleman from Balti-
more city, (Mr. Stirling), I vote "aye."
Mr. STIRLING}. I merely want to say in
answer to what was said ley the member from
Prince George's, (Mr. Marbury), that this in-
famous proposition of mine—
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is not in
order.
Mr. STIRLING—(continuing)—is the origi-
nal article of the bill of rights of 1776, upon
which he pronounced such a eulogy the other
morning.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is not in
order; but will take his seat,
Mr. STIRLING. But, Mr. President—
Mr, CHAMBERS. I hope the rules of order
will be enforced, or there is no use in having
any,
Mr. STIRLING. Why should the rules of
order be enforced upon me, and not upon a
member who applies an insulting epithet to a
proposition which the Convention has under
consideration?
The PRESIDENT. If there is any remark
made insulting to the Convention, or any of |
its members, the Chair will regard it as his
duty to call the one so making it to order.
But the Chair did not suppose that the gen-
tleman from Prince George's (Mr. Marbury)
intended to say anything insulting to the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling)
or to the Convention. I am sure the gentle-
man did not mean any personal reflection.
Mr. MARBURY. I certainly did not.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair knows that
gentlemen sometimes make use of strong ex-
pressions, without intending any personal
reflection. If the Chair had supposed for
one moment that the gentleman from Prince
George's intended by the remarks he made
to cast any reflection upon this House or any
of its members, he would have called him to
order and directed him to take his seat, as he
will any member, no matter to which side he
may belong, who may be guilty of such an
act. No gentleman, when his name is called,
has a right to respond to any remarks made
by any other gentleman; he can only state
what his vote is, and give his reasons for it,
if he desires to give any.
Mr. STIRLING, I vote "no."
Mr. BILLINGSLEY. I prefer the original ar-
ticle. But as this amendment is a modifica-
tion of the one submitted by the gentleman
from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stirling,) I desire
to change my vote, and vote in favor of the
amendment to the amendment.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I desire
to change my vote, for the same reason as-
signed by the gentleman from St. Mary's (Mr.
Billingsley). I prefer the original article;
bat I prefer the amendment of my colleague
(Mr. Clarke) to the one offered by the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling).
I therefore vote "aye."
The amendment to the amendment was
accordingly rejected.
The question recurred upon the amendment
of Mr, Stirling, to strike out all after the
word " That," in the first line of Article 26,
and insert—
"No conviction for treason shall work cor-
ruption of blood; nor shall there be any for-
feiture of the estate of any person for any
crime except for treason, and then only on
conviction."
Upon this question Mr. BERRY, of Prince
George's, called the yeas and nays, which
were ordered.
The question being then taken, by yeas
and nays, it resulted—yeas 49, nays 31—as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Baker, Barron, Carter, Cun-
ningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis of Wash-
ington county, Dellinger, Earle, Ecker, Far-
row,' Galloway, Greene, Hebb, Hopkins,
Jones of Cecil county, Keefer, Kennard, King,
Larsh, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray,
Negley, Noble, Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Pur-
nell, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schlosser, |
