and it was to correct the false impression that
would grow out of that assertion of a fact
which was not a fact, that I rose to make a
personal explanation. I did not suppose the
gentleman had any intention to misrepresent
me, or to make any assertion which he did
not regard as perfectly true. I only desired
to put myself right with reference to the fact.
Mr. SANDS repeated his point of order, and
asked the decision of the Chair.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair has frequently
called the attention of the Convention to the
necessity on the part of gentlemen of abstain-
ing from any personal allusions to each other.
It is in contravention of the rule adopted
by the Convention. The Chair was upon
the point if interrupting the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Abbott) at the
time he referred to the remarks of the gen-
tleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke).
But the gentleman from Baltimore city hav-
ing characterized the remarks of the gen-
tleman from Prince George's, it would now
be improper to restrain the gentleman from
Prince George's from ascertaining from the
gentleman from Baltimore city what his mo-
tives were in so doing. The Chair stated that
the gentleman from Baltimore city disclaimed
any personal imputation of motives; but. still
he had the right to inquire for himself. With
that view the Chair permitted the gentleman
from Prince George's to proceed. The ques-
tion came up, it will be remembered, on a mo-
tion to restrict debate; and upon that the
gentleman from Baltimore city indulged in
those remarks, and it would be improper for
the Chair to restrain the gentleman from
Prince George's from removing any impres.
sion unjustly produced by them. The Chair
overrules the point of order, as not being
well taken.
Mr. SANDS. Will the Chair permit me one
moment ?
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has a right
to explain, and to discuss the point of order,
if the gentleman appeals from the decision of
the Chair, One half the difficulty that has
arisen in this Convention, the Chair will take
occasion to remark, has arisen from the con-
stant interruptions by gentlemen interposing.
If gentlemen will restrain their passions, and
feelings and listen, the Chair will not permit
any gentlemen here to reflect upon the mo-
tives of any other gentleman. He considers
himself bound, as the organ of the Conven-
tion, to restrain gentlemen, without regard
to party, if they shall attempt to do so. The
practice of interrupting members in debate
is very improper, and occasions nearly all the
difficulty in legislative bodies.
Mr. ABBOTT. I desire simply to say that
the remarks I made were only in advocacy of
the amendment I had offered to the order of
the gentleman from Cecil county (Mr
Scott). It became necessary for me to make
some allusion to the subject which had been |
so elaborately discussed yesterday, and I dis-
claimed at the time any intention of dis-
courtesy to the gentleman from Prince
George's,
The PRESIDENT. That was all I supposed
the gentleman from Prince George's to de-
sire.
Mr. ABBOTT. I thought I was perfectly-
understood; and when the gentleman's col-
league suggested that he was not in his seat,
I said I intended no discourtesy to him; but
this was a matter I thought it necessary to
urge in this body, and I think so still.
The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen have a perfect
right to characterize the opinions of each
other just as they may desire. They may
consider them absurd, exploded, or append
to them any adjective they see fit to use, pro-
vided it does not reflect on this body as a col-
lective body, or on individual members. The
Chair considers the honor of each individual
member as entrusted to a certain extent to
his guardianship. Still members have the
reserved right to protect themselves, indepen-
dent of the opinion of the Chair.
Mr. ABBOTT. I shall very cheerfully sub-
mit at all times to the dictation of the Chair,
and will be much obliged to the Chair, if I
transgress the rules of order, to call me to
order,
Mr. SANDS. I do not wish to appeal, but I
should like an opportunity to explain myself.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has a right
to explain himself.
Mr. SANDS. The Chair seems to have en-
tirely misunderstood the point that I raised.
In the last remarks of the Chair, he has taken
precisely the ground which I intended my
point of order to cover, that gentlemen have
a perfect right to characterize the remarks of
other gentlemen as they please, provided they
disclaim any personal reflection. My point
was that the gentleman from Baltimore city
disclaimed any personal reflection, and that
the remarks of the gentleman from Prince
George's were liable to be criticised.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman gives to
the President a right which the President ut-
terly disclaimed. The President has no exclu-
sive right to judge of the character of re-
marks. The President, for the purpose of
satisfying the gentleman from Prince George's,
announced the fact that the gentleman from
Baltimore city disclaimed personal reflection.
But the gentleman from Prince George's had
the reserved right to inquire for himself.
Mr. SANDS. My point was that the gentle-
man had the right to inquire for himself, but
only to inquire respecting personal allusions.
Mr. BERRY, of Baltimore county. I am op-
posed to the order of the gentleman from
Cecil (Mr. Scott), and also to the amendment
of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr.
Abbott). It is a restriction upon the debate,
and I am opposed to it, because within four
sections of that which is now being consid- |
