lege of speaking three hours. They ought
to take it as a grace, and not as a subject of
complaint. It will go upon the record that
they have allowed the minority a three hours
speech, and curtailed their own members to
thirty minutes, if there is any complaint to
be made, it ought to come from the majority.
The rule is offered for the purpose of get-
ting along with the business, to enable us to
get through with it. It has been said the
thing is unheard of. Have they not the hour
rule in Congress? Is that an abridgement of
the freedom of speech? I think the early
history of the proceedings of the Continental
Congress will show that a fifteen minute rule
was used there. What is the effect of such a
rule? It is to compel members to condense
their thoughts. It is to prevent this skirmish-
ing to which the gentleman from Somerset
(Mr. Dennis) refers. I am opposed lo being
eternally engaged in skirmishing. If the
war that is now being waged was waged in
continual skirmishes, there never would be a
decisive battle. Let blows come thick and
heavy, and let them be confined to thirty
minutes. Let the gist of the argument be
given, and it can be brought before us in that
time. The gentleman from Baltimore county
(Mr. Berry) says it is impossible for some of
us to get to a subject in sixty minutes. I
tell him as the gentleman from Cecil (Mr.
Scott) did, that if he cannot reach it in sixty
minutes, he will never reach it at all, but
will wander around in continual darkness,
and end where he began. Let gentlemen
collect their thoughts, and condense them,
Let them think over what they have to say,
and they can say it in thirty minutes upon
any subject. They can give a fair and dis-
tinct outline. They can give reasons fur the
faith that is in them.
I am utterly opposed to cumbering the
records of this Convention with these inter-
minable speeches; for they will be volumes
so ponderous that our posterity will never
read them. it is barely possible that gentle-
men may have an eye to posterity in making
these long speeches. They may wish to put
themselves on the record, so that succeeding
generations may learn what erudition they
had, and how profoundly they understood
the subject. Of course, information is always
useful. But then we have the original books
to which the speakers refer, and we can hunt
them up for ourselves, it is not necessary
eternally to repeat the same arguments here.
We can get them in our reports; we can get
them in the Federalist; we can get them in
treatises on democracy or on the science of
government. Those arguments need not he
continually reproduced here. We want fair
play. Therefore I am in favor of the amend-
ment to confine the speakers to thirty min-
utes and that the speakers of the majority
and the minority shall alternate. That gives
as fair play. We shall listen to one on that
20 |
side and then they shall listen to one on ours.
Heretofore the argument has been all upon that
side. They have absolutely taken up the time
of the Convention, and the majority have not
been heard. They have spoken until the
physical endurance of the gentleman from
Cecil has been exhausted, in one continuous
strain, while the mouths of the majority have
been hermetically sealed.
Mr. CLARKE. I begged the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) to take the floor,
and I did not go on until he had refused four
or five times.
Mr. NEGLEY. Perhaps a three hour speech
from our side would have been as rambling.
The wary to remedy the difficulty and obtain
concentration is to adopt this order.
Mr. SCOTT. The physical endurance of the
gentleman from Cecil has not yet been ex-
hausted. I was endeavoring to guard against
the exhaustion of the physical endurance of
the speakers,
Mr. NEGLEY. I am glad to hear that my
friend has such a powerful physical constitu-
tion, I must confess I am afraid I shall give
way under it, and some others may. But by
the adoption of this rule, we may certainly
be heard all around. I think that another of
our rules ought to be enforced, that no mem-
ber shall speak twice on any subject until all
those that have not spoken shall have been
heard. I think that is fair. I am perfectly
willing there should be fair play, and that
what is sauce for the goose should be sauce
for the gander. I am entirely opposed to
their taking up all the time with their speeches,
not giving us an equal chance. If this rule
is adopted, it will give us an equal privilege,
and therefore I am in favor of it.
Mr. ABBOTT. At the suggestion of my
friends, I will modify my amendment by
striking out the restriction to twenty min-
utes, and leave merely the alternation.
Mr. STIRLING. We have a rule of the Con-
vention, under which it is the duty of the
Chair to decide who shall have the floor.
The PRESIDENT. When a gentleman takes
The floor, the Chair presumes that the House
acquiesces in his speaking, unless there is ob-
jection offered.
Mr ABBOTT withdrew his amendment.
Mr. NEGLEY. Then I will move to amend
the order by adding the words, " and that
the speakers of the majority and minority
alternate."
The PRESIDENT. That is the parliamentary
rule now.
Mr. BELT. The parcelling of the floor be-
tween the majority and minority I think
would better bearranged by a common un-
derstanding. it is proper that there should
be an alternate discussion, for many reasons.
Let it be understood that after a gentleman
from one side is through, the Chair shall
award the floor to some one on the opposite
side. That is the safest and best mode of ar- |
