riving at it. I should have been in favor a
the beginning of this discussion of the adop-
tion of the hour rule. Upon any subject
likely to arise in this Convention, if proper
notice is given of the limitation, I think an
hour is enough. Ordinarily speaking, that
notice being given, no gentleman will desire
to occupy over an hour. The adoption of
the rule will lead to condensation, and will
greatly relieve speakers in the Convention
But I do not think it is right now, the rule
not having been made before the debate was
opened, to apply a new rule to this particu-
lar subject. It is not fair to gentlemen upon
the other side; nor is it fair to those upon
our side; because it does not follow, and is
not true in fact, that on all the intricate
points so eloquently raised and discussed by
my colleague, yesterday, that he has the con
currence of all on our side. A great many
of those points, the most interesting and im
portant of them are abstractions, theoretical
involving opinions upon the philosophy of
politics and statesmanship, upon which, with
out any difference in the conclusion arrived
at, there may be a difference which gentle-
men, irrespective of their political position
may desire to explain. After some gentle
man upon the majority has been heard, .
shall be as ready as at any time to proceed
and state my own views upon these ques-
tions; and I think I shall give them within
an hour. I will endeavor to do so. But
then I do not want upon this particular
question to be necessarily restricted to an
hour. I should wish some latitude if I should
desire to go a few minutes over.
Mr STIRLING. I entirely agree with the
gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Belt,)
with regard to the propriety of the one hour
rule; but I really cannot appreciate the ob-
jection to it in this case. So far as notice is
concerned, we shall all have the notice, if
this order is adopted. Nobody has spoken
but the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Clarke.) The adoption of the rule therefore
applies equally to all members and to both
sides of the House. If anybody has any ad-
vantage, it is the gentlemen who are friendly
to the views already very elaborately and
fully argued on yesterday, for they will be
saved the trouble of going over a great deal
of this ground. It may be an advantage to
is all not to have adopted the rule, until after
the information contained in that speech had
been given to the Convention. I therefore
do not see any difficulty as to the time of the
adoption of this order. I was opposed to the
amendment limiting the time to thirty minutes,
thinking that too short atime, although I do
not expect to wish or exceed that myself. I
think an hour is enough for any member, in
any legislative or representative body, upon
any subject upon which there will be a long
debate. I earnestly hope the Convention will
adopt the regulation. It will afford each |
member ample time. I do not feel able to
listen to long speeches. Certainly eight or
ten hours is a good deal to give to this subject,
or to any other subject, unless we intend to
stay until next fall.
Mr. SCOTT. Suppose there are five or six
more on one side than on the other. Must we
make men speak on one side who have nothing
to say or shut the mouths of the other side ?
Mr. NEGLEY. Certainly not. When one
side is exhausted the other will go on.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Gentlemen will see at
once that this is impracticable, I am sure.
There may be members who generally agree
with what is called the majority, but who on
particular measures may not agree with them.
There may be some of us who do not agree
with either the majority or the minority.
My venerable friend from Kent (Mr. Cham-
bers) belongs to no party; as he has assured
the Convention. Under this rule, we should
be debarred entirely from the privilege of lis-
tening to him at all, which I should very-
much regret. Then there are a great many
different parties. There are five or six Dem-
ocracies, counting the new one, the " Radical
Democracy," and if we are to attempt to al-
ternate through all the parties, we may find
ourselves in confusion. I hope the amend-
ment will not be pressed to a vote.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The difficulty in conse-
quence of the peculiar position of the gentle-
man from Kent may be obviated in one of
two ways: either a committee may be ap-
pointed to designate the names of those be-
longing to the majority and the minority; or
perhaps the Convention will oblige me by adcl-
ing a proviso that the rule shall not apply
to the delegate from Kent. I should not be
likely to address the Convention beyond an
hour on any question, I will submit, as I
am bound to submit, to whatever the major-
ity of this House, composed of whatever ma-
terials it may be, shall ordain, lean only
say that I protest, in the name of that liberty
which I think the representatives of the peo-
ple of the State are entitled to demand, to
have their wishes through their delegates ex-
pressed, just so long as those delegates may
think it necessary, against any effort to sup-
press debate by any rule or order, or in any
other mode, and thus to stop the mouths of
those who I think are entitled to be heard.
It is not the province of every man to condense.
You must send for some operator, or some
steam apparatus as suggested by the gentle-
man from Howard the other day, to condense
the ideas of some gentlemen. Some have the
happy talent of the gentlemen from Cecil and
Baltimore City, of condensation. Others are
not possessed of that faculty. Providence
has not given them that power. I do not
think they or their constituents should suffer
for this affliction which is certainly not with-
in their control.
Mr. SANDS. I would only suggest to the |
