Mr. NEGLEY. I will withdraw the amend-
ment, and offer it in some other shape, if this
injustice shall be perpetrated upon the majo-
rity.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, demanded
the yeas and nays on the order submitted by
Mr. Scott, and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 46, nays 36, as follows :
Yeas.—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Barron, Carter, Cunningham, Cush-
ing, Daniel. Davis of Washington, Earle,
Ecker, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman,
Hopkins, Hopper, Jones of Cecil, Keefer,
Kennard, Larsh, Markey, Mullikin, Murray,
Negley, Nyman, Pugh, Robinette, Russell,
Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith of
Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge. Swope,
Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Todd, Valliant,
Wickard, Wooden—46.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Belt, Berry of Baltimore County, Berry of
Prince George's, Billingsley, Blackiston,
Bond, Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Clarke,
Crawford. Davis of Charles, Dennis, Duvall,
Duvall, Edelen, Farrow, Gale, Harwood, Hen-
kle, Hodson, Hollyday, Horsey, Jones of
Somerset, King, Lansdale, Lee, Marbury,
Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Parker, Parran,
Smith of Worcester, Turner, Wilmer—36.
Pending the call of the roll, as their names
were called, the following members explained
their votes:
Mr. AUDOUN. I am induced to vote for the
proposition of the gentleman from Cecil for
this reason. Looking at the Journal of the
last Convention, page 439, I see that there
was an order offered by the gentleman from
Somerset (Mr. Dennis) in these words :
" Ordered, That no member of this Con-
vention be allowed to speak more than thirty
minutes upon the question of representation."
Mr. DENNIS, in reply, asked permission to
explain but was ruled out of order.
Mr. BARRON. I should have voted for
the half hour rule, but as there are many
speakers here, I shall vote aye.
Mr. DENNIS. When my friend from Balti-
more city (Mr. Audoun) read the paragraph
from the former Journal, I was under the im-
pression that it was a gentleman of the same
name with myself who offered that order. I
am satisfied that I gave an erroneous vote
then. I am satisfied from experience that I
was wrong, and shall now vote no.
The order was accordingly adopted.
ADJOURNMENT TO BALTIMORE.
Mr. VALLIANT submitted the following
order:
Ordered, That when this Convention ad-
journ on Saturday next, it stand adjourned
to meet on Thursday next, 10th, at eleven
o'clock, at the New Assembly Rooms, in the
city of Baltimore, and that a committee of five
be appointed by the Chair to carry this order
into effect. |
The PRESIDENT ruled that the motion was
out of order, the Convention having already
decided one of the questions embraced therein.
Mr. THOMAS, That was a proposition to
accept the invitation of the City Council of
Baltimore. This is an entirely different
order.
The PRESIDENT. In the opinion of the
Chair it is substantially the same proposi-
tion, being a proposition for the removal of
the body.
Mr. VALLIANT. I shall be obliged, veryre-
spectfully, to appeal from the decision of the
Chair.
Mr. DANIEL. I will suggest that if the ap-
peal is withdrawn, we can get at this by re-
consideration.
Mr. VALLIANT. I have no objection to that,
excepting that the question decided by the
Convention before was upon the acceptance
of the Baltimore City Council. That invita-
tion, I am now informed, is still extended to
us; and I will withdraw my appeal and
move to reconsider the vote on page 19 of the
Journal.
The PRESIDENT. Did the gentlemen vote»
with the majority ?
Mr. VALLIANT. I did not. I withdraw
the motion to reconsider. Subsequently,
Mr. VALLIANT again offered the above
order.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair determines
that is substantially the same proposition,
and for the reasons assigned before, rules it
out of order.
Mr. VALLIANT. I appeal from that decision.
Mr. CLARKE. I raise this question: the
propositions having before been submitted,
and overruled upon the same ground, no ap-
peal being then taken, is it in order for the
gentleman again to submit the same proposi-
tion and appeal? I take it that the rule is
this: The gentleman offers a proposition,
The Chair rules upon it. Then the gentle-
man must make his appeal. If any other
business intervenes he cannot take the ap-
peal. He cannot coffer the same proposition
again, and then appeal.
Mr. THOMAS. This is not the same propo-
sition that was voted upon before. It is dif-
ferent in time. It may not have been expe-
dient at that time lo adjourn to Baltimore,
but it may be expedient now.
The PRESIDENT said that if insisted upon,
tie must rule the appeal out of order fur the
reasons assigned by the gentleman from
Prince George's (Mr. Clarke).
Mr. HEBB suggested that Mr. Valliant had
withdrawn the order by unanimous consent,
in order to make a motion to reconsider, and
could now renew the order and the appeal.
The PRESIDENT considers the appeal as hav-
ing been withdrawn in order to make a motion
to reconsider.
Mr. STIRLING suggested that a motion to
reconsider the vote on the proposition having |
