aggregate vote of both sides do not make a
quorum, it has been the universal parliamentary
practice for the Chair to state " no
quorum voting."and take the vote again
requiring every member in the body to vote.
The 30th rule is as follows :
" Every member who shall be in the Con-
vention when the question is put shall give
his vote, unless the Convention, for special
reasons, shall excuse him; and the refusal of
any member present to vote on calling the
yeas and nays, shall be noted on the Journal
at the request of any member."
Mr. STIRLING I call for the yeas and
cays, as the best way to determine if there
be a quorum present.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question being taken, by yeas and
nays, upon the morion of Mr Stockbridge
to strikeout all in the 32d article, after the
word "people" in the third line, it resulted
—yeas 23, nays 30—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs Brown, Clarke, Cunning-
halo, Dail, Duvall, Earle, Greene, Hodson
Hopper, Horsey, Jones of Cecil, Jones of
Somerset, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Negley,
Noble, Nyman, Parker, Russell Scott, Todd,
Valliant—23
Nays— Messrs. Abbott, Baker, Barron,
Bond, Cushing, Daniel, Davis of Washing-
ton, Ecker, Galloway, Harwood, Hatch,
Hebb, Henkle. Hopkins. Keefer. Kennard,
Lansdale, Larsh, Markey, Mullikin, Robi-
nette, Schlosser, Smith of Carroll, Smith of
Worcester, Sneary, Stirling, Swope, Sykes,
Wickard, Wooden—30.
Mr MILLER, when his name was called,
said: I am In favor of this proposition as
a general principle, and if any member of
the Judiciary Committee will answer me
that the provisions of this article which it
is proposed to strike out, will be included
la the article on the judiciary, I will vote
for this amendment. but there is an im-
portant provision in the latter part of this
article as it now stands, which never has
been in any article of the Constitution be-
fore. I refer to this portion :
"No judge shall hold any other office,
civil or military, or political trust and em-.
ployment of any kind whatsoever, under
the Constitution or laws of this State, or of
the United States, or any of them, or re-
ceive fees or perquisites of any kind for the
discharge of his official duties."
I with to know whether it is proposed to
embody that clause in the article on the
judiciary or not.
Mr JONES, of Somerset. There is no doubt
that all these provisions will be embraced in
the article on the judiciary.
Mr. MILLER. It so, then I vote "aye"
The motion 'to strike out was not agreed to.
No further amendments being offered to
article 32, article 33 was then read, to which
no amendment was offered. |
Article 34 was then read, as follows :
" That no person ought to hold at the
same time more than one office of profit,
created by the Constitution or laws of this
State; nor ought any person in public trust
to receive any presents from any foreign
prince or State, or from the United States,
or any of them, without the approbation of
this. Sate."
Mr. STIRLING moved to change the word
" presents " to " present." Agreed to
Mr. HENKLE. I would like to have justices
of the peace excepted from the operations of
the first portion of this article In the" coun-
ties we frequently have persons acting a? jus-
tices of the peace, who are also very suitable
persons to fill other officed There is now
a provision in the laws, or the Constitution,
permitting justices of the peace to fill other
offices . I move to amend this article by in-
serting after the word " person " in the
first line, the words ''except justices of the
peace'' It will then read, ''no person.
except justices of the peace, ought to hold
at the same time more than one office of
profit," &c.
Mr. STIRLING. I would say to the gentle-
man that his proposition removes justices
of the peace entirely from the operation of
this article, and permits a man who may be
a justice of the peace, to hold any number
of offices of profit that he can obtain, while
a man who is not a justices of the peace can
hold but one such office I know what the
gentleman contemplates. The fact is true,
as he states, that there is an inconsistency
between this Declaration of Rights and the
Constitution as it now stands. The Con-
stitution allows justices of the place to be
members of the Legislature also Bat I sup-
pose, though a justice of the peace gets four
dollars a day, the office is not consider dan
office of profit, and it might be considered
that the office of member of General Assem-
bly is not an office of profit, but rather one
of trust
The CHAIRMAN. The office of justice of the
peace is evidently not an office of profit
Mr. STIRLING. The reason that that pro
vision was put in the old Constitution was
that the office of justice of the peace was
originally an office of trust and not of profit.
In some parts of the State it is now entirely
an office of profit; in other parts I know it
is not considered so.
Mr. HENKLE. It does not matter to me
how the object is accomplished, provided
it is accomplished. But, as is perfectly
well known to every person who lives in
the country, it is even now difficult to get
any gentleman of standing and ability to
serve as justice of the peace And if you
add the disability of serving in any other
official capacity in the State, it will in-
crease the difficulty. We generally try to
get the Deal man we can for the office of |
