cussion to a close I move the previous ques-
tion; and upon that motion I call for the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question being taken the result was,
yeas 16, nays 45, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Davis, of Washington, Ecker, Hatch,
Hopkins, .Tones, of Cecil, McComas, Mulli-
kin, Noble, Nyman, Robinette, Sneary and
Swope—-16.
Nays—Messrs. Barron, Bond, Brown,
Chambers, Cunningham, Cushing, Dail,
Davis, of Charles, Dennis, Duvall, Earle,
Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Hebb, Horsey,
Jones, of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard, King,
Larsh, Mace, Markey, Mitchell, Miller,
Morgan, Negley, Parker, Parran, Peter,
Pugh, Sands, Schlosser, Scott, Smith, of
Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith, of
Worcester, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes,
Thruston, Todd, Valliant, Wickard and
Wooden—45.
As their names were called, the following
members explained their votes:
Mr. BARRON. I cannot vote as I would
wish on this question, because as I have
said, I want to hear this question discussed
to its full extent. I would vote to extend
our sessions from six in the morning until
midnight that every member wishing to
speak may be accommodated; but upon
this question I must vote—no.
Mr. KING. I have no objection to closing
the discussion as soon as possible; but I
think the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Audoun) has not been here to know
how far this discussion has gone. If he
had been here I think he would have wanted
to hear it all. I vote—no.
Mr. THRUSTON. I shall vote in the
negative because I think it is due to the
chairman of the committee to close the dis-
cussion, that he may have an opportunity
to reply to the arguments upon the other
side, some of which have been directed al-
most personally towards him, I will vote
for the motion when the chairman shall
have had an opportunity to express his
views. At present I vote—no.
See the motion for the previous question
did not prevail.
Mr. MILLER. This debate has taken
a very wide range. I do not propose,
nor would the allotted hour permit me to
follow gentlemen into all the matter which
they have seen fit to discuss. I shall not,
therefore, debate with the gentleman from
Howard whether any band of southern |
men ever offered to bribe Mr. Clay into
consenting to a scheme for the opening of
the African slave-trade, nor dispute with
him about the secret history of the annex-
ation of Texas. Neither shall I imitate the
gentleman from Washington by heaping
harsh epithets upon the men who now ad-
minister or at any past time have adminis-
tered the General Government, nor shall I
enter with the gentleman from Baltimore
city into an inquiry whether in this sad war
in which the country is now engaged, more
cruelty has been practiced by the Federal
or Confederate armies. All these matters
I consider outside of the legitimate and
logical discussion of the subject under con-
sideration,
The subject before us, sir, is of the gravest
importance, and demands at our hands
cool, calm and dispassionate reasoning. In
it is involved an inquiry into the nature
and character of the system of government
under which we are living. We are here
to frame a Constitution for the State of Ma-
ryland, a permanent organic law, which is
to continue not simply during this terrible
civil strife, but as we hope during better
and happier times when the dark cloud of
war shall have passed away and the bless-
ings of peace be once more restored to us.
We are here considering what relation
the people of this State sustain not only to
the Constitution, laws and government of
the United States, but also to the people of
other States, for our action now 'on this
question, will not only affect ourselves, but
will inevitably have its influence upon the
people of neighboring States. It becomes
us then to measure well the ground we are
standing upon. We must remember that
the instrument we are dealing with is the
Constitution of the United States, and if
the step we are now asked to take—this
headlong rush into the vortex of consolida-
tion, and the total overthrow of State rights
and State sovereignty—should result, as
Patrick Henry prophesied it would, in the
overthrow of American constitutional lib-
erty, and the erection upon its ruins of a
despotic or imperial form of government,
we cannot justify it to our consciences, that
we did it under the pressure of circum-
stances, and because we could see no other
way out of our present troubles. That
plea will furnish us no justification. We
have no right " to inaugurate a revolution
in order to put down a rebellion."
I shall now proceed to give as briefly as
I can, the views which I entertain upon |
