this body, (and I presume we are all entitled
to that appellation,) would interpolate into
remarks given to the reporter anything he
would not have spoken if he had had the op-
portunity. At any rate, should he-do so,
we could expunge it, and take some measures
to prevent it in the future. If the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel) does not
desire to have his remarks go down to pos-
terity any farther than they may go down
from his remarks yesterday, and the gentle-
man from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) does
not desire, of course I do not.
Mr. THRUSTON, I am opposed to the adop-
tion of this order, because it may lead to
great latitude, and swell our record of de-
bates to an inordinate size. Besides that ob-
jection, it leaves the whole Convention at the
mercy of what any member may choose to
write, without the Convention hearing it, or
having any opportunity of replying to it.
Mr. BARRON. I shall vote in favor of this
order, because I have noticed that in Con-
gress gentlemen have been allowed the privi-
lege of printing their speeches. Now to me,
speech-making is a very up-hill business, and
I have never indulged in much of it, and I
really think that after a gentleman has gone
to all the trouble of writing out a speech,
and putting it into fair shape, he ought to
have the privilege of putting it on the re-
cord. Something has been said about
this leading to great latitude of debate.
Why, sir, the other day my friend from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke) spoke three hours, and
I listened to all of it that I could. Other
gentlemen have had, some an hour and a
quarter, some two hours. Now I want to
see them on paper afterwards, for I do not
know but what those very speeches of the
opposite side of the house may be of great
advantage to me hereafter.
Mr. CLARKE. In reply to my friend from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Barron,) I would say
that having had the pleasure of listening to
him in the Legislature last winter, I think
he is quite famous as an orator. He delivered
a speech last winter of, I think, an hour in
length, and I had supposed he would favor
us with a speech here.
Mr. BARRON. I have all the time opposed
anything like cutting off debate upon these
4th and 23d articles. They are of very vital
importance, and I am willing to give as much
latitude to debate upon them that gentlemen
may want,
The question was for the adoption of the
order.
On this question Mr. BARRON called for
the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, (Mr. Daniel and Mr. Miller being ex-
cused from voting,) and resulted—yeas 37,
nays 45—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Barron, Belt, Berry, of Prince
George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Briscoe, |
Brown, Chambers, Clarke, Cushing, Dennis,
Duvall, Earle, Edelen, Gale, Harwood, Hen-
kle, Hodson, Horsey, Jones, of Somerset,
Kennard, Landsdale, Larsh, Lee, Marbury,
Mitchell, Morgan, Parran. Peter, Ridgely,
Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith,
of Worcester, Stockbridge, Swope, Turner,
Wilmer—37.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Brooks,'
Carter, Cunningham, Davis, of Charles, Davis,
of Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow,
Galloway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman,
Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer,
King, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray,
Negley, Noble, Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Robi-
nette, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Sneary,
Stirling, Sykes, Thruston, Todd, Valliant,
Wickard, Wooden—45.
The order was accordingly rejected.
LIMITING DEBATE ON ARTICLE 4.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I desire to submit an
order to the Convention for the purpose of
limiting debate upon the article of the bill of
rights now pending before this house, so there
may be a distinct understanding on all sides
when the vote may be taken, and the matter
finally disposed of. Of course, if it is thought
best to change the time I have named in the
order, I shall have no stringent objection, al-
though I designed to give as much time as I
thought would be needed. I submit this
order:
Ordered, That general debate on the 4th
Article of the Declaration of Rights shall
cease at half-past five o'clock to-day; that
the chairman of the committee that reported
the same shall then be allowed for closing the
discussion, such time as he may desire, not
exceeding one hour and a quarter, immedi-
ately after which the vote shall be taken upon
the pending amendment. Should any other
amendments be offered, the person offering
the same shall be allowed five minutes to ex-
plain the purpose and effect of his proposed
amendment, and the vote shall then be taken
thereon without further debate.
Mr. BARRON. I think that order is out of
order. We have already passed an order
limiting debate to an hour, and we have not
reconsidered that vote yet.
The PRESIDENT. The order of the gentle-
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge)
is in order at this time. The question is now
upon the adoption of the order.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am exceedingly gratified
to witness the disposition which seems to
manifest itself by these different orders. This
subject which has been now debated for seve-
ral days, is evidently, in the view of the Con-
vention, a subject of very serious importance.
There has been all the time in some parts of
the House a sort of marked sensibility upon
the subject of the waste of time. Now, if I
correctly understand our position, we are |
