Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Belt, Berry, of Prince George's, Billingsley,
Blackiston, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown, Cham-
bers, Clarke, Cunningham, Davis, of Charles,
Dennis, Duvall, Edelen, Gale, Harwood, Hen-
kle, Hodson, Horsey, Jones, of Somerset,
King, Lansdale, Lee, Marbury, Markey,
Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Parker, Parran,
Peter, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester,
Sykes, Wilmer—36.
Nays—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Barron, Carter, Cushing, Daniel, Da-
vis, of Washington, Dellinger, Earle, Ecker,
Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb,
Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil,
Keefer, Kennard, Larsh, McComas, Mullikin,
Murray, Negley, Noble, Nyman, Pugh, Ridge-
ly, Robinette, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith,
of Worcester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Swope, Thruston, Todd, Valliant, Wickard,
Wooden—46.
The following explanations were made by
members as their names were called :
Mr. BARRON. I want to vote on this order,
and I do not want to vote to lay it on the
table. At the same time I want to give gen-
tlemen full opportunity to debate this ques-
tion. Now, I want to state just one thing
to show how I am situated, and to explain
my vote. I met a man this morning who
had a lucrative office, in which he was get-
ting $2,500 a year, while I am down here at
Annapolis, getting five dollars a day. Now,
I shall vote " no " on this question at this
time, and I am very sorry that gentlemen
attempt to please their constituents by cut-
ting off debate.
Mr. VALLIANT. I vote "no" because I de-
sire to offer an amendment to the order, if
the motion to lay on the table be voted down.
The motion to lay on the table was not
agreed to.
The question recurred upon adopting the
order.
Mr. STIRLING. I move to amend the order
by striking out the words, "half-past five
o'clock this afternoon," and inserting the
words, "twelve o'clock to-morrow." I know
a number of gentlemen who desire to speak
upon this subject, and half-past five this af-
ternoon may be cutting the time rather short.
But I think the time I have indicated is time
enough to close this debate, and I have afair
regard for that courtesy which should always
obtain between the members of this Conven-
tion. In regard to the suggestion that this
question cannot be discussed in an hour,
that argument amounts to just nothing at
all. It cannot be discussed in an hour; it
cannot be fully discussed in two hours, nor
in three hours. But the subject has already
been discussed by the ablest minds of this
country, until their arguments and speeches
have become volumes enough to fill libraries.
If it is proposed that this Convention shall
take time enough to go over all the ground |
which was gone over by the great men of
twenty and thirty years ago, then we might
as well adjourn. It is not to be expected
that the members of this Convention shall
undertake to repeat the labors of Mr. Web-
ster or Mr. Calhoun. The people do not ex-
pect us to discuss this subject fully. We can
do nothing more than to review the subject
generally. We can no more undertake to
review the whole subject, than a man in a
sermon of thirty minutes can undertake to
review the whole Bible. You might as well
expect a man to preach ten volumes upon
theology, as to expect to fully discuss this
question,
Mr. PUGH moved to amend the order by
striking out the word "to-day," and insert-
ing the words, "on Thursday next," so that
the order would read—"debate on the 4th
article of the Declaration of Rights shall
cease at half-past five o'clock next Thursday
afternoon."
The PRESIDENT. The question will be first
taken upon the motion of the gentleman from
Cecil, (Mr. Pugh,) as involving the longest
time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. One word in reply to the
criticism made upon the remark I used, that
this subject could not be discussed in an
hour. I do not wish the Convention to un-
derstand, from my making that remark, that
it is any part whatever of my purpose to go
over the discussion which has heretofore oc-
cupied the minds of such men as Daniel
Webster, Colonel Hayne, Mr. Calhoun, and
others. According to my present expecta-
tion, without having made one solitary note
upon the subject, I shall not be upon the
mercy of the House to the extent of the limit
already fixed. But there are gentlemen who
take a different view of the matter, and it is
not for me dogmatically to say that the de-
bate should be suppressed. If gentlemen
deem it necessary, in going into this discus-
sion, to either repeat or add to the arguments
heretofore used by those able statesmen, they
ought to have the privilege of doing so. Ar-
rangements have been made for reporting
and printing our debates, and I do not think
members should be limited in the way they
have been. However, I rose chiefly to dis-
abuse any individual member of this body,
if there be any such, who may have supposed,
from what I said a few minutes ago in ad-
dressing the Chair, that I had any reference
to my own position. I have not a desire to
consume more than an hour, and not the
slightest desire to enter into the discussions
which occupied the attention of men many
years ago. I have my opinions, and may
express them; but as for going over that dis-
cussion, I have not the slightest idea of doing
so.
The question was then taken upon the mo-
tion of Mr. Pugh, to so amend the order that
it shall read, ''debate on the fourth article |
