Mr. CUSHING. My object in offering this
order is that there may be no further accu-
mulation of committees. I think we may as
well put an end to it by appointing such a
committee as this.
Mr. BARRON called for the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
Mr. MILLER. I would suggest to the gentle-
man that this might be appropriately called
the Omnibus Committee.
Mr. CUSHING. Or it might be called a Waste-
bag Committee.
Mr. CLARKE. There was a suggestion that
there should be a Committee on Emancipa-
tion and the Negro Population. I do not
know to which Committee that subject be-
longs under the various assignments. The
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling)
suggested that it belonged to the Committee
on the Declaration of Rights; and there
might be, between that Committee and this
some controversy. I merely throw out the
suggestion, by way of inquiry to which
committee that very important subject be-
longs.
Mr. CUSHING. I think the Convention will
decide whether the Emancipation question,.
or the question of the Colored Population,
properly belongs to the Committee on the
Declaration of Rights or to this committee,
and I am willing that these subjects should
go to whichever committee the Convention
prefer.
The question being taken upon the adop-
tion of the order, the result was—yeas 6; nays
71—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Harwood, Abbott, Cushing,
Parran, Belt, Negley—6.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Hebb, Thruston, Wickard, Robinette, Miller,
Bond, Henkle, Hatch, Kennard, Brooks,
Stockbridge, Barron, Thomas, Audoun
Berry of Baltimore county, Hoffman) Parker
King, Larsh, Smith of Carroll, Ecker, Swope
Wooden, Jones of Cecil. Earle, Scott. Pugh
Briscoe, Turner, Todd, Carter, Noble/Keefer
Markey. Annan, Baker, Cunningham
Schlosser, Galloway, McComas, Hopper
Russell, Hopkins, Sands, Sykes, Chambers
Blackiston, Holloway, Lansdale, Peter
Clarke, Berry of Prince George's, Marbury
Lee, Brown, Wilmer, Billingsley, Morgan
Horsey, Valliant, Mullikin, Dellinger, Ny
man, Mayhugh, Davis, Sneary, Smith of
Worcester, Purnell, Farrow, Murray—71.
So the order was rejected.
THE EMANCIPATION QUESTION.
Mr. CLARKE submitted the following order :
Ordered, That all subjects connected with
emancipation 'and the colored population of
the State be referred to the Committee on
the Declaration of Bights.
Mr. HEBB. I am opposed to that. There
is one branch of that subject that belongs
more properly to the Legislative Committee,
and another branch that belongs to the Com- |
mittee on the Declaration of Rights. It will
be more proper hereafter, when a proposition
connected with this subject comes up for
reference, to decide at the time to which com-
mittee it shall be referred. I think at present
it will be better to have these two commit-
tees both consider the subject, the right hav-
ing been given lo committees lo confer to-
gether.
Mr. CLARKE. As I understand the duties
of the various standing committees, there is
no one which properly has jurisdiction, by
its title, of the subject of this order. The
gentleman from Baltimore (Mr. Stirling) ex-
pressly stated that the committee named in
this order would be the committee which
would have charge of the subject. It was
suggested at the time that there was some
query at least how that committee would get
jurisdiction over the subject. It was simply
that the Convention might refer the subject
to some committee that I offered the order.
I have no objection to dividing the subject
or making any disposition of it the Conven-
tion may think proper; but I think it is a
subject of sufficient importance to be brought
before some committee in a distinct form.
Mr. JONES, of Cecil. Would it not be
better, when depositions are offered, to refer
them to the committee which may seem more
appropriate to those particular propositions
at the time?
Mr. KENNARD. In accordance with the
view expressed by the gentleman from Alle-
gany (Mr. Hebb) that a portion of the sub-
ject belonged to the Committee on the De-
claration of Rights, and a portion to the
Legislative Committee, I will state that the
Legislative Committee was in session last
evening, and that that subject came up in the
course of its investigation. I think it prop-
erly belongs to both committees; and 1
think in due course of time the subject will be
reported upon to the Convention without its
being referred specifically to either of them.
If it is to be referred, it would be better to
refer it to both these committees, as it belongs
to both.
Mr. PUGH. In vindication of the gentle-
man from Baltimore city, who seems to be
absent, (Mr. Stirling) I did rot understand
him to say that that question properly be-
longed to the Bill of Rights. I understood
him to say that it might be that committee,
or it might be some other committee. I en-
dorse the view of my colleague (Mr. Jones)
that when the subject comes up, if it does
come up, it can be referred to the committee
which we think appropriate to the sub-
ject. It has not come up yet, except in this
present shape. I should be opposed to the
suggestion to refer it to those two commit-
tees even. There may be and I think there
are other committees to which some particu-
lar portions of that question—the color ques-
tion—may be referred; and I should be op- |
