THIRTY-SIXTH DAY.
MONDAY, June 20,1864.
The Convention met at 12 o'clock, M.
Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Owen.
The roll was called, and the following mem-
bers answered to their names :
Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Abbott,
Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron, Belt, Berry,
of Baltimore county, Berry, of Prince
George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Bris-
coe, Brown, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Craw-
ford, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis,
of Charles, Davis, of Washington, Duvall,
Earle, Ecker, Edelen, Farrow, Galloway,
Harwood, Hatch, Hebb, Henkle, Hodson,
Hoffman, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Hor-
sey, Jones, of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard,
King, Lee, Marbury, McComas, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan, Murray, Nyman, Parker,
Parran, Pugh, Purnell,' Robinette, Russell,
Sands, Scott, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith,
of Worcester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Sykes, Thomas, Valliant, Wickard, Woo-
den—69.
The journal of Friday last was read and
approved.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Mr. HATCH offered the following :
Ordered, That the following article be re-
ferred to the Judiciary Committee;
"That no officer of the Federal or State
Government shall be held responsible for any
act done by him under the authority of the
Federal Government, provided said act was
in conformity with such authority."
The question was taken upon the adoption
of the order, and it was declared to be re-
jected.
Mr. HATCH called for a division of the
House upon the question.
The PRESIDENT, it is too late to ask for a
division; the result of the vote has been al-
ready announced.
Mr. STIRLING. My impression was that the
universal custom in this House has been to
refer every order of this kind to a committee,
as a matter of courtesy.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. My ob-
jection to the order is that it does not con-
form to the form of those orders which are
usually referred to our committees, I have
no objection at all to any latitude being
given to members of this Convention in re-
ferring anything they may desire to have
referred to committees for inquiry. The or-
ders heretofore have read—that the; commit-
tee be instructed to inquire into the expedi-
ency of inserting such or such a clause into
the Constitution. But this order is entirely
different, and if we vote for its reference, it
might be construed that we were in favor of
inserting that article as a part of the Consti-
tution of the State.
The PRESIDENT. The vote upon the adop-
tion of the order having been announced, it |
can only be reached by a motion to recon-
sider.
Mr. THOMAS moved a reconsideration of
the vote just taken,
Mr. CLARKE. I would rise to a point of
order. I would ask if the gentleman voted
with the majority.
Mr. THOMAS. I did not vote at all, if I
had voted I should have voted in the affirma-
tive for the reference.
Mr. CLARKE. I have no doubt if the gen-
tleman had said nothing at all, the presump-
tion would have been that be had voted with
the majority in the negative. But I think it
is carrying the law of pregumption further
than I have ever heard, to assume that the
gentleman voted with the majority, in face
of the declaration that he had not voted at
all.
Mr. CUSHING. In order to rid the subject
of any embarrassment I will move a recon-
sideration. I did not vote in the affirmative,
and the gentleman from Prince George's,
(Mr. Clarke,) has told us that the presump-
tion is that I voted in the negative.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince Georges, called for
the yeas and nays on the motion to recon-
sider.
Mr. CLARKE. I rise to a point of order;
this presents a new question, I understand
that our rule requires that a member moving
a reconsideration must have voted with the
majority.
Mr. CUSHING. The gentleman said that
the presumption was that I did so vote,
Mr. CLARKE. When a witness is upon the.
stand, the law does not admit presumption,
as the party himself is the best evidence.
Presumption comes in only when the best
evidence fails.
The PRESIDENT. The chair supposes that
the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr.
Cushing,) voted in the negative.
Mr. CUSHING. I have not said that I did
not.
Mr. PUGH. I am here, as a member of this
Convention. I did not vote upon the adop-
tion of this order; that was my fault, prob-
ably. The majority of this House cast a cer-
tain vote. Now I raise the point, whether it
is not fair to presume that all the members,
who are silent in a deliberative body when a
vote is taken, are with the majority. For
instance, when a bill is on its passage in the
Legislature, it very frequently happens that
no one votes, no one answers. But it is pre-
sumed that every body voted "aye," not
"no"—voted with the majority. 'Yet ac-
cording lo the point raised by the gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Clarke,) if any
one wanted the passage of such a bill recon-
sidered, it could not be done, because no one
when asked the question, could say he had
voted at all, and consequently no reconsid-.
eration could be had, and the bill would be-
come a law beyond any chance to reconsider |
