The PRESIDENT. According to parliamen
tary law, a member of the body cannot re
agitate a question that hag once been de
cided, unless he voted in the affirmative, I
a member can move to annul a proposition
which he voted against, he can do indirectly
what the rules of the house do not allow him
to do directly,
Mr. BELT appealed from the decision of the
Chair; and upon that appeal, demanded the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question being taken, the resalt was-
yeas 40, nays 13—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Barron, Brooks, Carter, Cunningham, Cush-
ing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Earle,
Ecker, Galloway, Harwood, Hatch, Hoffman
Hopkins, Hopper, Keefer, King, Larsh, Mar-
key, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Nyman,
Parker, Pugh, Russell, Sands, Schley, Smith,
of Dorchester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Wickard, Wood-
en—40.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Chambers, Crawford,
Davis, of Charles, Dent, Henkle, Hollyday,
Johnson, Jones, of Somerset, Lee, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan—13.
As their names were called, the following
members explained their votes :
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, said: It is very un-
pleasant to vote against the decision of the
Chair, but having a strong conviction that it
is competent for the convention at any time
to rescind an order, I vote "no."
Mr. HARWOOD said: In the amendment of
our rules the motion was made to amend,
which lay over one day under the rules, and
was acted upon without a motion to recon-
sider. I thought that was not in order, and
I think this is not in order, and I vote "aye."
Mr. HENKLE said: The forty-second rule
referred to by my friend, was adopted by the
convention. It required a majority of the
members elected to the convention to adopt
any section or article. Subsequently the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Cush-
ing) did not move a reconsideration, but
gave notice that he would offer an amend-
ment which embodied the very same princi-
ple and the very same subject-matter, and it
was adopted by the convention. I then took
the ground that after the subject had been
once decided, the same Subject-matter could
not be re-agitated and brought before the
convention except upon a motion to recon-
sider. The issue I then took was not sus-
tained by the Chair, and in order to conform
to the decision then, I vote " no."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, said: My vote will
be governed by my construction of the reso-
lution of the gentleman from Prince George's
(Mr. Belt.) I look upon his resolution as a
proposition to repeal the order that was
adopted yesterday. I consider "rescind"
as being equivalent to "repeal," and there |
fore, with great deference to the Chair,
vote " no,"
Mr. MILLER said: Like the gentlemen from
Somerset (Mr. Jones,) I look upon this reso-
lution as repealing an order already passed
by this body. My view of parliamentary
law is that it is perfectly competent for a
legislative body which has passed a law, or
act, or a resolution, to repeal that law, or
act, or resolution, without going through the
form of reconsidering the vote by which it
was adopted. I therefore vote " no."
Mr. SANDS. The construction placed upon
the resolution offered by my friend from
Prince George's (Mr. Belt,) operating as a
repeal, would entirely nullify the rule that a
proposition once decided could not be dis-
turbed except by reconsideration on the mo-
tion of a member who voted in the majority,
I therefore vote to sustain the Chair—"aye."
So the decision of the Chair was sustained,
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
The forty-first section was read as fol-
lows :
" Sec. 41. No person shall be imprisoned
for debt."
Mr. HENKLE. I move to insert the word
"white" before the word "person." The
principle of imprisonment for debt has been
considered as a debatable one. It now exists
in the constitutions Of some of the States of
the Union with regard to white citizens, and
it did exist in our own constitution up to
the time of the adoption of the present con-
stitution. The propriety of imprisonment
for debt is then a mooted question. Although
I am no advocate of It for the white race, or
under any circumstances unless urgent and
sufficient, yet I think several reasons may be
urged for the propriety of leaving it for the
discretion of the Legislature to decide
whether there shall be imprisonment for debt
for the negro under any circumstances.
As a general rule the negroes have very
little property, and are very prone to involve
themselves by obtaining credit wherever they
can. In a majority of cases there is no pro-
perty by which the payment of a debt can
be secured, and it is lost. Then you have
the exemption law, which exempts a certain
amount of property of a debtor from seizure
and sale under the law. The attachment law
of the State of Maryland, as it now exists,
is such that any man having no property and
not having an honest heart, may evade the
payment of his debts. You cannot attach
the wages due a man unless there are more
than ten dollars coming to him. It is very
easy for a man who is dishonestly disposed,
continually to draw upon his wages, so that
there shall never at any time be so much as
ten dollars due him. Consequently the at-
tachment law will have no force or effect
whatever.
Now, I think the colored race are not so |
