The request was refused, and he voted—No.
Mr. BERRY. I desire to ask the gentleman
from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) whether
the American does not flatly deny the
charge made by the Times' correspondent,
in the same paper from which be has read.
Mr. CLARKE. I am ready to answer the
gentleman, if it is in order.
The PRESIDENT. Debate is not in order.
CIVIL OFFICERS.
Mr. KINO submitted the following order ;
Ordered, That the committee to consider
and report respecting the Appointment,
Tenure of Office, Duties and Compensation of
all Civil Officers, inquire into the expediency
of introducing a. section in the new Con-
stitution securing, to all persons who
have been elected by the people to any office
within the State, to hold the same unimpaired
during the term for which they were elected.
Mr. STIRLING. What is it intended to do with
reference to those offices which may be abol-
ished in the Constitution? We have already
directed this committee to consider the expe-
diency of abolishing the office of Commis-
sioners of Public Works. The two propo-
sitions are inconsistent, it seems to me. If
the gentleman will amend this so as to except
those offices which are altered or abolished
by the new Constitution, I should have no
objection to it.
Mr. DANIEL. It seems to me that a ques-
tion like that will come in conflict with almost
every committee appointed here, except the
Committee on the Declaration of Rights.
Almost every committee has under its charge
the tenure of some office; and it seems to me
that it would be competent for each to recom-
mend what shall be the disposition made of
the particular offices entrusted to it. This
seems to me to interfere with the proper de-
partment of other committees, and there-
fore to be improper; and consequently I shall
vote against it.
Mr. MILLER demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken the result was—
yeas 29; nays 32—as follows :
Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President: Mil-
ler, Harwood, Henkle, Kennard, Stockbridge,
Cashing, Thomas, Berry of Baltimore county,
Ridgely, King, Smith of Carroll, Jones of
Cecil, Earle, Scott, Edelen, Mitchell, Todd,
Carter, Baker, Lansdale, Peter, Clarke, Mar-
bury, Horsey, Negley, Smith of Worcester,
Purnell, Murray—29.
Nays—Messrs. Greene, Hebb, Wickard,
Robinette, Hatch, Stirling, Daniel, Abbott,
Parker, Ecker, Swope, Wooden, Pugh, Noble,
Keefer, Schley, Markey, Annan, Cunningham,
Schlosser, McComas, Hopper, Russell, Hop-
kins, Sands, Sykes, Mulliken, Dellinger, Ny-
man, Mayhugh, Davis of Washington,
Sneary—'32.
So the order was rejected.
Mr. BELT, when his name was called, said : |
I ask the indulgence of the Convention to ex-
cuse me from voting. I am personally in the
category of the persons referred to in the
order, and I prefer to avoid the semblance of
impropriety.
The request was granted.
Mr. HEBB submitted the following order ;
Ordered, That the Committee on such Pro-
visions and Ordinances as may be desirable
to carry into effect amendments to the Consti-
tution, inquire into the expediency of engraft-
ing upon the Constitution a provision requir-
ing, on the taking effect of the new Constitu-
tion, all officers thereby continued in office,
before proceeding in the further discharge of
their duties, to take the same oath or affirma-
tion as required of officers appointed or elected
under it.
Mr. LANSDALE. It seems to me that we
labor under great uncertainty in voting for a
provision of that kind. This Constitution
has not been prepared, and we do not know
what oath will be required by the new Con-
stitution. It seems to me that we should be
voting upon the subject in the dark, and
therefore I should be compelled to vote—no. I
move to lay the order upon the table, until
we can know what oath will be adopted by
the new Constitution.
The motion did not prevail.
Mr. HEBB. I think the gentleman misap-
prehends the parport of the order. It only
instructs the committee to inquire into the ex-
pediency of such a provision. I see no reason
why any person holding an office under the
new Constitution should not be required to
take the oath required by the new Constitu-
tion.
Mr. LANSDALE. I misapprehended the order.
Mr. CLARKE. If this Constitution should be
adopted, and the present Constitution changed,
would it not follow that any one holding
office under the new Constitution must ne-
cessarily take the oath under that Constitu-
tion? I think the order is entirely unneces-
sary; for if he did not take the oath he would
be acting without authority.
Mr. HEBB. I should think if he was in the
office at the time the new Constitution goes
into operation, he would not be required to
take the oath, hut could continue to hold the
office without taking an additional oath.
Mr. STIRLING. The Governor in office at
the time the present Constitution went into
operation, was continued in office without
being required to take any additional oath ;
so that it does not by any means follow from
the adoption of a new Constitution that an
officer continuing to hold his position would
be required to re-qualify himself; and there-
fore I think it would be perfectly proper to
provide that anybody continued in office
should stand upon the same footing and abide
by the same rules as others holding office
under the Constitution.
Mr. CLARKE. I have not examined it, but |
