from the same spirit which prompted the re-
solutions now under consideration, that of
fear. I therefore vote " no."
Mr. SANDS. I wish briefly to explain my
vole upon this amendment. I should have
voted for it in 1861, because it wag then the
policy of the government. And I honestly
and sincerely believe that if our friends,
whose sympathies with the government are
not so strong as they might be, had turned in
and then adopted that policy in the BORDER=1
States, this war would have been over by this
time. They did not do so; events have
changed, and the policy of the government
has changed accordingly I shall stand by
the government, and I vote " no."
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, asked a separate vote
upon the preamble and resolutions, which
was ordered accordingly.
The question was upon the first resolution,
which was read as follows :
" Resolved. That this convention on the
part of the loyal people of Maryland, de-
mands of the government of the United
States, that all adult citizens of this State
who shall refuse to register on oath their al-
legiance, submission, and obedience to the
United States, and thus persist in the position
of public enemies, and all persons who shall
be proved to have taken part with or openly
expressed their sympathy with the recent in-
vasion of the State, shall be banished beyond
the lines of the army or imprisoned daring
the war."
Upon this question Mr. JONES, of Somerset,
called for the yeas and nays, which were or-
dered.
The question was then taken by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 41, nays 16—as fol-
lows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Barron, Brooks, Carter, Cun-
ningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Wash-
ington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Greene,
Hatch, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, Keefer,
Kennard, King, Larsh, Markey, McComas,
Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker,
Pugh, Russell, Sands, Schley, Smith, of Car-
roll, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope,
Sykes, Wickard, Wooden—41.
Nays— Messrs. Belt, Chambers, Crawford,
Dail, Davis, of Charles, Dent, Harwood,
Henkle, Hollyday, Johnson, Jones, of Somer-
set, Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Smith, of
Dorchester—16.
The resolution was accordingly adopted.
The question recurred upon adopting the
following resolution:
Resolved, That the President of this con-
vention transmit certified copies of this pre-
amble and resolutions to the President of the
United States and to the commanders of the
military departments in which Maryland is
embraced."
The question being taken, the resolution
was adopted. |
The question recurred upon adopting the
preamble.
Mr. BELT asked that the question be taken.
upon each clause of the preamble separately.
The PRESIDENT directed the question to be
taken accordingly.
Mr. STIRLING. I rise to a point or order.
The division can only be made where, if one
part is rejected, the other contains a distinct
substantive proposition for the action of the
convention. Now, if the first portion of this
preamble is rejected, the sense of the whole
is destroyed. The mere fact that the word.
"whereas" occurs once or twice, or more
times, it does not make so many substantive
propositions. The preamble is a substantive
proposition by itself.
If the chair will examine the preamble, he
will see that the entire preamble contains but
one substantive proposition. Suppose the
first part is rejected, bow will the second ap-
ply to the resolutions that follow? "Where-
as the experience of the past two weeks shows
that the presence of such persona"—What
persons? Why, the persons referred to in
the first part of the preamble, which is re-
jected It is a continuous sentence; not a
breach in it, from beginning to end.
The PRESIDENT. If that is the true inter-
pretation of the preamble, then it is not sus-
ceptible of division, under the fortieth rule,
which reads as follows :
"Any member may call for the division of
a question, which shall be divided, if it com-
prehend propositions in substance so distinct
that, one being taken away, a substantive
proposition shall remain for the decision of
the convention."
Mr. BELT. Because the gentleman chooses,
by not observing the proper method of draw-
ing a preamble, to mix up half a dozen propo-
sitions in one sentence, I take it that should
not deprive any member of this house of the
right of having a separate vote on each pro-
position.
Mr. CUSHING. I would suggest that per-
haps the house does not want the preamble
divided. I am willing lo leave it to the de-
cision of the house.
Mr. STIRLING. I seems to me that if a pre-
amble chooses to detail a series of facts in one
connected sentence, the only way to get at it is
to move to strike out a certain fact. That is
an amendment, not a division.
Mr. BELT. But the opportunity to strike
out is denied to us by the previous question.
Mr. MILLER. If this last clause of the pre-
amble is stricken out, that leaves a substan-
tive proposition. And that is all that the
rule requires, according to my construction
of it.
The PRESIDENT. The only question with
the chair is whether it is for the chair to de-
cide that question, or for the convention.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. How can it be brought |
