reverence for Constitutions and laws as almost
anybody, having been myself engaged for
a good portion of my life in the administra-
tion of the laws; and I will obey every
law, whether constitutional or statutory, so
long as it is upon tile books. But if there is
a bad or injudicious law now, and I halve the
power to wipe it out, I shall most certainly
try to do so. This subject resolves itself
simply into this; there being neither Consti-
tutional nor statutory prohibitions in the way,
what is the rule best calculated to further the
public business and the public interests? I say
that, judging from the experience of this
body—and we have been here only a cou-
ple of weeks—if we require the votes of a
majority of all the members elected to this
Convention to pass any measure, we should
find it an almost impossible thing to pass any
measure now. If you require 49 votes out
of 50 upon any one subject, my word upon
it, you will require more votes than, accord-
ing to my recollection, have been cast in the
affirmative or negative upon any proposition
submitted to this body. I do not remember
any subject, except the one tendering our
thanks to our soldiers in the field that has
received 58 votes—and I know very few sub-
jects that can receive that vote.
We are simply to make such rules as
in our best judgment will most facilitate the
proper transaction of the business we have
before us, and believing that I can trust to
the fairness, honor, and integrity of a ma-
jority of the members of this House, I do not
wish to see it tethered or bound by any
merely techinical rules which will only hin-
der the transaction of the public business.
Mr. JONES of Somerset. I agree with my
friends upon the other side that this question
addresses itself to every sense of expediency
and justice in this Convention. It is true
we are bound by no Constitutional restric-
tions; and there is nothing in the act calling
this Convention which binds us to adopt the
rule reported by the committee: nor is
there anything which prohibits us from
adopting the amendment which has been pro-
posed. But the question presents itself to us,
as members of a Convention to frame a Con-
stitution which is to be submitted to a vote
of the people, whether a Constitution, any of
the articles of which could not command in
this Convention the votes of a majority of all
the members elected, will be likely to receive
the approbation of a majority of the people
of this State. That. is a consideration for us.
As to the supposed inconsistency in the act
calling us together, authorizing 50 members
to constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business, and this rule proposing that a ma-
jority of all the members elected shall be
inquired to pass upon any article of the Con-
stitution to be adopted, there is no incon-
sistency in that. The same provision exists
in the present Constitution in regard to the |
Legislature. The 13th section of the article
upon the legislative department, in the Con-
stitution under which we now live, and
which we shall continue until we supersede it
by another Constitution, provides—
"A majority of each House shall constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business; but
a smaller number may adjourn from day to
day, and compel the attendance of absent
members in such manner and under such
penalties as each House may prescribe."
Section 19 of the same article says :
"No bill shall become a law unless it
be passed in each House by a majority
of the whole number of members elected,
and on its final passage the yeas and nays be
recorded."
And in my judgement that is one of the
wisest provisions that the Convention of
1851 adopted. The continual alteration of
the laws is one of the evils of the day to
be provided against. When a law is once
passed and understood, it should not be
changed unless the change can command the
approbation of at least a majority of those
elected to the Legislature. In regard to the
occasional slim attendance and slim votes of
the past two weeks, it is not to be supposed
that such will be the case when the impor-
tant business of the Convention has been pre-
pared by the committees and submitted by
them to the consideration of the house. But
up to this time there has been nothing, aside
from the adoption of a lew orders, &c., but
to meet and adjourn. And members, having
important business elsewhere, have not felt
compelled to be present here before any of
the important business of the Convention
has been reported upon by some of the com-
mittees.
I think the Committee on Rules have re-
ported a very wise and judicious rule in rela-
tion to the adoption of articles of the new
Constitution; that no article ought to be
adopted by us, as it could not be with the
hope of meeting the approbation of the
people, if it cannot command the votes of a
majority of the members elected to the Con-
vention. I hope, therefore, the Convention
will adopt the rule as it has been reported by
the Committee
Mr. HEBB, I hope the amendment offered
by my colleague (Mr. Thruston) will prevail.
I do not like to cite the proceedings of the
last Convention as an example to be followed
here. But it will be found that the last vote
taken upon the Constitution in that Conven-
tion gave but 40 votes in the affirmative out
of more than 100 votes; and nine-tenths
of all the articles went into the Constitution
by the votes of only a majority of the mem-
bers present. Now the rule of the House of
Delegates to which reference has been made
is an exception to the general rule. It was
made in conformity to the Constitution of
the State of Maryland, which in that respect |
