is an exception to the ordinary rules of par-
liamentary practice. The Constitution of the
United States says that a quorum of each
House of Congress shall consist of a majority
of those elected; but it does not restrict the
members of the Senate and the House of Re-
presentatives from passing any law by a
majority of the members present,
Mr. VALLIANT. Though a member of the
committee making this report, this rule did
not receive my hearty concurrence. I am
glad the proposition to amend has been made,
and I shall vote for the amendment. The
Congress of the United States, in making
rules fur its government, has seen fit to
adopt a rule precisely the same as Rule 43
will be if the proposed amendment be adopted
And I have very great respect for the judg-
ment of the Congress of the United States,
particularly when succeeding Congresses
have determined that that rule is a proper
rule. It is provided in Article 5 of the Con-
stitution of the United States, that Congress,
whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, may propose amendments
to this Constitution. And I suppose the
Congress of the United States considers
nothing of graver importance than amend-
ments to the Constitution of the United
States. And yet under the rule of Congress,
similar to this 43d rule, as proposed to
be amended by the gentleman from Allegany
(Mr. Thruston,) a minority of the members
elected to Congress may propose amend-
ments to the Constitution of the United
States. And that is purely and strictly par-
liamentary practice, and a practice I am in
favor of and it has been the rule of the
House of Representatives for a great many
years past, I remember particularly a deci-
sion under that rule in the latter part of
February, 1860, when Mr. Crittenden, I
think it was, proposed an amendment to the
Constitution. A minority of the Senate
voted in favor of it; but that minority was
a majority of the members present, and so
the proposition was considered as passed.
Mr. MARBURY. I do not rise to make any
extended remarks upon this subject. I will
merely say that the argument used by the
gentleman from Alleghany county (Mr.
Hebb) that a majority of the provisions of
the present Constitution were adopted by the
affirmative vote of less than one-half of the
members elected, will recoil upon himself.
The majority of the members elected to this
Convention, were elected as favoring a change
in the organic law of this State; they have
come here for that purpose. It is presuma-
ble, therefore, that they must have seen some
great defects in the organic law of the State,
or they never would have favored the call of
this Convention. Now it seems to me that if
this rule of the last Convention was defec-
tive, it may be held to have been the cause of
all the defects in the present Constitution. |
But if the members of that Convention had
been bound by the same rule by which it is
now proposed to bind the members of this
Convention, we should have then had a much
better organic law than we now have. The
gentleman is in this dilemma; he must either
give up the rule adopted by the last Conven-
tion which brought about this evil state of
things, the present defective Constitution; or
else be must adopt a rule which will guard
against defects in the future.
Mr. ABBOTT. I shall vote in favor of this
amendment for the simple reason that no mea-
sure adopted by this Convention can go into
effect as a part of the Constitution of this
State until the people shall have ratified it
by their votes. But it is very different with
acts passed by the Legislature, for they go
into effect immediately upon their passage.
Therefore, if I was in the Legislature I
should vote for the adoption of a rule re-
quiring the votes of a majority of the mem-
bers of the Legislature to pass any law.
Mr. CLARKE demanded the yeas and nays
upon the adoption of the amendment, and
they were ordered.
The yeas and nays being then taken upon
the amendment of Mr. Thruston, they re-
sulted as follows: yeas 34, nays 41.
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Barron, Brooks, Cunningham, Davis
of Washington, Ecker, Galloway, Greene;
Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Jones of Cecil, Keefer,
Larsh, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Negley,
Nyman, Pugh, Robinette, Sands, Schley,
Schlosser, Scott, Sneary, Swope, Sykes,
Thruston, Valliant, Wooden—34.
Nays—Messrs, Goldsborough, President;
Belt, Berry of Baltimore county, Berry of
Prince George's, Briscoe, Brown, Carter,
Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Cushing, Dan-
iel, Dennis, Duvall, Earle, Edelen, Gale,
Harwood, Henkle, Hoffman, Hopper, Jones
of Somerset, Kennard, King, Landsdale,
Mace, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Murray, Parker, Parran, Peter, Purnell, Rus-
sell, Smith of Carroll, Smith of Worcester,
Stockbridge, Thomas, Wickard—41.
So the amendment was not agreed to.
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The PRESIDENT announced that the hour
had arrived for the consideration of the spe-
cial order for to-day, at one o'clock, being
the report of the Committee on the Bill of
Rights.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE moved to postpone the
order of the day until after the Convention
had completed its action on the rules,
Mr. DANIEL moved to amend that motion
so as to postpone the order of the day until
to-morrow at one o'clock, as the chairman of
the committee (Mr. Stirling) was absent.
Mr. BERRY of Prince George's. I think, in
view of the importance of the measure, there
need be no haste in taking up the special or-
der—the Bill of Rights. It contains several |
