pose to amend the rule, if the majority
wishes a reconsideration, and a motion to
postpone, or to lay on the table, is made, it
can vote that motion down. I think it leaves
the question of reconsideration entirely with-
in the power of the majority.
Mr. PUGH. I do not think the gentleman's
explanation removes my difficulty at all. I
suppose the Convention might vote upon mo-
tions for anything indefinitely. There may
be constant motions to adjourn and we may
keep voting upon them and rejecting them
But suppose some article is submitted to the
Convention and is voted upon, but docs no
receive in its favor the votes of a majority of
the members elected to the Convention
though it may receive the votes of the ma-
jority of a quorum. We may afterwards
want to reconsider the vote by which that ar-
ticle was rejected; we may want to reconsider
it several times.
Mr. CUSHING. How does my amendment
deprive the Convention of the power which
the gentleman desires? I do not see how it
does.
Mr. SANDS. I would like to understand
what is to be the effect of the proposed amend-
ment, The rule now reads—"and no mo-
tion for reconsideration shall be postponed
or laid on the table." How is the amend
ment to work practically? Suppose there
are but 50 members of the Convention voting
at one time upon any proposed article of the
Constitution, and but 48 votes are given for
it; that is not enough, and the article is de
dared to be rejected. Afterwards we may
want to reconsider, when we have sent out
the Sergeant-at-Arms, (of whom we heard so
much talk when we were discussing the pro
position to remove to Baltimore city,) to
bring in members enough to make up the re-
quisite majority. But how are we to finish
the business of the Convention unless we are
at liberty to move reconsiderations whenever
we find the proposed reconsideration can be
made actual and effective? It is not to be
supposed that 50 members of this body are
going arbitrarily, and for no purpose what-
ever, to call for constant reconsiderations
The idea of the gentleman seems to be based
upon the supposition that the majority of
this Convention are going to busy themselves
by making constant motions for reconsidera-
tion, when there is no use for such motions
This rule, as it stands now, it seems to me
simply permits us. if a vote upon any article
or section is not satisfactory to a majority of
this body, to reconsider that vote whenever
such reconsideration can be made actual and
effective. It does seem to me that in adopt-
ing many of these amendments we are strip-
ping ourselves entirely of the power to do the
business of this Convention.
Mr. CLARKE, The reason for the addition
of this clause to the rules was this: to place
a check upon motions for reconsideration. |
If motions to reconsider must be voted upon
at the time they are made, members will not
make such motions unless there is some prob-
ability of carrying them. But if you strike
out this clause, then a member can make a
motion for reconsideration, and if he thinks
lie cannot carry it then, he will move to post-
pone it, or lay it upon the table, to be taken
up when it can be carried. This clause is
intended as a check upon such motions.
Mr. SANDS. I do not see how the rule is
going to operate as the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke) seems to think it will
operate. Suppose a motion is made to-day to
reconsider, and I know there is not a ma-
jority present in favor of that motion—could
not some member, under this rule, immedi-
ately move to postpone the reconsideration
until to-morrow, or until the Sergeant-at-
Arms can be sent out to hunt up and bring
indelinquents? But if no postponement is
to be allowed, what will be the effect? Why,
that immediately upon a motion to recon-
sider being made we must vote upon it, al-
though we are in the same minority we were
in the day before. I may be in error in my
views, but that seems to me to be the effect
of striking tout this clause of this rule.
Mr. CLARKE. The gentleman from How-
ard (Mr. Sands) does not seem to understand
my point at all. My point is this: that if you
cannot move to postpone, or to lay on the
table, a motion to reconsider, then members
of the Convention will not take up the time
of this body by motions to reconsider until
they see they can probably be carried. This
restriction upon the power of the Convention
to postpone and to lay upon the table, will
force members to ascertain the condition of
the House before they bring forward motions
to reconsider. If they find they cannot carry
such a motion, they will not take up the
time of the Convention by submitting such
a motion for its consideration; but they will
wait until they think it can be carried. The
object of this clause is to prevent those mo-
tions being made when no practical result
can be obtained.
Mr. CUSHING. The gentleman from How-
ard (Mr. Sands) argues against my motion to
strike out on the ground that the rule as it
now stands gives him the power to move a
postponement of a motion to reconsider. But
the rule as it at present stands entirely pre-
cludes float, and I move to strike out this
clause in order, if be wants a reconsideration,
and finds be cannot carry it at the time the
motion to reconsider is made, to give him the
power to let the motion lay over until such
time as it may be carried. The gentleman is
working against the giving power lo himself.
For the first time I find the magnanimity on his
part of refusing power which it is proposed
to confer upon him; and for the first time
I find the gentleman of the minority work-
ing with him. |
