ondly, if we are, when are we going to
have that historian?
THE PRESIDENT: The answer to the
question is that the Convention will have
an historian, and he will be appointed just
as soon as we can obtain consent of a
qualified person to serve in that capacity,
which I hope will be very shortly.
Are there any motions? The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. President,
I move that the vote by which Resolution
No. 18 was adopted on October 25, 1967,
be reconsidered and that Resolution No. 18
be referred to the Committee on Rules,
Credentials, and Convention Budget for
consideration and report of its consequences
in the light of Convention Rule 28 [29]*.
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes
that the motion in the present form is im-"
proper in that there should be two separate
motions, a motion to reconsider, and then
if the vote is reconsidered, a separate
motion embracing the second part of your
motion. If you will restate your motion, as
a motion to reconsider, the Chair will per-
mit it.
DELEGATE MARION: The Chair is
correct. I wanted the purpose of the motion
for reconsideration to be started in the
motion, as drafed and presented to the
delegates. I will recast the motion as fol-
lows. I move that the vote by which Resolu-
tion No. 18 was adopted on October 25,
1967, be reconsidered.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Marion to speak to the
motion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. President, I
have set out what I believe are the grounds
for the motion for reconsideration in a
memorandum which should be on the desk
of each delegate. I base the motion for
reconsideration on two principal factors.
Despite a technical amendment in one of
the factual premises on which Resolution
No. 18 was based, after the vote was taken
yesterday, there still remains a factual in-
accuracy in one of the whereas clauses,
*The number in brackets refers to the
final number assigned to the rule in the
Rules of the Constitutional Convention of
Maryland. |
which states as a fact, that three delegates
have been assigned to eight substantive
committees, and, therefore, are exercising
the right to vote on each of these eight
substantive committees. That is not true,
and even though it may be obvious to each
of us here in the Convention, it distressed
me to hear last night as I drove home from
this Convention, on the 7 o'clock news a
very prominent radio station was advising
the people of Maryland that the three
officers of the Convention had the right to
vote on each of the eight substantive com-
mittees in this Convention.
A more important basis for reconsidera-
tion, I think, is the fact that many of the
consequences of the motion were not ap-
parent, perhaps to others, but certainly not
to me, and not to many other delegates
with whom I have spoken at the time it
was considered. The chairman of the Rules
Committee yesterday indicated that he did
not see that the resolution needed to be
referred to the Committee on Rules, but
once we had adopted the resolution here
in Convention, it became apparent that a
fundamental question rose with respect to
the language of Convention Rule 28 [29].
I do not know the mathematics, and have
not checked them with respect to each
committee, but certainly in one committee,
the Committee on Suffrage and Elections, a
very unfortunate situation exists in the
mathematics of the membership. So that
as my memorandum states, it is possible in
that committee to have an eight to seven
vote of all the voting members, and not be
able to report a proposal to this Conven-
tion, because that would not be a majority
of all the members of that committee. That
means that a minority can control that
committee. This may be true on other com-
mittees as well.
I just do not think a great many dele-
gates to this Convention understood that,
and realized that fact when they voted on
Resolution No. 18 yesterday. I think it has
consequences that affect Rule 28 [29]. To
me, and to others, it points out the wisdom
of the rules of this Convention which were
adopted in July, which indicate that there
should be a three-day layover after the
introduction of a matter before this Con-
vention, before it arrives at a vote. I think
many of us, perhaps, feel the pressure of
time upon us, and many of us are anxious
to vote on matters, perhaps, before due
consideration, deliberation, and debate has
occurred with respect to them.
I submit, Mr. President, that this matter
should have been referred to the Rules |
