particular amendment was dealt with in
the committee, if it was rejected, and why
it was rejected, et cetera. This might cut
down on amendments. After all, we will
have at least three or four days before a
committee report is taken up once it
reaches the Committee of the Whole. I
think this would be a salutary practice and
might minimize or cut down the number of
amendments otherwise offered. I plead
guilty here that a number of amendments
offered the other day just as well could
have been prepared prior to the session.
Your second question, Mr. Wheatley, was
in connection with the second reading pro-
cedure. I was not quite sure what your
question was.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: I do not
have any rules here. It is as to the amend-
ment procedure for second and third read-
ing.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: The same
amendment procedure we adopt here, if we
adopt it, is going to be applicable on sec-
ond reading too. In other words, when re-
ports start coming back from the Commit-
tee on Style to the floor of the Convention
for second reading, which will be the key
reading, the same rules regarding printing
and distribution of amendments would be
applicable.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Considera-
tion of amendments would also allow the
person to amend seriatim and also on the
whole question in the Convention itself, is
that correct?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Actually
you would have at least four opportunities
then?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That is cor-
rect.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: How about
on third reading?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: The third
reading hopefully would be the whole pro-
posed new constitution taken up as one
main question. Earlier in the proceedings
of this Convention the suggestion was made
by at least one delegate which I thought
had some merit, that debate be limited on
third reading to new matter. But that has
never been adopted by the Convention and
is a matter that perhaps we might want
to think about.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: When the
Committee on Style and Drafting reports, |
would the same rules of amendment apply
again?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: They will re-
port that to the Convention.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Yes, in the
Convention.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That is cor-
rect. My answer was yes.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: The possi-
bility would arise here of two other occa-
sions on which amendments—
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Now you are
overlapping. Second reading would be con-
sideration of the report of the Committee
on Style.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Which
would be the exclusive consideration and
second reading?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That is cor-
rect.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further ques-
tions for purposes of clarification? If not,
then before recognizing Delegate Pullen, I
would like to recognize the presence in the
gallery of the Honorable Frederick W.
Brune and Mrs. Brune. You all know Judge
Brune, former Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals of Maryland. We are very proud
to have them both with us today.
(Applause.)
I understand Delegate Pullen has a
pressing engagement which may require
him to leave before the session is over. The
Chair therefore recognizes him at the mo-
ment for the purpose of making a com-
ment with respect to this report even
though there is no motion now before us.
Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. President,
I appreciate your courtesy. I want to com-
pliment the Rule Committee on bringing
forth Rule 46A [50]. In my innocence two
days ago I assumed that the Minority Re-
port was on the desk of every delegate and
further that the amendments offered were
really in the nature of proposals which
would go before the group and be read be-
fore consideration. Probably the mistake
did some good because it has changed the
rule.
But seriously, sir, I think this is very
important and I think if we had this ma-
terial beforehand we would save a lot of
talk.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dele-
gate Pullen. The Chair recognizes Delegate |
