1867.] OF THE SENATE. 437

the election of Mayor and members of the City Council of said
city, their terms of office respectively, the time of entering
upon the duties of their offices respectively, and to amend and
to re-enact said sections, and to repeal an Act passed at
January session 1867, entitled, an Act to repeal section 227,
of article 4, of the Code of Public Local Laws, relating to
elections in the city of Baltimore, and to re-enact the same
with amendments, and to amend and re-enact said section
227;

Mr. Trail raised the following point of order:
Mr. Trail raises the point of order on the introduction of
the bill reported by a select Committee, providing for a new
election in the city of Baltimore, that a bill of similar tenor
and effect having once been passed during this Session of the
General Assembly, in due form and in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution, and then repealed at this the
same session, another bill looking to the accomplishment of
the same object as that aimed at in the one above referred to'
cannot be entertained, and in substantiation of this point of
order raised, and which he considers to be well taken, cites
from page 120 of Manual, Rules and Barclay's Digest, 1863,
the following: "In Parliament, a question once carried can-
not be questioned again at the same session, but must stand
as the judgement of the House. * * *. And a bill once re-
jected, another of the same substance cannot be brought in
again the same session. * * *."

The Chair decided as follows :

The decision of the Chair is, that the introduction of the
bill, after having been enacted and repealed at this session,
cannot be again presented, without a violation of received
parliamentary law. I refer the Senate to page 120 of Bar-
clay's Digest, in which the following language occurs : "In
Parliament, a question once carried, cannot be questioned
againat the same session, but must stand as the judgment
of the House. Towns col. 67; Mem. in Hakew, 33. And a
bill once rejected, cannot be brought in again the same ses-
sion. Hakew, 158;" 6 Eng., 392.

The rule is conclusive; and it will hardly be pretended that
the present bill is of such vast magnitude and urgency as that
quoted in 2 Hats., 99, 100, where, on account of the indispen-
sable importance of the measure, and the fact that it was
lost by a majority of one only, the rule was not strictly
and virbally enforced.

The reason of the rule is obvious, as, without it, the whole
time of the Assembly would be consumed in attempts to re-
vive lost bills, to the exclusion of new and important legis-
lation.

It is true, an enabling act is now pending, (indeed, as I