1874.] OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES. 785

AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

Section 2, at end of section, add: "Provided, That nothing
in this section shall be so construed as to apply to Prince
George's county."

The proposed amendment was rejected.

Mr. Stewart, of Baltimore City, submitted the following
amendment:

AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

Section 2. Add at end of section: "And when not applicable,
then the provisions of this Act shall be null and void."

The proposed amendment was rejected.

Mr. Stewart, of Baltimore City, submitted the following
amendment:

AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

Section 3. Add at end of section: "Provided, however, That
if any county, or the City of Baltimore, votes against license,
then said county or city shall levy a tax on its assessable
property equal to the amounts of the liquor licenses paid into
the State Treasury for the year previous to said vote."

The proposed amendment was rejected.

Mr. Seth submitted the following amendments:

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED.

Section 3,line 4, after the word "liquor," insert "therein;"
line 7, after the word "liquor," insert "therein."

Section 3, line 8, strike out all after the word "law."

On motion of Mr. Thompson,
A division of the question was ordered.

The question recurring upon the adoption of the first prop-
osition,

Being the first amendment proposed,
Mr. Brace demanded the yeas and nays.
The demand being sustained,
The yeas and nays were called, and appeared as follows:

AFFIRMATIVE.
Messrs.

Hines, Speaker, Etchison, Greenfield,
Merritt, Thompson, Freaner,
Bird, Kemp, Grimes,
Hawkins, Pruitt, Stake,
Seth, Merrill, Clark