is any discrepancy of opinion among the members of the opposition upon the committee. So far as relates to the Union members, we agree with regard to the details of the report, and are prepared to submit it at any moment. It is only out of respect to the opposition that the report has been delayed. Upon the adoption of the order requiring lists of the committees to be posted in some conspicuous position in the Hall or Rotunda, I prepared a list of the Committee on Elections and had it placed there, appointing certain days of the week when we were to assemble in the committee room to discharge our duties. The Union members of the committee have usually attended; but the members of the committee in the opposition did not with the same punctuality attend. Consequently, out of respect to them, we delayed final action until we could have all the members of the committee present. I am not aware to this day that there is any difference of opinion with regard to what will be that report. The subjects which have been referred to by the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers)! were discussed on one or two occasions, and the Constitution was referred to. I believe these subjects, so far as they relate to the qualification of members, were duly and fairly discussed and understood by the members of the committee on both sides. The delay in offering our report did not originate in any disposition to avoid a report, but merely out of respect to the opposition upon the committee, to give them an opportunity to satisfy themselves, that we might either submit a unanimous report, or that they might submit a minority report, if their judgment should so incline. Mr. RIDGELY. I should not say one word on this subject but for the remarks which have fallen from my friend from Kent (Mr. Chambers.) I have been for very many years in the habit of deferring with very great respect to his judicial learning. But I cannot reach the same conclusion as to the theory of the law under which this Convention was organized, to which he has arrived. I be lieve very differently. I do not believe that there are qualifications imposed by the act of Assembly; nor do I believe it was any part of the theory of the act of Assembly to impose qualifications. I do not regard this body as deriving any being whatever from the Convention Bill. I do not regard the Convention Bill as entering in the slightest degree into the vitality of this organization. According to my theory of our being, we derive our existence directly from the people. The instrumentalities by which the subject was brought before the people have been well put by my friend from Kent; but how the Legislature had authority to provide these instrumentalities and bad not the authority to go further, it is difficult for me to under stand. Where the Legislature derived the authority to provide the ways and means to attain the expression of the public sentiment and to be there estopped, I have yet to learn. The whole theory of our being is that life has been inspired into this body by the popular vote; and upon a programme suggested and submitted for the consideration of the people by the General Assembly of the State. They have suggested to the people the modus operandi, and they have also suggested to the people certain qualifications of membership; and my friend from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) laid them before you yesterday in the form of the order which he submitted to the House; showing that there is at least a difference of opinion between him and the honorable gentleman from Kent. He thinks that the Legislature have imposed qualifications, and that those qualifications have been indorsed and vitalized by the vote of the people, and that every gentleman who presents himself here must present himself under authority conferred by the people, and qualifications controlled by the people. These are my views; and I have thought that it would not be proper to permit the sentiments uttered by the honorable gentleman from Kent, to pass sub silentio; but that I should rise in my place and dissent from those doctrines, and utter here my convictions that the Committee on Elections owe it to an imperative sense of public duty to report; and to report upon the qualifications of members, not as provided in the act of Assembly, but as prescribed by the popular vote. Mr. CHAMBERS. I am indebted to the gentleman who last addressed the Convention, for the compliment conveyed in his opening remark. I wish I could say I could have equal respect for the arguments which he has advanced. Does it not manifestly appear-is it not on the very surface of the thing, that if the Legislature, commanded as they were by this Constitution under which they were assembled, to offer the people an opportunity of calling a Convention, have the power which he concedes to them, of mixing up with the call, restraints, modifications, and various provisions, it is in their power forever to make that constitutional provision a perfect farce? The question is put to the people: Shall there be a Convention? Nothing else was acted upon-a Convention or no Convention. Let the gentleman tell me, if he can, upon his faith as a man of honor, that one man in a thousand regarded the qualifications, the restraints of that bill, when he gave his ballot for a Convention, or no Convention. If they can say that a gentleman who is not qualified to sit in one of the two houses, shall not be a member, they have authority, according to the argument of my friend, to say anything else they please. If they choose to say that this Convention shall be composed of individuals of any class, or if they choose to put into the bill offensive matter of any other kind, and if the people are bound by it, what is the consequence? They must either elect the Convention subject to this offensive matter, or they must without a Convention forever. The Legislature have nothing to do but to make the bill too offensive to be adopted by the people as a whole, and it will be defeated. Yet the Constitution has entitled the people to a Convention. The gentleman has asked a question which I take pleasure in answering, and, unless he is very unreasonable, I think, to his entire satisfaction. It is this: If the Convention can name the time and the place, and bind the people by that, why not name something else? Mr. BELT. I hope my friend will excuse me for asking him a question in regard to the restrictions imposed by the legislative act calling the Convention. Suppose the people of Kent had elected twenty delegates to this body, instead of the three they actually sent, who would determine upon their right to a seat here? Do you say the act does not bind anybody? and terms, and everything necessary for the exercise of the powers designated in the terms and words of the power. So I say here, when the Constitution of the State directs the Legislature to call a Convention, if the people wish it, it confers upon them the necessary power, without which that could not be performed which is enjoined upon them. It conveys the necessary power to appoint time, manner, place of election, time and place of assemblage, &c. That being done, they may just as well undertake to control the winds that blow, as to control the action or power, either of the people in selecting, or of this Convention in acting. I say, there fore, as a short answer to my friend's question, why they can do this and cannot do the other, is that the Constitution empowers them to do the one, and forbids them to do the other. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I suggest, as a question of order, that this debate is irrelevant. It is manifest that we shall have a very interesting time when the report comes in, but the question now is merely upon the adoption of the order of the gentleman from Kent. The PRESIDENT. The general custom is to allow debate on such an order, upon the general merits of the subject embraced in it; but, as the gentleman insists upon restricting the debate, the Chair must confine the debate to the question of the adoption of the order. Mr CHAMBERS. I was just arguing that question, and I will meet the gentleman's difficulty. The Constitution of 1850 has this provision: The Legislature shall give the people an opportunity to hold a Convention. That is a plain case. That obligation the Legislature are bound to comply with. How Mr. CHAMBERS. I intended to say, in nois it to be done? My answer is by legis- ticing the remarks of my friend before me lation-ex necessitate -from the very necessity (Mr. Ridegly,) that I could not understand of the case, that is a part of their constitu- how, with his theory, he could sit here day tional obligation. The necessity of the case by day and see an open violation of what he is, that the manner of getting it up, the supposed to be the obligation of this body, time of getting it up, and the time and place without exacting the report for which this of holding it shall be designated by the Leg-order calls. If he believes the bill to be obislature. Cannot my friends perceive the difference between getting up an organization and controlling the government of that organization after it is met and completed? There is no more difference between light and darkness than there is between getting up a Convention and restricting the Convention. Mr. RIDGELY. Is not the qualification of members of the body a part of its organization? Mr. CHAMBERS. Not at all. The Legis lature may undertake to say that Prince George's county shall have twenty members, which my friend puts to me a question about, and that Baltimore city shall have five members. Is not that a necessary consequence of your arguments? Must the people take that or be denied what the Constitution has entitled them to? My doctrine is, that the same doctrine applies to the Constitution of the State that applies to the Constitution of the United States. The United States have no authority except they can put their finger on the power. What is the extent of that power? Everything implied in its language ligatory, so far as it designates the qualifica tions of members, how can he, consistently with his obligations here, daily and hourly see around him, forming a part of this body, and participating in its deliberations, gentlemen known by the very appellations they bear not to be within the conditions of that bill? Mr RIDGELY. I will answer that question. I have no official knowledge whatever that there is a single member of this body disqualified, under my theory, from participating in the organization of this body. What may be rumor is not for me to go upon. This House has devolved upon one of its committees the very inquiry which we are now discussing, and I chose to defer what I had to say until a report should be made by that committee, whereby I might get the information upon which to act as a delegate to this body. Mr MILLER resuined: The question is upon the adoption of the order submitted by the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers,) instructing the Committee on Elections to report as speedily as possible. I am in favor of the adoption of that order, because I believe that the Convention bill does prescribe the qualifications of members of this body, and that the provisions of that bill, respecting the qualifications, just as much as the provisions in the 4th section, requiring the oath to be taken by the members, or the provision of another section, that the Constitution which we may adopt shall be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection, are obligatory upon this body. If we are to observe one of these provisions, I want the whole of them observed. It was for that purpose, and that purpose only, that I introduced the order yesterday. order, and not within the scope of a legitimate amendment. The PRESIDENT sustained the point of order, and overruled the amendment. Mr. STOCK BRIDGE. I now move the previous question upon the order. The previous question was sustained. Mr. M LLER demanded the yeas and nays upon the order, and they were ordered. The question being taken, the result wasyeas 47, navs 15-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Annan, Audoun, Barron, Belt, Bond, Briscoe, Brooks, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Cunningham, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, The Convention bill does prescribe that Dent, Earle, Edelen, Galloway, Hatch, Hoffthe parties entitled to seats upon this floor man, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, shall have the same qualifications as those Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Lansdale, McComas, prescribed for seats in the present House of Miller, Morgan, Murray, Noble, Nyman, ParDelegates. What are those qualifications? ker, Peter, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell, Scott, Look at the bill and you will see that no per-Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, son shall be eligible as delegate, who, at the Sneary, Swope, Thomas, Todd, Wickard, time of his election, is not a citizen of the Wilmer-47. United States. Suppose an unnaturalized foreigner had been elected to a seat in this body. Mr. HEBB raised the question of order. Mr. MILLER. I say that I am in favor of the adoption of the order because the Convention bill itself raises the question of parties entitled to seats in this body, and it is a question of organization. If there is to be any report at all to this body from the Committee on Elections, it is necessary that this order should be passed. There is a necessity for the adoption of the order because there is a difference of opinion among members of this Convention in regard to the question, whether the Convention bill does prescribe qualifications or not, and I am going on to show that it does prescribe qualifications, if I can be allowed to do so under the rule. Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Baker, Cushing, Dellinger. Ecker, Hebb, Larsh, Mullikin, Pugh, Schley, Schlosser, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes, Wooden-15. As their names were called, Mr. BELT said: I vote for the order because I am one of those to be affected by any report of the Committee on Elections. I trust the House will remember that those of us who are affected by it, seven or eight in number, are anxious that this matter should be acted upon, because we do not wish to maintain our position here unless we are entitled to it. I vote aye." Mr. РUGH said: It has not been customary here to ask committees to report. If one is asked, I think we may as well ask two or three other committees. I therefore vote "no." The PRESIDENT. It will not be in order, Mr. SCHLEY said: Presuming that the comthe point having been raised by the gentle-mittee have sufficient reasons for their delay, man from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge.) I am not disposed to put an imputation upon Mr. MILLER. Then I will forbear to make them by voting for this order; and I thereany remarks until the report of the committee fore vote "no." comes in. I think enough has been said to show the necessity for the adoption of an order like this. Mr. STIRLING. If the Convention bill has no power to disqualify any body from this floor then we are all duly elected. I am not willing to declare any man disqualified who has been sent to this Convention by the people. I say distinctly, as a matter of fact, that the Convention bill was understood by everybody in the Legislature, when it was passed to exclude these things. I have an amendment to offer to strike out all after "ordered" and to insert, "that all members holding seats here are hereby declared duly elected;" and I demand the previous question upon that order. Mr. CHAMBERS. I object to that as being utterly inconsistent with the subject of the Mr. STOCKBRIDGE said: I regard this order an imputation upon the fidelity of the committee, and I have seen nothing whatever in their conduct to call for a vote of censure from this body. I therefore vote "no." Mr. THOMAS said: I wou'd not at any time vote to censure a committee, and I should vote "no" on this occasion, were it not that, like my friend from Prince George's (Mr. Belt,) I am one of the unfortunate individuals referred to by this order; and I feel a delicacy about the matter. I ask to be excused from voting. Not being excused, Mr. THOMAS voted "aye." So the order was agreed to. Mr. CUSHING submit ed the following or der: Ordered, That the Committee on Elec tions be ordered to report that all members bolding seats in this Convention were duly elected. Mr. STIRLING called the previous question, and it was sustained. Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question being taken, the result wasyeas 17, nays 47-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron, Cushing, Ecker, Hebb, Hopkins, Keefer, Larsh, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Schley, Stirling, Sykes-17. Noys-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Belt, Bond, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Cunningham, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Dellinger, Dent, Earle, Edelen, Galloway, Hatch, Hoffman, Hollyday, Hopper, Horsey, Jones, of Cecil, Lansdale, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Noble, Nyman, Parker. Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell, Schlosser, Scott Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Sneary, Stockbridge, Swope, Thomas, Todd, Wickard, Wilmer, Wooden-47. As their names were called, Mr. CHAMBERS Said: As I am unwilling to stultify myself by voting "aye" o this, and "aye" on the other, I vote "no." Mr. CLARKE said: I hold that the Convention bill does not apply to the qualifications! of members. But we have a Committee on Elections; and as this Convention has no facts before it with regard to the e'ections or anything else upon which to act finally; and as for a deliberative body to declare all members properly elected without a report of its committee, is unparalleled in the history of the organization of such bodies; I vote "no." Mr. DANIEL Said: Believing that this is improperly taking out of the hands of the committee the work referred to them, and that it is a little disrespectful to the committee, I Fote "no." Mr. DAVIS, of Washington, said: As a member of the Committee on Elections, I ask to be excused from voting. Not being excused, Mr. DAVIS voted "no." Mг. THOMAS said: When I became a member of this Convention, I was under the impression that I was legally qualified to act as a member. Otherwise I should not have consented to take the position. I do not intend to reply at this time to the arguments of the gentlemen from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller,) but I contend that I am qualified to sit as a member of the Convention; and I am not satisfied to vote to exclude the Committee on Elections from examining whatever qualifications I may have or may not have as a member of the Convention. I shall therefore be forced to vote no." So the order was rejected. Mr. HEBB moved that the rules be suspended in order to take up the order of the day. The motion did not prevail, less than threefifths voting therefor. Mr. WICKARD subinitted the following order: Ordered, That the different Standing Comnittees having important business under consideration for the action of this Convention, who have not yet reported, be allowed until Monday next to report thereon. On motion of Mr HEBB, The order was laid on the table. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. The Convention proceed d to the consideration of the order of the day, being the second reading of the article on the legislative department. No further amendments were offered to section five. Mr. SCHLEY. I move that we now take up section four, which was yesterday passed over on the motion of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge.) The suggestion made by him of reasons why we should not dispose of this section in its turn, struck me at the time as valid. But on a more careful examination I am convinced that there was really no reason for passing it over, and I think the gentleman himself is also convinced that it may as well be now taken up. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I second the motion. More mature reflection has satisfied me that there was no sufficient reason for pa sing it Over. The motion was agreed to; and the section was read as follows: "Section 4. Immediately after the Senate shall have convened, after the first election under this Constitution, the senators shall be divided by lot into two classes, as nearly equal in numbers as may be-the senators of the first class shall go out of office at the expiration of two years, and senators shall be elected on the first Wednesday of November, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, for the term of four years to supply their places; so that, after the first election, one-half of the senatois may be chosen every second year. In case the number of senators be her after increased, such classification of the additional senators shall be made as to preserve, as nearly as may be, an equal number in each class." Mr. SCHLEY moved to amend by striking out the words "first Wednesday" and inserting "Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month." The amendment was agreed to. Section 6. The General Assembly may continue their first session, after the adoption of this Constitution, as long as in the opinion of the two houses the public interests may require it, but all subsequent regular sessions o the General Assembly shall be closed on the last Thursday of March next ensuing the time of their commencement, unless the same shall be closed at an earlier day by the agreement of the two houses. And when the General Assembly shall be convened by proclamation of the Governor, the session shall not continue longer than thirty days." Mr. STOCKBRIDGE submitted the following amendment, to strike out all before the word when" in the seventh line, and to insert: "The General Assembly may continue its sessions as long as in the opinion of the two houses the public interests may require it; but no new business shall be received after the 20th day of February succeeding the commencement of the session." Mr. STOCKBRIDGE said: This section as reported by the committee limits the sessions of the General Assembly to the last Thursday of March next ensuing the time of commencement. The experience of every gentle man who has been a member of the General Assembly is, that the latter part of the time in every session is very much crowded, and that measures are passed in the haste and crowd of the end of the session which could never be got through, and which would never meet the approval of the Legislature if they had time to investigate and examine them. It has seen ed to me better that the duration of the General Assembly should be unlimited, and that the time during which they should receive business should be limited. I therefore propose to leave the time of final adjournment indefinite, and that no business shall be received after the 20th of February. I should have no objection to making that the 1st of February, if the Convention prefer. I give the General Assembly time to mature the business before them, to deliberate upon, investigate and perfect it, and to pass in each House the bills from the other House. It has occurred year after year, I believe without exception, that from twenty to one hundred and fifty bills passed by one branch have been laid over in the other for want of time. I prefer to limit the time for commencing business, and allowing ample time to mature the business. Mr. PETER moved to amend the amendment by striking out "as long as in the opinion of the two houses the public interest may require it," and inserting "until the first day of May next ensuing," and by striking out "20th day of February" and inserting "1st day of March," so that the section should allow the session to continue until May 1st, but probibit the introduction of new business after March 1st. Mr. MILLER. I think the section as it stands is the best provision that can be made. We have determined by the vote of the House, as I understand it, upon biennial sessions of the Legislature. Either of the amendments that are offered would prevent any new bill being introduced between the 1st of March and the 1st of May, or between February 20 and the last Thursday of March. In the old Constitution there is a provision that no new bill shall originate in either House during the last three days of the session; and the 16th section of this report incorporates that provision. I should be willing to see that extended to five, six, eight or ten days of the termination of the session; but to allow the Legislature to continue its session from the 20th of February up to the last Thursday of March or longer without having the privi lege of introducing into the body any new matter of legislation, is a provision I cannot vote for. Mr. SCHLEY. I wish to ask if the adoption of the amendment or the amendment to the amendment, will exclude the provision about subsequent regular sessions after the first. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. My amendment covers all sessions; the first and all others. were en Mr. SCHLEY. In that view of it I shall certainly oppose it. I am in favor of the section as it stands, except that it has been suggested, and I thought the suggestion a good one, that the words as long as tirely too indefinite, and too apt to produce procrastination in legislation, and therefore it ought to be amended by inserting a reasonable time of sufficient duration such as may be required. But if the amendment is to extend subsequent sessions beyond the day specified in the report, the last Thursday of March next ensuing the date of assembling, I dissent from it. I adhere to the section as it stands. If it should be thought proper to introduce the provision to limit the first session to the 1st day of May next ensuing the date of assembling, I would accede to that, or any other specific time that the Convention may select. But as to extending all sessions to the first day of May I am opposed to it. I think it an unnecessary length of time, and a waste of the public money. Hence I shall be compelled to oppose the amendment and the amendment to it. Mr. CHAMBERS. I have had some experience as to the operation of rules of that character. I have served some sixteen years in the Legislature of the State and of Congress. It is perhaps impossible to effect the very desirable object aimed at by the gentleman from Baltimore, to prevent the hasty passage of improper bills, and the hasty rejection of bills perhaps the most proper to be passed of any presented. The nearest approach to the accomplishment of that will be to limit the time, as proposed, within which new business may be offered But if there be no limitation of the time of the session, I think the result will be a total failure to accomplish the purpose. Ingenious members can always find room in the shape of amendments to introduce new matter. A bill comes from the other House of which they can take advantage, to incorporate upon it their fa |