Mr. Judd was somewhat surprised that the gentleman from Iowa should oppose the rule under consideration, when he had just offered a resolution that the convention do adjourn in three weeks. The time spent in committee of the whole was, in his opinion, time spent in vain. In the convention in the state of New York a week's time had been spent in committee of the whole in debating whether the governor should be thirty years of age and a freeholder, and another week was spent in the convention on the same question. So here, when a question has been fully debated in the committee, it will be again brought up in the convention and the whole ground traveled over again. Many members will vote in committee, and propositions may be incorporated in committee, which the convention will reject. These were the reasons that influenced the committee to report the rule, and he hoped that gentlemen would see the necessity of its adoption, and especially those who were so anxious to adjourn at an early day. The president of the convention can take part in the debate by calling some other member to the chair as is provided by another of the rules, so that the objection on that ground went for nothing.

Mr. Marshall M. Strong was one of the committee who reported these rules, but to this particular one he had objected and still did object. It was an innovation upon legislation which he did not believe would operate well. The adoption of the rule would spread a great many motions on the journal which otherwise would not find their way there, thus imposing labor on the clerk and lumbering the journal with unnecessary matters. In reply to the gentleman from Dodge, Mr. Judd, he said that in his opinion the president would never avail himself of the privilege granted him by the rule allowing him to call some member to the chair. No president would get up in his place and say to the convention, "Gentlemen I wish to speak on this matter." The consequence then of the adoption of the rule would be to deprive the convention of the advice and experience of the president. The continuance of the committee of the whole will save calling the ayes and noes a great many times, and thereby save the time of the convention. How much time would be consumed in making these calls he was not pre

pared to say, but it would be found to amount to considerable. In his opinion the business of the convention would be expedited by the committee of the whole, rather than retarded as had been suggested.

Mr. William R. Smith was also one of the committee and was in favor of the rule as reported. He would grant that it was an innovation on legislation, but that was no reason why it may not be adopted here, and operate well. It was expected that the committees would prepare and perfect their business. True, that, in legislative bodies, this was not the case; hence the propriety of having the committee of the whole; but such he hoped would not be the case with this convention. Propositions would be laid before them, and the only question would be to receive or reject the same, one to amend being seldom if ever entertained. If this be the true ground, and he thought it was, the time of the convention would be saved by the adoption of the rule.

Mr. Moses M. Strong said his object in opposing the adoption of the rule was to save the time of the convention as far as possible. But he could not believe that the rule would have that effect, but a contrary one. He could not, as he said before, see why this body should mark out a course different from that pursued by all other legislative or conventional bodies. He must disagree with his colleague in the opinion that it would be a saving of expense. Committees will report the various matters referred to them, but those reports will be but the report of the opinion of seven or some other number of men, and the convention in all probability would see fit to amend the same; if this be done in the committee of the whole, the amendments will not be spread on the journal and the ayes and noes will not be called. How much time will be spent in calling the ayes and noes of this body cannot be at present determined. He would suppose that it could be done in fifteen minutes, and he thought that was too short rather than too long a time; then four calls, which could be demanded, as the rules now stood, by any eight members would consume one hour, and twelve times three hours or a half a day's session; and in the heat of debate gentlemen would have no care for expense or time when they would call

for these ayes and noes. But he was told that the same questions would be raised in the house which had been settled in committee of the whole. For such a course the convention had a remedy in the previous question, and when an effort to spend the time of the house unnecessarily should be discovered that question most certainly would be called.

Mr. Ryan was opposed to the rule and hoped it would not be adopted. In addition to what had been said by others, in which he concurred, he had another reason. The rule in his mind was founded in the bad opinion of the committee of the convention itself—that the convention will spend its time in entertaining improper questions, if the committee of the whole be allowed. It would be true that there would be many things suggested, some of which would be favorably received, and some rejected. Mr. Ryan could not make up his mind that the convention was composed of such obstinate materials as the committee had seemed to think. The opposite practice has been found to act well and he was not so progressive as to wish to change that which has always been found to work beneficially.

Mr. Chase said most of the members of this convention were new hands at legislation; but he understood that this rule was an innovation of the old practice, and for which he had as yet heard no reason. (Mr. Chase made some further remarks which were not fully caught by the reporter.)

The question was then taken on the rule and it was lost by a very decisive vote.

The twelfth rule, being read, was as follows: "The ayes and noes may be called upon any question at the request of any eight members."

Mr. Moses M. Strong moved to strike out "eight" and insert "one-fifth of the members present." That was the number required by the Constitution of the United States for the House of Representatives of Congress.

Mr. Elmore had heard a great deal said about Progressive Democracy, but this motion was retrogressive, or the gentleman from Iowa did not belong to the progressive party. When the Whigs were all told, there were but sixteen of them, and one

fifth of one hundred twenty-five, twenty-five. If the motion of the gentleman from Iowa was adopted, he would place it out of the power of the Whigs to call for the ayes and noes. He did hope that the dominant party would at least allow the Whigs to have a show.

Mr. Moses M. Strong would ever be ready to allow the Whigs, few as they were, to vote on all questions.

Mr. Chase was in favor of the rule as it then stood, and opposed to having one-fifth, as it would take considerable time to determine what number would constitute one-fifth of those present.

Mr. Moses M. Strong could not think there would be as much difficulty as was supposed by members, but he would modify his motion so as to strike out "eight" and leave a blank. The motion prevailed.

Mr. Strong then moved to fill the blank with "twenty." Lost. Mr. Ryan moved "fifteen"; which carried.-Argus, Oct. 13, 1846.

Several other points of minor consideration contained in the report were discussed, among others, that relating to the number necessary to call for a division of the house, in which Mr. Elmore from Waukesha, Moses M. Strong, and Ryan participated.

Mr. Elmore wished the Whigs to have a small chance to make themselves heard in the convention-was aware they were but a small proportion of those present, but still he thought they should be allowed a chance to show that still they were there. He hoped the convention would reduce the number required for a call for a division as low as possible.

It was finally decided that fifteen should be necessary for such a call.-Express, Oct. 12, 1846.

Moses M. Strong moved to amend the thirteenth rule by striking out the words "one-fourth" in the third line, which was decided in the affirmative. And a division having been called for, there were in the affirmative 40 and 15 in the negative.

Mr. Chase moved to fill the blank with the word "fifteen. Mr. Judd moved to fill the blank with the word "twenty-five." And the question having been put on said last motion, it was decided in the

negative. The question then recurred on filling the blank with the word "fifteen." [And] having been put, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. Ryan moved further to amend the said rule by inserting after the word "fifteen" in the first line the words "or one-fifth," which was decided in the affirmative. Said rule, as amended, was then adopted.

Moses M. Strong moved to amend the fourteenth rule by striking out the words "by tellers" in the second line, which was decided in the affirmative. Said rule as amended was then adopted.

The question was then put on the adoption of the sixteenth rule, and decided in the affirmative.

Moses M. Strong moved to amend the seventeenth rule by striking out the word "suspended" in the second line. And having been put, it was decided in the affirmative. Said rule as amended was then adopted.

Marshall M. Strong moved to amend the report of the committee by inserting the following as rule fifth: "Fifth. The rules observed in convention shall govern as far as practicable the proceedings in committee of the whole, except that a member may speak oftener than twice on the same subject, and that a call for the yeas and nays or for the previous question cannot be made. Amendments made in the committee of the whole shall be entered on a separate piece of paper and so reported to the convention by the chairman, standing in his place; which amendments shall not be read by the president, unless required by one or more of the members," which was decided in the affirmative.

On motion of Mr. Judd [it was] ordered that 200 copies of the rules just adopted be printed for the use of the members of this convention.

Moses M. Strong introduced the following resolution, which was adopted, to wit: "Resolved, That 200 copies of the rules adopted for the government of the convention be printed in pamphlet form, together with a list of the standing committees, the names of the members of the convention, together with their residences and boarding houses."

On motion of Mr. Lovell the resolution to refer the resolution for the appointment of standing committees to a select committee was taken up, when Mr. Judd moved to amend said resolution by striking out the word "five" in the third line and inserting the word "seven" in lieu thereof. Mr. Steele accepted the said amendment as a modification to the original resolution. Mr. Baker moved further to amend said resolution by striking out the word "seven" in the third line and inserting the word "thirteen" in lieu thereof, which was decided in the affirmative. The said resolution as amended was then adopted. The President announced the appointment of the following committee under the resolution above named, to wit: Messrs. Steele, Baker, A. Hyatt Smith, [Graham, Reed, Agry, George B. Smith,] Dennis, Moses M. Strong, Phelps, Bevans, Prentiss, and Ryan.