The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1880-02-06

Of his notion TO table was not 70 cut Of debate,
nor 70 prevent full and fair discussion Of the
question. bat 70 him il was evident that large
N ijarity Of the members Of the Legislature
were opposed 20 the Convention, and IN his
opinion, argument aud discussion would re-
suit in nothing except consuming great deal
Of valuable time He wished 10 test the sense
Of the House by taxing sa'a On the motion to
table; ard !, .ie vote IL establish the fact
that there vas an overwhelming and deter
mined opposition q the Cav. nEiOn, be would
favor \ motion 10 rscoaside., which would
open up the way 10 eDnsideran u and discus
sion of the subject
The motion 10 table prevailed By the follow
lowing vote;
YEAs-Messrs. Anderson, Andrews, Atwood,
Billngslea Bowman. Buchanan, Bufsin,
Bnfford, Buford, Burdine, DyTd. Cameron,
Carter, Chambliss, Christmas, CLARK, Cole
man, Cratiu, Day, Downs, Eaton, Erwin,
Field Of Lowndes, Fields. Ford. Glmer Gum,
Hardin, Harkreader, Harris, Harrison, il'nce,
Hicks, Hill, HollingswOrth, Hunter, Hurt,
Kearney, King Lewis Of Perry, Love, Mad-
son Marett. Mcneil, Mellen, Mitchell. Moore,
Morris, Mullins, Myers Majors Nelson, Nor
rell, Rsiney, Ramsey, Robertson, Rogers, Rus.
sell, Shields, SommerVille, Spears, Stevens Of
Calhoun, Sykes, Talberi, Tankersley. Taylor Of
Benton, Taylor Of Lee, Teunisson, Weatherly,
NAYs-Messrs. Applewhite, Bailey, Burnett,
Bynum, Carroll, Cooper, Davis, Drane, Fort.
son, Gibson, Glass, Howry, Lamkin, Leslie,
LYLE. Martin. Matherson, McGee of Clark, Nc
Gehee OF wilkinson, McInnis, McLaurin OF
Lauderdale McLaurin Of Rankin, Montgom-
cry, Murphy, holland, Rees, Ross, Seabrook,
Seal, Stamper Stephens Of YalObusha, Wei
born, Walker, Watson-A
ABSENT AND NOT VoTISG-Messrs. Chamber
lain. Currie, FeatheTston, Huddleston, Lewis
, Of Claiborne, Neville, Pollard Selby Sew
ard, Torrey Of Jefferson, Torrey of Sunfower
Williams, Wilson'S.
! Messrs Fortson, howry and Carroll ex
| planned that they voted against the motion tC
| lay on the table, not because they favored
calling Convention, but because they wished
| TO allow free discussion of the question.
! Mr.. Seal explained that he voted against
! the motion because he advocated the holding
of a Convention, and in doing so represented
the will Of his constituents.
Mr.. Talbert voted to lay on table, first, be
cause he was opposed to calling COnven
| ton, and second because he wanted to get rio
Of buncombe speeches.
! Mr.. Montgomery had no buncOmbe speed
| to make, but voted mo" because the peopl,
desire Constitutional Convention, and he
| believed that a Convention is necessary t
! preserve the ascendenoy Of the Democratic
party in the State government. He proceeded
! to give his reasons at some length when the
point was raised that he was not in order.
Mr. Martin Ct Claiborne, explained why hi
voted against laying on the table He favor
ed the calling Of Convention from impor
tant considerations of public policy anC
went into a review Of the circumstances un
der which the present objectional Constitu
ton was adopted, showing that some OF III
provisions were not in accordance with thu
Constitution and laws of the. United States
etc
Mr.. Love, of Amite, objected to the consump
ton of the time of the House in the discussion
of question which had been definitely settled
| by the vote just taken.
Mr.. Nc Laurin, of Rankin, presented the fol
lowing paper setting forth the reason why h
and others who are opposed to the calling of {
Convention voted against the motion to lay OF
the table:
The following named members are opposed
to the calling Of a Convention, but voted mo
for the purpose OF allowing debate, believing
it an important question that should be dis
Cussed;