Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

The member must wait until petition day, and until his State is called, before he can present his petition. And so of resolutions and motions: the member must wait until the resolutions pending and undetermined are disposed of, and his State is called for resolutions and motions, before he is entitled to submit a resolution or make a motion. There is no proceeding of this House better established, or more imperatively required by the rules, than this. But if the constraction now insisted on be the true one, that this motion for leave may be made at this or another hour of every day, why, then, a member having a petition to present, instead of waiting for petition day to present it, has only to prepare a bill based on his petition, and come into the House on any morning, and submit his motion for leave to bring in his bill, and may proceed to the discussion of the merits of the bill which he asks leave to bring in. And so of a resolution of inquiry directed to a committee, which he may wish to offer. Instead of waiting for his State to be called in its order for resolutions, he has only to prepare a bill embracing the objects of his resolution, and come into the House at a time when under the rules he is not authorized to offer resolutions or make motions, and submit his "motion for leave to bring in his bill," and proceed to discuss it. Every member may in like manner submit motions for leave to bring in bills, and any mem. ber may submit as many motions of the kind as he pleases, or as he has applications for relief from his constituents. Every one must see that the effect of allowing such mo. tions, except at the regular time of making motions, would be to annui and set aside the rules prescribing the "order of business of the day," and to overturn and wholly change the established and uniform practice of the House in the transaction of its business.

But it is assumed that this "motion for leave" may be made when reports of committees are called for, because it is said the same rule provides for reports of committees and for the motions for leave; and it is insisted that bills cannot be reported, even by a committee, except by "an order of the House," and "in either case a committee to prepare the same shall be appointed." It is said that in every case of a bill reported by a committee, though no motion is formally put, "an order of the House" is presumed to be made to authorize the committee to report the bill. This error arises from not adverting to the fact that by another rule of the House, subsequent in the date of its enactment, the standing committees are authorized to "report by bill or otherwise," without "an order of the House." The rule itself is the order of the House. That rule is, that "the several standing committees of the House shall have leave to report by bill or otherwise." Commitices under this latter rule have a right to report bills without any other previous order of the House." The same rule does not apply to "motions for leave to bring in a bill." The inference, therefore, that when it is in order for a committee to report a bill, it is in order for a member not acting by order of any committee to submit, not a bill, but "a motion for leave to bring in a bill," is erroneous. We must not confound the motion for leave" with the bill which is to follow if the motion be agreed to by the House. This is a motion, not a bill. The motion is one thing, and the bill which is to follow, if the motion be agreed to, another. The member does not rise and present a bill to the House, as committees in their reports do; but he submits a motion for leave, which mo. tion is the question before the House; and the question still recurs at what time this motion may be made. There is nothing in the rule authorizing it which gives it precedence over other motions or reports of committees, prior in point of time, and entitled to be first considered. The policy of our rules and the practice under them have always been to employ the agency of committees

[JAN. 10, 1837.

organized by the House to originate and bring in bills. All the bills ever brought into this House have been reported by committees of the House, with the exception of a very few cases, (he believed not exceeding two or three,) when bills had first been brought in "on motion for leave," and then referred to a committee to prepare the same. It does not appear, in these cases, but that the motion for leave was made at a time and in a stage of the proceedings of the House when the member bad a right, under the rules, to make it. We cannot presume that it was made at any other time. We have committees organized, with their respective duties and jurisdiction prescribed and defined, to whom, by peti tion, resolution, or motion, subjects are referred. These committees have a right to report by bill, without "an order of the House," or any question taken. No in dividual member has this right. There is nothing which, in any view of the question, can give to this motion precedence over reports and other motions and resolutions. It is allowed, it is true, to be made, but it can only be made in proper time. It is but a motion, and not, as has been assumed, a substitute for a report. No member can constitute himself a quasi committee, and bring into the House a substitute for a report. It cannot be as signed the same hour allotted to reports, because a motion for leave to bring in a bill is not a report, and can. not take precedence over reports, or of resolutions or motions which are prior in point of time, and entitled

to be first considered.

The one day's notice required to be given of this mo tion, "in cases of a general nature," does not authorize the motion itself to be made out of time and in violation of the prescribed order of business. The notice "in cases of a general nature" only enables the mover to make the motion at the time when motions may be made under the rules. Without the notice, "in cases of a general nature," the motion cannot be made, even when it would be otherwise in order for the member to make it. The analogy between this and another rule of this House requiring one day's notice of a motion is striking. That rule is, that no standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice being given of the motion therefor." A member gives notice, under this rule, that he will on to-morrow submit a motion to rescind one of the rules of the House: is he thereby entitled on to-morrow to submit his motion, before it is in order to make a motion, and thus give precedence to it over all other resolutions and motions pending and undetermined, and by their priority in point of time entitled under the rules to be first considered? Certainly not. The practice on this point has been long settled. The motion can only be made at such time as the member making it would have the right to move a resolution, or make a motion on any other subject, according to the rules. The notice in both cases removes a

There is no allot

disability, and confers no privilege which can give pre cedence to these motions over all other resolutions and motions which, under the rules, are authorized to be made. There is no analogy to be found in the proceed. ings of the other branch of this Legislature, where the practice has been allowed to bring in bills on motions for leave, because the rules governing the proceedings of that body differ radically from ours. ment of particular hours of time in each day in the Senate, such as our rules prescribe, within which certain speci fied business, of particular classes, and in a specified der of time, shall be transacted, and at "no other part of the day.' The complaint upon the ground of the delay which will be produced in making this motion, by restricting it to the time when, under the rules, it shall be in order to make it, applies equally to all the other business before the House. The rules operate equally on all the members of the House, and prescribe a fixed

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

order in which business of different classes shall be transacted. No business can regularly be done out of order. For example, reports are called from committees every morning. A report is made which gives rise to debate. It must be first disposed of before it is in order for other committees to make reports. So of resolutions or motions. After reports are made and disposed of, the States are called for resolutions or motions. A resolution is offered which gives rise to debate. It must be first disposed of before it is in order for any other member to offer a resolution. The member wishing to make a report, or offer a resolution, may with the same propriety complain, on the ground of delay, because he cannot be permitted to do so until the pending report or resolution made before him shall have been disposed of; as in this case he can complain that he cannot make this motion until other business, having precedence, has been disposed of. It is the natural and necessary operation of the rules. If a member submit a resolution or other proposition, when in order for him to do so, which gives rise to a long debate, it may be inconvenient for other members to wait until it shall be disposed of before they can bring forward propositions or motions which they desire to make, and yet every one knows that they are compelled to do so. So of other business on the calendar. A bill, for example, is taken up for consideration. A member is desirous to take up and consider another bill on the calendar, but he cannot do so until the bill before the House is disposed of; and yet the delay produced by a long debate on the bill first in order may be inconvenient, and may operate to delay and defeat action on much of the other business on the calendar of the House. There is no way to prevent this. The business first brought forward, as a general rule, is first in order, and must be first disposed of. The inconvenience of delay of important measures may, in many cases, exist, but it cannot alter or change the rules of the House, which are imperative in their terms. It was for these reasons, briefly stated, that he had felt himself constrained to make this decision. It was, he said, not the first time, during his service in that chair, that it had become his duty to decide new and complex questions of order, raised for the first time in the history of our proceedings; questions upon which, of course, there are no precedents to guide or aid us in the decision to be made. He had often heretofore felt, as he now felt, the delicacy and high responsibility of the duty which devolved upon him. But on this, as well as on all occasions, he had this consolation: that if he had fallen into error, this House had only to indicate by its vote what its judgment was; and, if differing from his own, he should always take sincere pleasure, in the future administration of the law of this House, in conforming to the judgment or decision of the House, whatever that judgment or decision may be. The decision of the Chair had been pronounced. There is an appeal, and the question on the part of the Chair is submitted to the House.

At the suggestion of Mr. MERCER, Mr. BELL with drew his motion till all the committees should have made their reports.

At a subsequent part of the day,

Mr. BELL renewed his motion for leave to bring in a bill.

The SPEAKER said he was about to state that the hour devoted to reports had elapsed, and that it was therefore his duty to announce the orders of the day.

Mr. BELL wished to inquire whether the half hour which had been spent in taking the yeas and nays was to be considered as a component part of the hour devoted to resolutions and reports.

The SPEAKER said that the uniform course had been to commence the computation of the hour from the moment at which reports were first called for. VOL. XIII.-85

[H. OF R.

Mr. BELL said he then gave notice that he would tomorrow again ask leave to introduce this bill.

EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION.

The House then resumed the consideration of the resolution (originally offered by Mr. WISE) reported from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, as follows:

"Resolved, That so much of the President's message as relates to the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, the vigilant and faithful discharge of the public business in all of them, and the causes of complaint, from any quarter, at the manner in which they have fulfilled the objects of their creation,' be referred to a select committee, to consist of nine members, with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, into the manner in which the public business has been discharged in all of them, and into all causes of complaint, from any quarter, at the manner in which said departments, or their bureaus or offices, or any of their officers or agents, of every description whatever, directly or indirectly connected with them in any manner, officially or unofficially, in duties pertaining to the public interest, have fulfilled or failed to accomplish the objects of their creation, or have violated their duties, or have injured and impaired the public service and interest; and that said committee, in its inquiries, may refer to such periods of time as to them may seem expedient and proper." The question pending was the following amendment, submitted by Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island: Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert the following:

"That so much of the President's message as is in the following words, to wit: Before concluding this paper, I think it is due to the various executive departments to bear testimony to their prosperous condition, and to the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted. It has been my aim to enforce in all of them a vigilant and faithful discharge of the public business; and it is gratifying to me to believe that there is no just cause of complaint, from any quarter, at the manner in which they have fulfilled the objects of their creation'be referred to a select committee of nine members, with instructions to inquire into any specific causes of complaint which may be alleged against the integrity of the administration of any of the departments or their bureaus, or the vigilance and fidelity with which their duties have been discharged; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers,"

Mr. HAMER was entitled to the floor, but gave way, on request, to

Mr. FRENCH, who said he wished to have read to the House a general proposition, which, he hoped, would meet the views of gentlemen on all sides. The paper in question was then read, as follows:

Resolved, That so much of the President's message as is in the following words, to wit: "Before concluding this paper, I think it due to the various executive departments to bear testimony to their prosperous condition, and to the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted. It has been my aim to enforce in all of them a vigilant and faithful discharge of the public business; and it is gratifying to me to believe that there is no just cause of complaint, from any quarter, at the manner in which they have fulfilled the objects of their creation"-be referred to five select committees, (one for each department,) to consist of seven members each, with instructions to inquire into the manner in which the duties pertaining to the several executive departments, and their respective bureaus, have been per

H. OF R.]

Mint and Coinage Bill--Surplus Revenue.

formed, under the several laws defining and regulating the same; into all frauds, corruption, and abuses, which are, or from any quarter may be, alleged to exist in said departments, or any of them, or in their, or any of their, respective bureaus, under the present administration; and if any such frauds, corruption, or abuses exist, to inquire by whom committed or practised, and the injury thereby done to the public interest; and that each of said committees have the power to send for persons and

papers.

The SPEAKER said the resolution which had been read was in the nature of a motion, and, of course, was not before the House.

Mr. HAMER then rose and concluded his remarks, as given in extenso heretofore.

After Mr. HAMER concluded,

Mr. McKEON obtained the floor, but gave way to enable the House, by general consent, to take up the

MINT AND COINAGE BILL.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill supplementary to the acts regulating the mint was then read and concurred in, nem. con.

The House then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11. SURPLUS REVENUE.

Mr. CAMBRELENG, from the Committee of Ways and Means, made a report, accompanied by a bill, on the subject of the surplus revenue. The title of the latter was "a bill to reduce the revenue of the United States to the wants of the Government."

Mr. OWENS remarked that as this was a very impor tant report, as well as the accompanying bill, he would move that both be read; which was agreed to.

The bill and report were then read by the Clerk. The bill is as follows:

"A bill to reduce the revenue of the United States to the wants of the Government.

"Be it enacted, &c., That from and after the 30th day of September next, in all cases where duties are im posed on foreign imposts by the act of the 14th of July, 1832, entitled 'An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imposts,' or by any other act, shall exceed twenty per centum on the value thereof, one third part of such excess shall be deducted; from and after the 31st of March, 1838, one half of the residue of such excess shall be deducted; and on the 30th of September, 1838, the other half shall be deducted, any thing in the act of 2d of March, 1833, to the contrary notwithstanding.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That from and affer the 30th of September next, the duties on salt and coal shall be, and the same are hereby, repealed." The bill having been twice read, and the reading of the report being concluded

Mr. CAMBRELENG moved that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and that the bill and report be printed.

Mr. LAWRENCE said, as a member of the Commit. tee of Ways and Means, and one of the minority of that committee upon this subject, he hoped he might be permitted, in the outset, to express his entire dissent from the principles laid down both in the bill and in the report. Sir, said Mr. L., this is a measure of great impor tance-no less than a bill to reduce the revenues of this country, which were proposed by the law of 1832 not to be reduced till 1842; that is, in five years and a half from this time. It was, he repeated, a bill to bring down the revenues of the country, in the short period of eigh teen months, as much as was proposed by the law of 1832 in five years and a half. He wished, therefore, the

[JAN. 11, 1837.

members of the House to reflect for a moment upon the principles contained in that report, and those contained in the bill. He put the question to the members of that House, whether there was any serious, any abiding feeling there that that bill was to become the law of the land. This question should be answered; for the bill was of so much importance that it was a necessary duty that House owed to the country that it should be advised that such legislation was contemplated upon the great interests of the country.

What was to be the effect, merely, of simply report ing this bill now? It was to create a panic from one end of the country to the other. What was its present state, from Maine to Georgia? What was the state of our finances? How did they stand with reference to pecuniary facilities? Why, that in all the great commercial cities of the East, (and he understood it to be worse and higher in the new States,) money was from fifteen to twenty of thirty per cent. per annum. Sir, said he, there is al ready a panic, growing out of the peculiar condition in which the finances of the country had been placed, and the effect of the proposition then before the House was to increase that panic; and how? You come down here, and propose a reduction upon all articles of import of ten per cent. in six months, ten per cent. more in six months thereafter, and ten per cent. more in the ensu ing six months.

Mr. MANN, of New York, raised the point of order, whether the merits of the bill were open to debate at this incipient stage.

Mr. LAWRENCE would go through in one moment. [Cries of "Go on!" "go on!" from several parts of the House.]

Mr. MANN remarked that the debate was entirely irregular; but if the House were disposed that it should go on, it could, of course, so order.

Mr. LAWRENCE said he intended to conclude his remarks by moving to lay the bill on the table. He proceeded. He wished to appeal to a few gentlemen of that House on the subject. He appealed, then, to the Rep resentatives from the State of Pennsylvania, for the pur pose of ascertaining whether this bill be a party meas ure; he hoped it was not; but he appealed to the mem bers from that State, and asked them if they were ready to sanction and adopt the doctrines of that bill and report. He appealed next to the members from the State of New York. He had been told that that State was in favor of the system, but he did not believe it. He knew there were many gentlemen from that State on that floor in favor of this system; but a majority of her people, he had no hesitation in saying, so far as he knew them, nev er would sustain the doctrines set forth in that report. [Mr. MANN exclaimed, he knows very little, then, about the sentiments of that people!]

Mr. L. also appealed to the State of Ohio, and to all the great and growing States of the West, if they had no interest in this question. Was there a gentleman upon this floor, truly representing his constituents, who would get up in his place, and say he was willing to place the whole industry of his country upon the same foundation as that of foreign nations? He could anticipate their an swer. It would be in the negative. He appealed next to New England, to the whole of New England; he would appeal to the State of Connecticut, whose delega tion composed a portion of the administration party in that House, if they would dare go home to their constit uents with this report in their hands, and say to them, "this is our doctrine; we will stand or fall by it." Sir, they would not be sustained for an hour if they did so. When he appealed to New England, aware there was a diversity of opinion upon this subjecti but he was confident there was no difference of opinion on one point; and that was, that this extraordinary re

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

duction, brought forward at this time, and under the circumstances, was without the shadow of a plea for it.

What had they been told by the Secretary of the Treasury? What did the departments say? Did not they tell them that, in their opinion, the revenue would fall short during the present year? Did not the Secretary of the Treasury, after making his estimates, (and who knew better?) state that the revenue, after the appropriation made on the 31st of December next, would be short at least three millions of dollars? And what did they know about the revenue of 1838? Who could say what would be derived from the customs or from the public lands? Who could tell what contingencies might arise in that interval?

Again he denounced the bill as a monstrous measure, fraught with the most dangerous consequences, and whose effect would be to weaken, if not break down, the bonds of confidence and credit which ought mutually to subsist between men and communities. He again and again reiterated his appeal to gentlemen of the administration party from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, &c., to come out and avow if they were in favor of this bill, or that they believed it to be for the interest of the country. Mr. L. then went on to show that the principles of free trade ought not to be attempted in this country until a corresponding feeling bad been exhibited by Great Britain and the continent of Europe; for they taxed foreign articles most heavily, particularly tobacco, bacon and hams, coals, &c. He was referring to the British tariff on imported articles, when The CHAIR interposed, and said the whole merits of the bill were not open at that stage.

Mr. LAWRENCE wished to speak of the effects of sending this bill out to the people, and, after doing so, should move to lay it on the table.

The CHAIR had merely apprised the gentleman that the merits of the bill were not open on a motion to print and refer it.

Mr. LAWRENCE inquired if a motion to reject it would be in order.

The CHAIR replied, not in that stage.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Would it be in order to move its indefinite postponement?

The CHAIR. That motion would be in order; but the motion to lay on the table would take precedence. Mr. INGERSOLL. Would that motion open the discussion?

The CHAIR replied, that a motion to postpone indefinitely opened the whole merits of a proposition.

Mr. LAWRENCE then moved the indefinite postponement of the bill.

Mr. L. proceeded. He would assure the House that he would take up very little time, but he simply wished to show the House the inevitable effect of adopting this bill. As an instance of this, he would advert to some articles of import imported into Great Britain, showing the impolicy of introducing the free-trade system into this country.

In England, ham and bacon, on importation, paid a duty of six cents a pound. Unmanufactured tobacco sxty-seven cents a ponnd, while manufactured tobacco paid no less than eight dollars a pound. Even coal, strange as it might seem, for it could be bardly conceived whence competition in that article could come, paid a duty of nine dollars a ton, or two pounds sterling. Tallow candles fourteen cents a pound, while spermaceti, of which large quantities were made in this country, paid no less than fifty-six cents a pound.

Mr. L. said he could go on at great length, and show that on whatever interfered with the industry of Great Britain she imposed heavy protective duties, and the continent pretty much followed her example. He would put it, therefore, to gentlemen-to practical gentlemen

[H. OF R.

especially-whether, if the duties were all taken off, more would be exported than at present? It appeared to him a solecism, unless foreign countries did the same. He did not believe the exportation of a single article would be increased, unless we first made a treaty, or some regulations, in reference to the article itself. Mr. L. then appealed to the cotton growers, and went on to show that, as Great Britain was extending her importation of that article from other quarters, she would necessarily require less from the United States. The quantity, and the quality too, from other countries imported by her was increasing every year. Up to the 30th of June, last year, the quantity she imported from the East Indies was double what it was the year before. Nor was that all; she was now importing largely from Egypt, Peru, the Brazils, and other places; and the quantity and quality from those countries were immeasurably augmenting.

Mr. VANDERPOEL then rose and moved the orders of the day, remarking that it seemed as if all the busimess of the session bad to give way to debates on propositions in their incipiency.

The House refused to proceed to the orders: Ayes 58, noes 74.

Mr. McKAY said, before the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LAWRENCE] proceeded, he wished to draw the attention of the Chair to the 103d rule; and to inquire, first, if it was necesary, under his construction of that rule, to commit that bill; and, 2d, if discussion could be entertained on the day the bill was introduced. Mr. McK. then read the rule in question, which is in the following words:

"103. No motion or proposition for a tax or charge upon the people shall be discussed the day in which it is made or offered, and every such proposition shall receive its first discussion in a Committee of the Whole House."

The CHAIR said, if any of the provisions of the bill went to create a tax or charge upon the people, it must be committed.

Mr. LAWRENCE. It is quite the other way, sir, be. cause it goes to reduce the taxes.

The CHAIR expressed some doubts, as the question was one that had not, to his recollection, ever before been decided.

Mr. MERCER remarked that the motion to postpone indefinitely rode over every other.

The CHAIR. Suppose the previous question were demanded, what would be the main question?

Mr. MERCER. The motion to postpone indefinitely. The CHAIR. Certainly not. It would be on the engrossment of the bill. The Chair then suggested that, perhaps, the best mode of obviating any difficulty would be to proceed to the orders of the day, and suffer the subject to lie over till to-morrow, when, as a report from a committee, it would be the first business in order as soon as the journal was read.

Mr. LAWRENCE had a very few words to say, and if the House would permit him to proceed, he pledged himself not to occupy more than three minutes.

Mr. MANN, of New York, remarked that the former practice of the House, repeatedly decided, had been to commit such bills. He adverted to the great advantage the gentleman from Massachusetts had over the other members of the House, if, as was the obvious intention of the rule just referred to, one day's reflection were not allowed upon this bill before debate upon it progressed, since the gentleman was a member of the committee which reported it.

Though Mr. M. was not prepared to go into the debate, he could nevertheless make a very satisfactory answer to the question propounded to the State he had the honor, in part, to represent, by the gentleman from

[blocks in formation]

Massachusetts. Mr. M. then went on to contend that no other construction could be put upon the 103d rule, than that this subject, and all subjects on their first introduction, should lie over a day for consideration. Any other interpretation put upon it, and it might as well be erased from the rules altogether. He could not help admiring the ingenuity with which the gentleman seemed to take time by the forelock, burling his denunciations against a measure few but himself had seen, and sending out an inflammatory speech to the country, before any one else had an opportunity of replying to him. Mr. M. read the rule, (as given above,) and asked if language could be more plain or positive than that such a proposition could not be discussed on the day of its introduction. Why, the very object of that rule was

Mr. REED here called the gentleman from New York to order, on the ground that the Chair had not as yet given its decision, and debate could only be entertained on an appeal.

The CHAIR repeated his former suggestion, as the best mode of obviating the difficulty.

Mr. LAWRENCE had no objection to give way to the orders of the day, if it should be the pleasure of the

House.

Mr. CRAIG hoped the House would order the report to be printed; so that at least other members might be put in possession of the subject they were discussing.

Mr. ADAMS inquired if the House could proceed to the orders before the question on the rejection of the bill had been decided. Besides, the bill had not yet been ordered to a second reading.

The CHAIR remarked that it had.
Mr. ADAMS. It has not.

[JAN. 11, 1837.

to pass sub silentio, to use the Speaker's words the other morning. Having concluded the few words be bad to say, he withdrew his appeal.

Mr. THOMAS inquired by whom the motion had been made to proceed to the orders of the day.

Mr. MANN said he had made the motion. Mr. THOMAS appealed to Mr. MANN to withdraw the motion that the House proceed to the orders of the day. He said it appeared to him to be but reasonable to permit the members who composed the minority of the Committee of Ways and Means to make explanations verbally in lieu of a report. Such a course had been often pursued in the House on grave occasions. It was but a courteous and customary indulgence. Let the speeches of the minority go forth with the report of the majority, and the public would be put in possession of both sides of the question.

The CHAIR reminded the gentleman that the question was not debateable.

Mr. THOMAS asked permission to remind the gentleman of an instance in which the members of a committee, who were in the minority in the House, had been indulged. He referred to the case of the bank committee in 1832. In that case, the four members of the committee who were against the bank had been permitted, by al most a unanimous vote of the House, when the friends of the bank had a decided majority, to submit verbal explanations. Other instances could, with great facility, be referred to, but it was unnecessary.

Mr. MANN said he wished the same opportunity af. forded to him that had been given to the gentleman from Tennessee.

The CHAIR remarked, that if appeals were taken to enter into debate, that debate must be confined to the question of order.

Mr. MANN wished the same indulgence extended to

The CHAIR stated the question. A bill had been reported, and read twice. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. OWENS] called for the reading of the report; after which, a motion was made by the gentleman who intro-him as to others. duced it, to refer it to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; pending which motion, the gentleman from Massachusetts moved the postponement of the bill. The Chair said that it was perfectly competent for the House to proceed to the orders of the day, and the Chair would take the sense of the House upon that mo

tion.

Mr. BELL contended that the Chair had no right to entertain any motion so reiterated.

The CHAIR replied that it was repeatedly done. Motions were frequently made to proceed to the orders of the day; which, being unsuccessful, were afterwards repeated.

Mr. BELL. I remember no instance of the kind.

Mr. CAMBRELENG. I have done it twenty times within my immediate recollection; and I have known it done when the gentleman from Tennessee himself [Mr. BELL] filled the chair, and always entertained the mo

tions.

The CHAIR. The House can go to the orders of the day at any time; and if the motion be unsuccessful at one time, it may be renewed at another. Such has been the known practice of the House.

Mr. BELL. I enter my protest against it now, whatever may have been the practice beretofore.

The CHAIR. The Chair decides the motion to proceed to the orders of the day to be in order.

The CHAIR would put the question on proceeding to the orders of the day.

The House again refused: Ayes 73, noes 86. Mr. MANN then made the point of order on the 103d rule, (as given above.)

The CHAIR said it did not appear to him, upon the face of the bill, that it required commitment. Did it propose an imposition of duties, and thereby a tax or charge upon the people? It appeared to him not; and he could not, therefore, take upon himself to decide that it must necessarily go to a Committee of the Whole. That, however, was a matter for the sound discretion of the House, who would decide it upon reasons of expedi ency or propriety, as it saw fit.

Mr. MANN observed that, from this decision, he felt himself bound to take an appeal, and upon that appeal he was not disposed to enter largely into the question, because it seemed to him that it was so obvious, under the 103d rule of the House, and former decisions made thereon, which must be within the recollection of every gentleman who has had the honor of a seat there for any length of time, that this subject ought to be committed. Mr. M. then said that the case was not a parallel one with that which the gentleman from Maryland had allu ded to. It would be recollected by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS,] that in the case of the bank committee the minority brought in their report at the same time with the majority; and this had been the prac tice so long as he recollected. That case, then, was not a parallel one with this.

Mr. BELL appealed from that decision, in order, he said, to make a few remarks against it. Mr. B. then went on to argue that, by the decision of the Chair, the whole business of the House might be arrested, since a Mr. CAMBRELENG observed that it was proper few members might continually renew the motion and him to state that no report of the minority of the com weary the House until it assented, or arrest any discus-mittee had ever been presented to the consideration of

sion then going on. It did not follow, that a certain practice, which was wrong per se, could be right because it had been occasionally indulged in, and suffered

the Committee of Ways and Means.

for

The CHAIR remarked that that fact would have no bearing on the question before the House.

« AnteriorContinuar »