The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-11
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY. IAN. S 1910.

MIR. Tandyke appeared and took his seat
Mr.. Pog draS presented The petition OF
the President and Directors IF the Orleans
Navigation Company. praying the erection
OF a light house, Re f=r"ed.
The committee If Pubic Lands, to whom
was referred the petition Of Jacob Garrett,
made i report 10 his favor, and also report
ed the following resolution.
e ResotUed. That from and after the 1st
day OF June next. any person making appli
ca,ion to the register of any OF the land off
GERS Of he United States tor the purchase Of
i tract OF land. shall produce to MIN a NE
morandum in writing stating the number OF
he section, half section or quarter, as the
case may be and of the township and range
for which he Shall make application, sub
scribing his name thereto, which shall be
FLED and preserved by the register in his of
fee"
The report was agreed to and referred to
the committee to bring in n bill.
RULES e ORDERS.
On motion OF MIR. Smile the House resolv
ed itself into committee of the whole on the
report of the committee appointed to re
port rules and orders for the government of
the House.
This report contains the following amongst
other rules:
The previous question shall be put in
this form: Shall the main question be
now put! = II shall only be admitted when
demanded by one fifth of the members pre-
sent, and, ifdec!ded in the affirmative. shall
he instantly put without amendment or iur-
Their debate. but if decided in the negative,
the business shall progress as if tue prevIoL.
question had not been called"
" On previous question there shall be
no debate
Mr. Livermore moved to strike out the
first of these rules
This motion wns supported by Messrs
Livcrmore, GARDENER, Quincy, ShetTev,
Ely. Pickman, Wheaton. Dana aud Emott
and opposed By Messrs Rhea, Basset, Ross
Smile. Southland. Boyd, Findley, w. Al
ston, Root and Johnson.
The arguments in favor of striking GU.
the rule relating to the previous question
were, generally, that it had TOR its obiec,
the abridgement of the freedom of debate,
and was following too closely the practice OF
the British Parliament that this House be
ing constiutionaly a deliberative assembly,
1t was not for the majority to say, thus far
shall debate be permitted, and no frrther-
for. ii they could do this, they had the same
right to say that the minority should have
no voice; that it would prevent the minori
ty from shewing the enormity of the doinrs
Of the majority, and would shroud their
acts ~ the mantle Of darkness that at pre-
sent much time might indeed be consumed
in useless debate, but that this evil ought 10
be regulated by sense of propriety and not
by rule of the House that it this rule
were adopted. the most important measures
might be decided without 4 word Of debate.
although on hearing arguments gentlemen
might have Changed their opinion Of them ;
that this rule might remind the House of tn
circumstance that when the Able Sieyes
had presented constitution to the conside
ration OF Bonaparte, the conqueror was
charmed with the feature Of Danb Lcrja
tafHre that legislation without debate was
always favorable TO tyranny; that tie INTRO.