Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-01-12

| OF delivering hts sentiments, however pre-
] cious, was not valuable as the right
which each member possessed of acting, and
the restricto on q this privilege would not
be so alarming a. the destruction of the
! government, whch Might be the conse.
] quencc, as the rules Of the House at pre-
! >cnt stood, if the minority were obstinate.
ly ben, on preventing the House from act.
ing that although tho project OF a dumb
legislature mishs have charmed Bonaparte,
he never would lave had an cpportu-
nifty 20 approve any construction, had ii not
been for The ANARCHY confusion and unre-
strained licentiouSnesS VIII Oh prevailed IN
the National Convention. and which fiaal-
iy destroyed II ---=-- md 1t was to prevent
such anarchy aud abuse OF the freedom of
debate that tins rote had become necessa-
nv that minociIics too were subject to the
faiings OF mankind. and that passion might
operate upon them, when a most urgent
law was to bs passed. 10y speaking for six
| hours at time, solely t"preventthe legis-
iature from ac,ing. from doing that for
which they were expressly chosen that
| there was no fear OF the measures or acts
OF the majority being vailed "a darkness,
Tor supP,sing (wnat Was very improoaoie,) /
au abuse of the rule, the press was open 10
every man and cnuld nor be restrained
that the idea of the aacon stii utIonality OF
such 4 rule was r.sSurd. Tor the same mode
o: argument wouid prove that. the House
had no RICH; TO p'eseat ant member tren
speaking more than ;~ice To the same
question, although the constitution declares
that each House may determine the Vuies
OF its proceedings THAI experience had
shcwn thlt suca a rule WAS necessary to
| prevent the consumption oil the time al the
House by MEMBERS speak ng roa", Ave,
SIX or eight hours merely for The purpose
OF spinning ont time, AMI inovinS to adjourn
calling the Yeas and Nays the mO;i1h.
to give bimseii time totake brea,h, and then
making frivolous motions for the purpose
of speaking still longer on them--ia4t, in
| order TO do the public bus n So, II 40 such
rule was adopted, it would be necessary
for the people 10 select the.r representa-.
tves, not for the strength OF their Inteliect
| bur tor the Robustness o. thsir constitutions
j and their Capacity Of enduring faugae
that tue abuse Of the freedom otde5aie had
become So h'srant as 10 impede allpuohc
business, ullcss those DESTROYS OF dong it
won't sacrifice their heal,h and perhaps
Il tbsir lives, IN sessions oi nneteen or TWEEN.
~ hours in length, ahd these TOO after =
subject hid been deba ed ten or twelve
days. 1t was also sid that this Was no
new ra that IL had existed ~ this BODY
with various m ldhcaiinn, since 'hc CON"
meucement Of tue goversuenr Until within
TWO years, when The decision OF the House
had done il away in prdcli ice, thoGg'. l. stili
remained in the rules that 1t lad cxis,ed
IN the British ParliaGsant Tor. two centu-
ries that arguments against rGle or law
! drawn from the possible abuse OF It, would
Z sc 10 the destruction Of all law anal govern d.
ment that tliis rule had never yea been
arbitrarily enforced and probably never
members IF the pToprety o. conc. ding "A
ite 10 their felloS. memoers aud tire ,I,ny
them wi h decoruln, tnan for the purpose
of actually putting an end to debate that
TO majority would improperly U.S. the rule,
because, If they did, they were RESPONSE
bic TO the Peep Tor Il, who would ne: ,a!i
to redress the evil. The novelty in this
case was said 70 be, not THAI suCh a rule
should have been pro: osed, but gbat, aitsr
having existed under every administration
it should now be moved to reject l..
The opponents of the rule replied, that
this rule was wholly different from the for.
mer rules on the subject, as IL excluded
debate on the previous as well az on tic
main question. Il was also said that the
doctrine laid down that the majority should
govern was an arbitrary doctrine. Il was
natural for maiorIues TO seek to encreaso
their power. Il was true that tie people
might apply the corrective to abuses OF
pover by the majority but it might as
! we'll be said, after violation of the right
of habeas corpus had deprived the ciuzen
Of his liberty, or after an ex post facto law
had swept him off, that some twenty years
hence the people would apply the correct
live. A majority might set out with the
best views, but might do acts to produce
the most disastrous consequences. The
lmajority always did wrong when it took
means to silence opposition and TO humble
those who opposed them. This had been
ithe doctrine ten years ago of those who adj
yocated this rule, and 1t was the correet
doctrine still. 1t was said that the argu-
ment that the licentiousness of debate had
destroyed the government OF France, as u
srd ia support of this rule, might remind
the House of the HDernisn who cut his
throat to save his life. The House then
is called upon TO destroy the principles OF
freedom 10 order to prevent slavery. If
the m1iority had a right TO prevent the
minority from expressing their opinions,
they had the same right 70 send them
home, TO Danish them from the capi-
tol.
This debate was continued in warm
yet desultorY manner liil : o'clock when
on motion of Mr.. TalEnadge, the commit
tee rose, IS 20 27, rep ,rted progress and
obtained leave TO st again,