Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-06-25
DOMESTIC.
FROM 4AE NArIoNAL INrELLIc eNcER.
10 the Editor.

To the Editor.
Some printed sheets, consisting of an adj
dress of the hon. John Randolph of Roanoake,
to the freeholdeis of certain counties IN Vir-
ginia, aud of what purports TO be the frag-
lnent' of a speech of that gentleman deli
vcred in the House of Representative have
FALLEN into my hands. The author appears
TO think that particular decisions of that boz
dy, ct which he undertakes to present IN
account, have unwarrantably restricted the
freedom Of debate, However reluctant /
may be to offer myself, in this way, to your
notice, when member Ok the House OF Re-
personalities lends The high authority of his
name to an incorrect statement of trans
action, and which, by the omission of mate
rial circumstances, exhibits only partial
view of the case, j think it due to the pub
lie, whose Judgment and interposiiion have
been invoked, 20 have the matter set fully
and accurately before them. Ii is my in
teution To aim at the Accomplishment of this
object. 1t is not my purpose to notice par
ticularly the manner or the substance of the
residue Of those compositions. How far the
political speculations and sentiments of the
author are just, the world may Judge.
In the commencement of the observations
Of Mr. X. after announcing his purpose to
make motion, it is true that, Mr.. Wright
having called him to order, because there
was no motion before the House, it was stat
ed by me that, Us he had signiied his inten-
tion, it was usual to admit hrefatory re-
marks. Mr.. X. proceeded, and having gone
very much at large into the question Of the
repeal Of the French DEGREES, the subject of
blockades, and other topics, left the chair
for few minutes, placing there my friend
Mr. Bib, as my substitute. will not say
what was the case upon which that gentle
man, whilst he was so kind as to represent
me, was called upon to decide, my attention
not having been particularly directed to the
point. 1t is said BY the fragment and I
VIII suppose 1t TO nave been, On a call to or
der by Mr.. Calhoun because :" the question
of war was not before the House" | short
IL after resumed the chair, and Mr. Cal
houn again called Mr.. X. to order and sub
United, whether he was not bound to specify
his proposition and procure second before
he proceeded further. 1t was decided that
he was bound 10 state it, that it must be Sc
clnded, reduced TO writing, according to a
particular rule OF the House, if required.
and announced from the chair. At the time
this decision was made Mr.. K. had been
speaking think at least one hour. An ap-
peal was taken to the House, who confirmed
the decision. He was then requested to re-
duce his motion to writing, which he did and
presented it to the chair, remarking that he
did it under the compusion of the House, to
which il was replied that il depended upon
his own pleasure, to withhold or offer his
mntion. After it WIS stated from the chair.
Mr., r. was proceeding in his argument,
wien he. was called to order upon the
ground that the House must, previous to the
discussion determine xvIafhat. q. y,o.,lt =.
that time Consider the proposition. | OBJ
served that that rule did not apnly to the
case, but Immediately correcting this i'm
preston, it was declared that the House
must come to such a resolution, or he would
not be at liberty to proceed. Mr.. II. again
apreaediTOm the decision, but subsequent-
ly withdrew his appeal and thereby mani
tested his acquiescence in it The House
then refused TO consider the motion by AYES
and Noes Other questions ofortler, having
no material bearing on this subject, were
decided.
Such were the circumstances of the case.
II results that, between the decisions of Mr..
Bib and mine, certainly between my own,
there existed no discrepancy; unless it is to
lie found in the momentary error, rectihed
almost as soon US il was committed, relati. e
to the necessity OF the House determining TO
consider the motion. Not between the for
mer, because the points on which we decid-
ed we're different. Not between the latter.
because the first decision, at the instance of
M Wright, recognised only the Admissible
lily VI predatory remarks, quality which
those of Mr. r. had, when the last deterni-
nation took place, long ceased to possess.
Two principles are settled by these deci
sions; the first is, that the House has right
L.. A.. l.. -.
ton which member intends making, be-
fore he undertakes to argue it at large and
in the second place that it reserves to itself
the exercise of the power of determining
whether it will consider it at the particular
time when offered, prior to his thus proceed
ng = urgie it.
1t would seem to be altogether reasona-
Bile, that when member intends ADDRESSING.
coplous argument to public body, for the,
purpose of enforcing motion, he should dis
close the motion intended to be supported.
1t is the practice of the British parliament.
and ii several, if not Of all the state assem-
bles. tn require not only that this should be
done, but that Il should be seconded thus
aft riding protection against the obtrusion
rpon the body of the whimsical or eccentric
propositions of a disordeTed or irregular
mind, by The coincidence in opinion ofat least
~ individuals. At what particular period
the proposition ought t. be submitted, is per
haps rot exactly defined or definable. Ger.
tainiy IN the courtesy of all bodies will be
found a sufficient safeguard against the ex-
clusion of matter properly introductye, ex-
planaiqry, OF predatory to the motion The
line separating matter Of this character from
arguments in chief is not susceptible of ac-
curate description. 1t does not, however,
present more practical difficulty than to dis
eliminate between observations which are
relevant or otherwise, decOrous or repre-
bensib'e. When member rises To make a
motion, it is indeed not often that The rule