Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1812-01-08
CONGRESS.
HoUsE OF REPRESENTATIVES,,
December %.

ho,.rs, and that the rules and orders were not
familiar with him. But he exceedingly re-
GREETED that this house, in their wisdom, ever
found it expedient, or proper, to adopt rule
to deprive minority, or an individual mem
her of this house, of the freedom OF debate
the freedom of speech, a privilege so much
boastedof III this land of liberty. he observ-
ed, that he had his rights In common with the
other members of the house, and that he had
his duties to perform. He was not ambitious
to become public speaker, nor would he say,
that he supposed he could speak TO the edl6-
cation or satisfaction of the house. But shall
he, on great questions, be denied the privilege
of speaking. Suppose the question of peace
or war should assume the aspect of solemnlty,
and it should become necessary and important
that this house be made acquainted with the
circumstances and disposition of the citizens
Of the several sections of the. country-and
suppose a member who is not much accustom-
ed to speaking, silently sits, until those gen
tlemen who are in the habit, and are fond of
speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in
debatc--shal he, in that Case, be denied the
right of speaking--shall be be deprived of
his constitutional privileges and his constltu-
ents oftheir right of representation on the floor
OF this hstse
He said, that he was bound by the oath of
God 10 support the Constitution, and topre-
mote the welfare of his country; but, if his
mouth is stopped, how can he execute his
trust, or perform his VOWS. For this house,
by rule, to inderdict the freedom of speech,
is an assumption of power and violation OF
right, he hoped, that the rule under consi-
Iteration would be modified, and that the pro-
posed amendment would be adopted. He
wished that each individual member might be
pernitted to exercise his right of speaking to
any question before the house, at least once, if
he chooses. l-ST23s
Mr.. NELsoNs of asYirginia, made avery
handsome speech in favor of the amendment.
He said he had no hesitation in declaring, that
whensver right and expediency shall come in
competition, that he shall prefer right He
remarked, that the constitution secured the
freedom of speech to the citizen. And are we,
he asked, to be deprived OF it when we come
to this house--when we enter this temple OF
liberty? The attemptiS not to suspend mere
w, but to destroy this right, and because we
4 have experienced some Inconvenience from lis
exercise. He agreed with the gentleman
from, Massachusetts, Mr.. Quincsv) that # the
house would do their duty, and get the busl-
ness along in the early part ofthe session, we
should never be in the dilemma The house
were in, the last session Of Congress; and that
an Inconvenience was very poor reason tor
S destroying this right of offering our sentl-
ments He would rather recommend the
turning out Of doors member who should be-
come troublesome in speaking too long, than
10 suffer him to stay in the.house and prevent
His uttering his sentiments Even expulsion
would not be greater infringement OF his
right The right of the people is the right OF
their representatives to speak, deliberate and
decide As to the plea Of necessity he pro-
tested against it as the plea OF tyrants.
Mr.. ALsroN, OF North-Caroina, expressed
his establishment, that the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. Nelson) had assumed the
ground he had. He said, there were two par
ties in this house; and asked, is it ever known
how a question will be decided, until it is
taken.
Mr.. BAssET said, if a stranger was present
and should hear this debate, he would suppose,
that the question was now for the first time
brought forward for the establishment of the
rule, agsinst which so much had been said,
when tits well known that it has always been
the practice.
MIR. Pitkin said-The amendment now un-
der consideration, was proposed, In conse-
onence OF a decision of the house, at the close
of the last session, that when the previous
question was decided in the affirmative, there
could be no debate on the main question; the
amendment, if adopted, allows member, who
has not previously spoken, to speak at least,
once, on the main question, before heis call
ed upon to give his vote upon it.
The principle adopted by the majority, du-
ring the fast days of the last session, and now
supported in the house, is this, that maio-
rity, who may happen to be present, at any
time, have it in their power, by means of a
fhrsvioxs qasstion. as it is called, to prevent
a. debate OF. every question before the house.