Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-06-25

decision, anu read the rules requiring IN oti
| ons when made to be seconded before put tC
the vote. and when demanded to be reduc-
ed to writing.
Mr.. RANDOLPH said he would only re
mark, shat this right OF prefacing a motion
by remark, was almost the last vestige of
the freedom of debate; fit were destroyed,
there would be none left but under the per-
mission OF the majority.
| Messrs. Pitkin, Goldsborough, and Kew,
spoke to the question of order, and against
the Speakers decision.
| The following observations of one of these
gentlemen (Mr. Goldsborough) embrace the
substance of the argument against the Speak
er's decision:
| Mr.. GoLpsBoRoUGH said, that, on all oc-
casions of appeal from the decision of the
Speaker the question of order, the first
| impulse of his mind was, To support the
chair, and it was his practice to do so in all
doubtful cases. In the present instance,
however, the conviction of his judgment as
| to the incorrectness of the decision of the
honorable Speaker was SO clear and conclu
| sive to himself, that he should be compelled
TO declare so by his vote. The substantial
question submitted to the House by this ap-
| peal was, whether member rising in his
place, and declaring mis- intention to submit
motion for consideration, had, or had not,
a right to preccde his motion with such ex-
planatory remarks, such predatory speech,
keeping himself within the bounds of general
decorum, as he might deem necessary on
the occasion and pertinent to the proposition
intended to be offered" The chair had. i'm
effect, determined against this right, and on
that ground had prohibited the gentleman
from Virginia from proceeding in his speech.
| In this opinion, Mr.. G.. said he could not con-
cur. and he should take the liberty TO go in
to short examination of its correctness. In
| support of it the chair had read the follow
ing rule of the House, from the printed rules
| and orders VIXEN a motion is made and
seconded, it shall be stated by the Speaker,
or being in writing, it shall be handed to the
chair, and read aloud by the Clerk, before
| debated"
1t was perfectly evident, Mr.. C. said,
that this rule did not apply to the case
| This rule directs the course of proceeding
when motion is made and seconded But
in the case under consideration, no motion
had been made or seconded. The gentle
| man from Virginia had only expressed his
intention to make motion, and was Offering
| to the house such explanatory observations
as he judged proper in relation to it. His
right TO adopt this course was not to be
L
house. 1t was, Mr.. O.. said, prescriptive
right, supported by the uniform usage and
| practice of the House from the beginning,
he believed, of its political existence--He
had, certainly, never known it called in ques-
| ton before; for he well recollected instan-
ces where gentlemen had made long speech
es, probably of one, two or three hours, as
| predatory to motions which they stated il
to be their intention to make, and which mo
tionsit was evident were intended for no o.
ther purpose than to afford an opportunity
for the speech, as they were never after
wards called up by the mover. He had ne
yer before known this privilege disturbed.
The house had always acquiesced in the
| right, and the member been INDUCED with
the occupancy of the floor for as long a
speech as he chose to make. This privi-
lege, sanctioned, as it Certainly is, by usage
by what is frequently termed the com
mon law of the House, Mr. G. considered
as founded in principles ofgreat proprety,
in reference to other rules and practices of
this House. 1t was an established rule of
practice, OF the propriety ofwhich he would
now saySnothing, that no question could be
brought before the house by member, how
ever important he might suppose it, with
out the vote of majority to consider it.
What chance was there, he would ask, OF
obtaining such a vote in favor of a naked
proposition, unsupported by any calculation
from the mover, TO explain its object, to in
terest the House in its favor, or even to at
tract their attention to it? l. is, indeed, a
point OF respect to the understanding of the
House to adopt this course and hence it is
invariably done. Admitting then the gen.
eral propriety of this course-admitting the
existence the right at all, as sanctioned
by the usage of the House, the only limit tC
ITS exercise must be the nature of the sub
Ject OF the motion, and the judgment or in
cllnation OF the mover. IF he has right K
ofier explanatory remarks, to make pre-
fatory speech at all, he must equally have g
right to regulate the length of such speech
! by his own sense Of duty and propr;ety.-
There cannot be any other rational rule, a.
ny other proper guide as to the extent Of the
remarks or the length of the speech. Adj
NIT the right to exist at all, (aud he would
venture to say not motion had been made
even in this session, on any important sub
ject without the exercise Of it) 70 what o
Their rule than the discretion Of the move
can we resort to regulate its exercise p
Shall any individual member interrupt tn,
| enjoyment ofthiS important and invaluable
privilege! and shall the feelings, the whiu
or the policy of the majority restrain or de
feat its exercise? Shall their caprice o.
their irritation stop the speaker at the mo
ment when his remarks begin to bear hart
upon some favOrite point Of their doctrine O
their policy! Reason and justice certainl
forbid this resort, as the necessary, or a
least the probable, result Of it would be al
instability and favoritism wholly inconsis
tent with that equality of rights which at
taches to every member OF this House