Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1820-03-01

the act Q. congress, as desarter i,m
Blili.h army, in l77e. Mt
MISSOURI BILL.
Inc Speaker having announced The OIL,
of the day. ~ Ot0ei
Mr. Hill, OF Massachusetts. rose ana
ne did not now wis.,: to consume tho -;
the House upon subject. Tie proeros
which seemed 10 be stamped win ~
marks OF eternity. But the rose no,,t
move that the committee of the vbol,L !,
charged from any further consideration ~ ~ VS.
Missouri bill. VI @e
Mr.. Lownies said, that if the geu,,,n
IRON Massachusetts, insisted upon his na';
beng put, he would cheerfully vo,o 9
Of ii yet, it he would consent 70 w;n %'O
, his motion for the present, to give 'd8
| three gentlemen more an opror,n.:'
speak to-day, ne thought it nigh, be -,
ing OF time, and the motion could be- rooa,
ed again, if necessary Tomorrow ror":
"h'cii "ouid Then, he thought. receive A.
cided support &c
Mr.. Hill acquiesced in this suggestion :,
withdrew his motion. "''
The House then again went into
mittee Of the whole, Mr.. Cobb IN H. l'-
on this bill. '"d''
Mr.. Erwin, rs. C. took the aoo, +
spoke at considerable length against The 10
striction. &c
Mr.. Scott. of Missouri, next rose and .,o.,
more than an hour on the same side
MIR. Meigs, ON York, spoke Soma ,,..
also against the restriction. "''
DIR. Adams, of Massachusetts,. made 8 +
remarks III favor OF the restriction ana
MI. Tucker, Of Va spoke more ~, .
hour against the amendment When b. b.tN
| concluded (about O'clock
Mr.. Smith, OF Maryland, rose and ob,.u
ed, mat large number of his constituent, h
had exprs ssed their opinion in opnoe;,ioD
the opinion which he was known 10 epfe,t,,
Oh Tbs subject, and it might be pre,umsi
that ne desired to deliver his reasons for Il. s.
vote which he should give. But Mr. s said
Inc PUBIC business was suffering by the pp,
traction of the debate the members ,,s
weary OF 1t every ones opinion was made
up on Ii and he was unwilling to consume
the time of the committee by am remarks
on the question. He therefore iofbore, and
he hoped the question would be taken.
Mr.. Walker, of N. Carolina, rose then 70
address the committee on the question but
the question was called for SO clamorousy
and SO perseveringly, that Mr.. w. could
proceed no farther than 10 move that the
committee rise.
The committee refused 10 rise, by aInos.
unanimous vote. II
Mr.. Beecher, Of Ohio, then stated that i:
was his wish 10 he heard en- The question IS
and, il not allowed an opportunity Of speak
ing in committee, he should do so in the
House, unless prevented by force and he
moved that the committee should then rise. "a
This motion was lost by very large ma.
jority.
MIR. Smith, Of North Caroliua, said tie
course be was about to propose was unusual
and perhaps without precedent-that was 70 ii
call the previous question in committee Of s
the whole !; but, as he conceived the motion 81
would be sustained by the rules and orders {
of he House. and to put an end to any fur
Their debate on The amendment, lie moved
for the previous question thereon.
The Chair concerned thai the motion va; s.:
not in order.
Mr.. Randolph asked leave Of the move
Of this course, to suggest TO him Il"
inyidious mode of getting at his Object
If the committee should consent TO rise, ana
the House would refuse ii leave 10 SIT again,
the question would then be in the House ii
and that was the only way, Mr.. T. saId 'la'
the committee, worn down by what va: call
ed discussion, could be relieved from H.
He hoped, wherever possible, that the PEE
vious question should be dispensed with ou'
if some mode were not devised OF ge'uns
clear of this debate, he believed he silouI1
become reconciled to it--thougb man con-
against his will was of the same OPP
mon still, &c. 4
MIR. Clay speaker observed, thatlnep's 4
mould M. effect the OUleCl W