Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-01-29


preservation of the road, which was in a state
oirapid dilapidation before any system esta-
blishng gates could be carried into effect
Upon the whole, considering that the sum
asked for had been already appropriated 10
this object, he hoped the resolution would be
adopted, and the Secretary of the Treasury
be authorized to apply the balance in hand TO
repairing the road, &c.
MIR. BALDWIN had no objection to an in
curry into the expediency Of directing the
application of that fund to the repairs OF the
road-buthe could not consent to pass the re-
solution in its present shape.
Mr.. STEWART, thereupon, accepted the
amendment as proposed, and the resolution
was adopted.
MIR. MOORE, of Alab. presented certain re-
solutions OF the Legislature of that state, in
structing t'nir Senators and Representatives
IN Congress, to use their exertions to obtain
the annexation of certain parts of West Flo
rlda To the state of Alabama. Mr. Nj. moved
that the reading of said resolutions he dis
pensed with, and that they be referred to the
committee heretofore appointed on that sub
Ject
MIR. FLOYD opposed any reference Of the
resolutions until their contents were known.
lie believed it was an unprecedented propO-
sition.
Mr.. MOORE observed, that having proposed
the reading few days since, of certain doings
of the Legislature of Alabama, which was OBJ
.lected to, he had therefore thought il enex-
pedient to trouble the House now with the
reading.
MIR. FLorD replied, and said if he under
stood the tenure of the resolutions, as explain
ed by the gentleman from Alabama, they
We're liable to another objection for they were
matter OF instruction from the Legislature of
that state to their Senators and Representa-
tive.
Mr.. SMITH, of Md. thought il improper to
refer resolutions or other documents not d..
rected 10 this House. An incidental debate
grew out ofthe question of reference, of con
siderable length.
The SPEAKER expressed an opinion that the
gentleman from Alabama Mr.. Moore) was in
order. and that the reference proposed was
sanctioned by the practice of the House,
lie referred TO various cases in which papers.
not directed either to the House or its olIi-
GERS, had been referred as documents. Such
were, resolutions passed by the Legislature of
kentucky, on the subject of the public lands
RESOLUTIONS passed by the Legislature OF
OHIO, IN respectto the u. States Bank and
internal improvements and even private let
lers had been received, as in the case of NJ
Franclieti, on the subject of military estab-
ishment, and in the case of M. Cazen, on the
cultivation OF the vine, &c. which had been
referred To the committee on agriculture.
nlr. SMITH of Md. had understood the prac-
nee To be otherwise, and that the Instructions
from the legislatures of the respective states
TO Their Senators and Representatives was
private matter between them alone. With
every sentiment of respect, and with the view
mat a decision rlight be had upon question
oil practice, he appealed from the decision of
the Chair.
Mr. WOoDsoN thought it was unfortunate
That the House should be- drawn from sub
lect OF deep interest and importance by an in
cldental question of order. Yet the resolutions
mat had been offered ought, in his opinion, TO
oe listened TO. 1t was unwise at this time,
when 1t was known that there was a want of
harmony between the general and state 60
vernments, to add fuel to the flame, by TAX
Ing an attitude of excluding the evidence of
public sentiment. The document that had
heen offered conveyed clear expression of
the deliberate will of state sovereignty, which
E. IN his opinion, ought not to be shut out.
The subject was further discussed, at consi-
derable length, by Messrs Basseu, Little,
hhea, Moore of Allah. FAIRFIELD, and fright,
who supported the decision of the chair, and
by Messrs. Ross, Smith of Md. Mccoy, and
Batd'c,n, who opposed it.
Mr. TAYLOR said, there might have been
~''oNSS w WINCH mao Deen refer
red, when not addressed to the House but
ne knew of no instance in which such a re
ference had been made when the question was
distinctly taken upon it. The uniform prac-
ice, he believed, had been, that no memorials
OrrcsolutOns could be received or referred I'm.
less they were addressed TO Congress- or to
the Speaker of the House, or tO a member
containing in it request to present the same
TO Congress, which had been considered as
equivalent TO direct application. This was
the utmost limit to which the rule had been
extended. The practice had been to in
roduce resolution to appoint com
mit'ee, ana then to refer such acts of state
legislatures to that committee, as proper do.
cuments for their considerations containing
evidence of the views of those from whom
they originated If committee now existed
on the sublcct-matter of these resolutions the
legislature OF Alabama, it would be proper to
refer them to that committee as documents
but not 1t they originated a new subject, or
winch no committee had been appointed. He
therefore inquired, whether such COMMITTEES
had been appointed?
The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative
and referred TO the Journal of the House
showing such appointment some days ago, al
the instance of the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vanla, (Mr. Baldwin, who had presented 2
-, "Vn' Suhufy hlildDltdntS OI WeSl
Florida on this very subject ; and he 1.-THE
Speaker considered these resolutions as docu.
ments to be properly referribIe to that com
Inltfee as evidence. But, were it otherwise
they would have to lie on the table until q
committee should be created to whom they
might be referred. Mr.. Speaker adverted to
the comfy that was due from the general to
the state governments, who certainly were
entitled TO be heard in a style other than thai
OF humble petitioners. Before the question
was Duf.