Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-04-20

The question was taken and decided in tn.
affirmative. Ayes 40.
Mr.. Mercer protested against either an in
definite rostponempnt, or taking the pre-, ions
question on this bill, whilst amendments were
pendirg z, and others ready to be offered.
Mr.. TIimble then required the prerious queS
lion. The House refused To sustain the call
ayes 81. Noes 81.
Mr.. Webster stated his reasons for voting
against the indefinite pOstponemeni of the bill.
Mr.. Randolph expressed nearly the same
views.
MIR. Tucker supported the motion he had
offered, aud suggested that decision might
AS well be taken now as at any other time.
Mr.. Hamilton aud Mr.. p. p. Barbour made
few observations in reply. When the ques-
ton was taken, by yeas and nays, on indefi-
mite pestpUnement, as follows: Yeas IS, NAYS
1855.
The question then recurring on the amend
ment previously offered by Mr.. Williams. re-
duclng The duty on salt 10 o cents pr. bushel--
Mr.. Ross called for the pre-, iuus question.
The House refused to sustain the CALL
Ayes %. noes 95.
Mr.. Sandlord made some general remarks
in opposition to the bill.
Mr.. Reed stated facts, and quoted memorials
IN opposition Ia the amendment proposed.
Mr.. Floyd ad coated the reduction, which
was also supported by Mr.. Randolph and Mr..
Moore, of Alabama when
The question was taken by yeas and nays,
as follows: Yeas 81, nays I22.
So the motion of Mr.. Williams was ne
gatived.
Mr.. Condict moved to amend the bill by
adding to the clause, fixing the duty on bar
mi C Fill
Until the LIST day Of June, 1895 and.
from that time, duty of s per cwt."
Mr.. Condict supported his amendment i'm
short speech, in which he gave succint
history of the manufacture of iron in the state
of New Jersey.
MIR. Baylies opposed the amendment in
short speech.
MIR. M'Duffie moved to amend the amend
ment, by striking out S and insertSg 80
cents, as the duty per cwt. and supported his
motion by speech, in which he delivered at
length his sentiments OH the iron duty.
MIR. Archer followed, on the same side. in a
speech of considerable extent
Mr.. Webster spoke at length in favor of TN.
duty of 80 cents.
Mr.. Tod rose in reply, and, havin. spoken
for some time, after he concluded,
MIR kremer called for the previous aues-
ton.
The House, this time, sustained the call
ayes SO, noes SO.
The question, Shall the main question be
now put ~ was then taken by " cas- and Navs.
Yeas Ill, Nays 50
The main question, viz. on ordering the bill
To be engrossed for a third reading, was then
taken, by Yeas and Nays, as follows Yeas
loJ, Nays Toe.
So the bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read third time.
The question being then stated, as to the
day on which the bill should receive its third
reading
EIr. Tod moved that it have its third read
ing Tomorrow.
Mr.. Randolph moved that it have its third
reading on monday next, and supported the
motion by Il few remarks.
On tins question warm debate arose. in
which Messrs. Livingston, Mercer, and War.
field, advocated, and Messrs. Tod, Kremer.
Metcalie, and Storrs opposed the postpone
ment.
Mr.. Saunders moved for the indefinite post
ponPment of the bill
The Chair pronounced this motion to be
out of order.
Mr.. Saunders then, at the suggestion of
Mr.. Randolph, moved, that the third reading
take place on the 18th ofJuy next.
Mr.. Wright made some observations in ex-
piana'ion OF Inc actual state of the question:
IN regard to the hill.
An unsuccessful motion was made TO aid.
journ.
Mr.. Foot, of Con. moved that the bill lie
laid on the table.
The Chair pronounced this motion 10 be out
Of order, as the bill itself was not, at the pre-
sent moment, before the House, and the only
question before the House being the fixing Of
the day fora third reading.
The question was then taken on the 4ih
day ofJuly next, as the day for the third
reading, by yeas and nays, Yeas SO, Nays 81
Mr. Randolph withdrew his motion for
Monday, and the bill was then ordered TO be
read third time Tomorrow.
gTha o, 4