Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-04-21


close The House did not adjourn till dark
Fridays and Saturdays are set apart for the
transaction of private business, but we think 1t
probable the rule will be suspended and the
consideration of the Mission resumed tc,-a;,
and terminated.
The Newly DIRK Gazette of Monday last says
that-"The Telegraph, of Washington, on the
authority of Mr.. Dickerson, OF the Senate, con-
tradicts the statement from the Alexandria Ga
zette, that the President Of that body Mr.. Cal
houn) had prevented him from speaking on
question before the Senate, and permitted Mr..
Randolph TO speak f,cice .
There are two essential errors in the forego-
ing paragraph-one, of vital importance to the
public-the other, material only to ourselves.
A bare disclaimer will correct the last. We
never said that Mr.: Randolph was permitted to
speak t,cice. The substance OF our language
was, that Mr.. Dickerson was tWice prevented
from speaking, while Mr. Randolph was allow
ed to occupy the floor for more than half an
hour on the identical proposition. This we
stand to-nay, we can prove it, by all the SEN
ate, and by all the Reporters that were present
The error, which we conceive to be impor-
TAM TO the public, is simply this-Ihe Gazette
has, unfortunately, accredited shallow Su5ter-
fge of the Telegraph as contradiction OF our
s,atement-Now let the statement speak forit
self: and let the sp6tefuge be contrased with it..
From the Phenir Gazette, Of March 81, 1926.
s"rhe Resolutions proposing an amendment to the
Constitution as it respects the number OF terms tor
which any person NAV be elected President of the Uni
ted States, having been read the third time, on the
question that pass Mr. Randolph opposed it on the
ground that he opposed to all amendments OF the
Constitutions and concluded by moving to lay ii on the
table.
Mr.. Dickerson rose to make some remarks on the
subject but he called to order by the Vice Presi-
dent, motion 10 hy on the table, precuding debate
The motion being still pending, and still precludtng
debate Mr. RANDOLPH rose, and addressed the Senate
for more than half an hour the resolution, and when
he had finished Mr. Dickerson again rose, to make
some observations, and again reminded by the
Vice President that it was not IN order to speak, While
such motion was pending. Mr.. Dickerson accord
ingly took his seat and the resolution postponed
till tomorrow"
From the United States Telegraph, April IS, 1926
ga report has been going the rounds in some news
papers, founded upon statement IN the Phenlx Ia-
zette, and ms&Pprehenson of the proceedngsin the
Senate in which MIR. Calhoun is charged with having
allowed Mr. Randolph to speak to motion, and reus
ed Mr. Dickerson of New-Jersey, the right to reply
We have the authority Of the latter gentleman to cor
rect this statement. So far from feeling himself ag
rreved by the conduct of the Vice President, on the
occasion referred to- he thinks that correct deli
cate, and respectful"
The statement in the Phenix Gazette" Is no
more than a simple relation Of facts; and we
beg that these facts may be we'll UNDERSTOOD
Mr. Randolph moved to lay the resolution on
the table Mr.. Dickersou being opposed TO
that course, rose to object to it, and while pro-
ceedng with his objections, the Vice President
interrupted him, and declared that motion
"to lay on the table" precluded debate. Mr.
Dickerson sat down-Mr. Randolph then rose,
and, after assigning a reason for moving TO lay
the resolution on the table, (but without with
drawing that motion) spoke to the merits OF the
resolution for more than half an hour; conclu-
ding with the declaration, that if the question
was pressed, (that is, if the Senate refused to
Law the resolution on the table, he would vote
against it. Mr.. Dickerson again rose, and at
tempted to speak, but was again interrupted by
the Vice President, and reminded that, pending
the motion 10 lay The resolution on the table, no de-
bate was admissible. Mr.. Dickerson ti.en re-
quested Mr. Randolph to vary his motion SO as
TO postpone the resolution, instead OF aging ii on
the table. Mr.. Randolph did vary his motion,
and the resolution was accordingly postponed.
Can facts be stated more clearly stated?
But mark the language Of the Telegraph
"Mr Calhoun is charged with having allowed
Mr.. Randolph to speak to motion, and retus-
ed Mr.. Dickerson of New-Jersey the RIGHT to
reply"-yes, the RIGHT Now, we have brought
no such charge against Mr.. Calhoun. We
were fully aware that Mr.. Dickerson had no
"RIGHr" either s'to reply" or to speak upon the
motion in the first instance; because, that mo-
ton was-tolay a resolution on the fabl'. he