Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-08-17

act as if they had formed that contrary rule!-
Instead Of further noticing deduction which
certainly shows "at least as much spirit as
judgment" | merely observe, that even this
rule does not require the Speaker of the House
Of Representatives to call to order in any case,
ercept for araasgrcssion "o the rules othe House,
and, therefore, on Mr.. Calhoun's principles,
Whenever THAI officer Calls member to order
Tor any other cause, (as it is his daily habit to
do he is guilty Of "usurpation." But Onslow
understands the doctrine Of compensation, and
having trusted to an authority which proves
too much, here makes amends by quoting one
which proves too little. In one material re spect,
indeed, ii proves more than he expected, Tor,
as the rule in question, even in connection with
the other rules of the Honse Of Representatives,
does not confer all the power on the subject OF
order, which the speaker Of that House con-
fessedly possesses and eniorces, lie has powers
not arising from regulation; consequence
closely analogous TO my argument or the pow
ers of the President Of the Senate.
Distrusting their appeal 10 domestic or re-
publican authority, Onslow and Mr.. Calhoun
next resort to the British House Of Lords, and
tell US OF "Mr. Randolph's assertion" that the
Lord Chancellor, who presdes over that body,
has never called member order for "words
spoken" If The practice of this assembly is
adduced, not merely TO throw light on the latest
phasis Of Mr.. Calhoun's camellon creed, but 10
show tina, he has no original right Of calling
70 order, ask whether the authority was cited
through confidence in it as test. If, as it is
said, the Lord Chancellor Islands in the same
responsible relation to the body over which he
II, ln tn tbe
Senate" he is irresponsible to the people also;
an immunity which, however the Vice Presi-
dent may desire it, he fortunately does not en-
Joy Ii might, however, be conceded, that the
Lord Chancellor, an officer OF the crown, and
tracing his official ancestry 10 times when the
rights Of the people were lost in the power OF
the Barons and The King, and executing no con-
stltution trust paramount TO the prerogative OF
the one, or TO the privileges of the other, has
no power to violate the dignity of the Peers, by
ealing one OF them 10 order, unless thereto re-
quested by another. Such a privilege, III
British Peer, is not more remarkable than his
privilege Of entering into recognisance, ex-
cept in the Courts OF Kings Bench aud Chan
Gerry; than his exemption from attendance on
certain Courts; than his privilege of being tried
by peers only; than his privilege equivalen, TO
the benefit of clergy; than the various other,
and particularly the Parliamentary, privileges
which belong t him. The peculiarties Of the
British Constitution may, perhaps, render it
expcdient, that he should, in despite Of the sp-
rit Of the age, retain these privileges: But any
lcudal precedents which they may have engen-
drred are surely unfit for the imitation Of All
American Senate; however, Mr.. Randolph may
be excused for believing in them. While
member of the House Of Representatives, he
was the habitual maligner Of The Senate, as the
aristocratical branch Of our Government
Those who knew him best, even then prophe-
cied, that he would one day advocate the enlarge
ment of It's authority. As he now endeavors 10
assinila;e il to the House Of Peers, I am afraid
that his visit TO England has resulted in some
thing more miSChevcas than his studying
their pedigrees. In thus denying any efficacy
TO the practice Of the Lords, when conflicting
with that Of Legislative bodies which are unaf-
fected BY the canker OF aristocracy, do not
concede, sir, that under this practice the pre-
siding officer Of that Body has no original
right of calling to order On the contrary, il
appears that in a debate in the House Of Lords,
on the LIST of February, 1898, (see Parliamen-
tary Register, vol. SIS, p. 49, the Lord Cham
cellor saiG "he could not do better than recall
the discussion from the undue extent TO which
it had proceeded, 10 its own bounds" This
precedent shows that, if Mr.. Calhoun respects,
as he processes to do, the decisions Of his "ir
responsible" prototype, he ought to have call
ed Mr.. Randolph to order, on almost every oc.
casion during the last session, when that Sena-
tor spoke. But it shows too that the practice
of the House Of Lords is inappicable TO the
Sena!e. For the Lord Chancellor, after max
ing the cited remark, proceeded &c exhibit, at
considerable length, his views Of the question
under debate; course which would be utterly
inadmissible in the President Of the American
Senate, however elected, and however "irre
sponsible."
One incident of the Office of an English Lord
Chancellor is, that he is the "keeper of the
Kings conscience" If, by analogy, the pre-
sent Vice President of the United States, is the
keeper Of their conscience, it might truly be
said, sir, as learned lawyer once argued 10
the Supreme Court, that "the United States
have no conscience"
With a natural reluctance TO understood an
unpleasant subject, Onsow cites as important
to the controversy, a rule in the "Manua" that
"disorderly words are not to be noticed till the
member has finished his speech; then the per-
son Directing to them, and desiring them 10 be
taken down by the Clerk at the table, must re-
peat Them" This is certainly the rule in cas-
es where member exercises his right ofcall-
in,r IN order bnt itS Dhraspolopv shows itS 70