Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-08-19

I vernment, to some known Syctem OIL -rulCo,
that he required to the rules of the English par
lament; and that, I" the acquiescence OF the
| Senate, hitherto, under the references to them
had given them the sanction OF their appreciation
The appearance of Mr. Jefferson's book certain
| y did not induce the Senate to repent OF THIS
acquiescence, but, on the contrary, the Wanua
fulfilled the promise Gifts title page, and became
"a Manual of Parliamentary Practice, for INT
use of the Senate OF the United States. Alter tne
incorporation of the rules OF Parliament ,".o
" the law of proceedings in the Senate, lhe 'e
! sident's previously extensive field Of decision
became narrowed. did not, as you PerIerse'y
insinuate. refer to "this extensive heid Oh oeei-
| sien.'' "to show that where the oena'e mas
donted no rules of its own, the rules OF farila-
noert are those of the Senate" but to show that
rules OF Parliament had been adopted, contract
! ine that field; and also because Mr. Jefferson,
! in suggesting that the Presidents discretion'
whether in doing wrong, or IN DONG nothlhS,
should be limited by "some known system OF
rules" seems 10 have foreseen recent exam
pie. The discrepancy between some rules OF
the Senate, and some of the Parlar ntary rules
cited by Mr. Jefferson, proves nothing IN your
favor. because he expressly diSclams Tor such
Parliamentary rules, any authority over the De-
nate. and introduces them, obviously as hlSto-
ricai illustrations. But those rules OF Parlla-
ment that embrace cases con which the pre-
cents of the Constitution" and "the regulations
Of the Senate scare silent" form, he says part
of I" the law OF proceedings in the Senate. =
Such are precisely the rules as heretofore de-
monstrated, which, though the object indeed
required no rule, imposed on you the duty OF
suppressing Mr. Randolph's irregularities
The usage Of the Senate is accordant to the
doctrine which, both on general principles and
on the ground of regulation, have defended
Facts to prove the usage cannot. OF course, be
expected in much detail, from so curt chron-
ice as the Journals of the Senate, and therefore
YOU refer TO them. Yet, in volume which
happens to be near me, | find "that mo1lon Tor
the previous question was made; and upon O
declaration from The Hce-P President, that the pre-
vious question is not in order, upon an amend
ment to bill, motion was made, that the
question on the final passage OF the bill be post
poned until Monday next; and 1t passed III lhe
negative" (See Journal of the Senate Tor re-
bruary S, 1909 Here was an exercise OF the
presiding power, in its ordinary sense; sub
s,antial call to order. If you contend that 1t
was not an application of the presiding power
10 "the latitude or freedom of debate or ITO
words spoken in debate,'' and the distinction
should, for arguments sake, be admitted, 1t
would not avail you. For, on a doctrine derlv-
ing the powers of The President of the Senate
from lis rules only, since no rule authorizes you
to exert the original power OF stayinga motion
for the previous question, you would act as
usurpingly in thus exerting that power, as IN
calling member to order in the cases JUST spe-
cited. An unanswerable objection 10 your
apology is, that on its principles, the President
of the Senate has, in no case, other than an ap-
pellate power of suppressing irregulailiy OF any
kind Indeed if your theory be true, that 9th
Ger would, .if the Senate were to forbear making
rules directing his conduct, be an absolute null
lily.
But contemporary publications, more minute
than the journals of the Senate, are not deficient
in evidence that :he original right OF us presld-
ing officer to call TO order, "questions touch
ing the latitude or freedom Of debate" or Tor
swords spoken in debate" the cases on which
your shifting creed was successfully suspended,
has been exerted and recognised In letter
from Mr.. HEBB, published in the National
Journal of JdIy %, 1926, that experienced gen.
tleman says:
81 have Just laid my hands on the debates in
Suffered by Mr.. Ross, of Pennsylvania, authorlz-
cling the President to take possession OF New
"Oreans, or some place adjacent; and observed
"that Mr.. Dayton remarked, If act disorder
ely, the President has right to call me to or
"der; he must decide whether am in order or
mot Mr. Tracy also remarked, According
"to parliamentary proceeding, no one can take
"possession of the floor to the interruption of
"another; if disorderly, the President will cali
shi,n to order; bu! il called by member, the
"Presdent must decide: and, if in order, he
"must possess the floor Mr.. Nicholas, OF
"Virginia, rose and said, he wished TO make one
cor two observations in reply to Mr.. Ross. The
sVice President interrupted him and said, 'lt
"those observatiors were intended to apply to
"the question whether the resolutions should
ssbe the orner for Monday, they would be pro-
''per. otherwise, they would not be in order
"Mr Nicholas proceeded, when the Vice-Pre-
"sident again interrupted him, and informed
shin that mo remark in reply 20 the gentleman
"from Pennsylvania, upon that question, could
sbe admitted The power ofthe chair, as here
sslaid down, was not controverted, and the Sen
safe then was composed of as able and distin-
,sguished members, Curing the discussion OF
"these resolu,ions,) as at any previous or sub
"seouent period l will only ennmerate such
TO- >hnr