Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-08-18

after MFR. Randolph, conferred certain powers
on IFS presiding officer, that either tact DIS
proves the powers to be inherent he Illus
tration derived from the House of Commons Is
singularly unhappy. Waving for the present
any reliance on the circumstance that many
rules Of that Honse, cited by Mr. Jefferson, so
far from being grants Of power to the SpeaKer'
are merely declaratory OF the sense which !. en-
tertained of his powers and were probably en-
cited by some Universities OF opinion among the :
members, I suggest 10 you the e1pedlency Q,
hereafter resortng 10 history Tor facts, lns'eau
Of ransacking the armory OF monkish logic lot
some rusty weapon of controversy. Haa your
inquiries been prosecuted more inliy, OF liloie
fairly, you would have found that on Tue ilise
appointment, in the year 1877; ny the iiouse u
Commons, of Speaker, his office was merely
that of messenger to the King, and that ne al
tanned, by gradual approaches only the chaiac-
ter of a presiding officer. From the PRINT
Give situation (says learned writer) OF the
mCom,nons. acso IN all cases acre INSTRUCTED
"6o,c 10 ocf, they had no opportunity OF de-
@bating upon any subject, but they required
ga person 10 intimate their determinations
c,o the King, and for this purpose they, al
sfrst, excited a Speaker. The further the
s;bussiness of that House was extended, the
"more they ventured to form resolutions
"without the advice of their constituents
"rhe power and privileges of their Speak
Ger were enlarged in ppopotion, and he, al
sleagfh, obtained the prouince Of an ordinary
president - See differs Historical p1e'o q the
English Government, yoI. 2, page 225, fourth ed'-
tionI For long time, then, the Speaker OF
the House of Commons "had not obtained the
province Of an ordinary President . But when
that House, emerging from its primitive teudal
| insignihcance, acquired the character ana iei'
the dignity of a deGberative assembly, II per-
ceived the necessity Of order TO ITS proceedings,
and annexed the power of maintaining 1t TO an
officer which originally had been established ior
another purpose. Experience, and progressive
civility, finally furnished the House OF Com
mons with complete image OF the presiding
power; and disputes in regard TO the nature OF
| that power were settled by deciaratory rules,
whiesotaer rules were adopted to remedy any
deficiency in its strength. Al length the Speak
er 'so5fained tie province Of an ordinary PfeS'-
dent" And what is that province? History
| and custom, though you are deafeo the harmo-
nv of their voices, declare that is "hrst
the power of preserving order In" the deAoe
! rations Of the body over which he presldes;
s.next, that of collecting "the sense OF It's mem
bers on any question submitted TO their decision;
and, thirdly, that Of authenticating, by his sig
nature, their legislative acts /. Tins con-
struction, the common sense humankind agrees.
| The most uneducated member Of village
meeting, when asked what he expects from the
| individual whom he calls to the chair, will an
swer, substantially, in the language OF these
specifications. The fallacy Of your argument
arises from the postulate that the office can be
created without the powers necessary to the
performance Of its duties, and, therefore, lnhe-
rent in its nature: And, with characteristic dis
righteousness. you avail yourself OF the Tact that
| theSpeaker of the House Of Commons had at one
| time no power to preserve order, carefully sup
| pressing another fact, that he was then not a
presiding officer. But the irresistible dictate
of reason is, that the creation OF an office Is,
"ipso facio,' the creation of the powers incident
to It's nature, and indispensable 10 its operation,
and that otherwise, however existing in name,
the Office does not exist in fact. An otfice like
every thing else, must have All origin; whence,
you infer tina, it has no inherent powers, or,
in other words, does not exist because II was
created. Instead Of conlendng generally, as
you wantonly charge me with contendng, that
the individual who fills ii "holds his power IN
dependenty of the will Of the body over which
he presides; which can neither give nor take it
away, nor modify the mode OF exercising it,
ror control its operation" | never denied that
all these acts were competent 10 Tie authority
,chich conferred the appointment The House OF
Commons, or the House of Representatives,
each Of which elects its Speak er, is, without
question, physically competent TO divest the
Office of its constituents powers; to reduce 1t to
the same automaton that you have made your
self, and still to retain the name. But, as you
correctly remark, to divest the office Of it g. e.
an inherent 2ower,) would be to change its ma
ture. It would be no longer the same office"
This would, indeed, be triumph of force over
reason. But would it prove that the Office ne
yer had possessed any inherent powers? AS
plausibly might it be argued that because some
men have been made slaves, the right of per-
sona liberty is not inherent in every man; or
shat the right to freedom of conscience, be-
cause despotism or superstition has often op-
pressed it, is not also inherent.
Congenial to the logical deceit which has
Just been exposed, is your maxim "tha, there
are, indeed, inherent powers, but they are in the
body, and not in the officer your principles
were proper test, / should here have only TO
ask, how can you suppose power to be inherent
in the body even, of which the origin is extrln-
sic1 The body as much derives its powers