Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-03-29
THE VIRGINIA ADVOc1y,E

NO SUBSCRIPTION WiI DC discontinued until all
a'r'arase pa out at e discretion shs future 10
mO.y dos.taasc: PrniD4, cIJaa Of The yt l be
considered d gca,eas.
II IcertiSe@sstS not erccc3ay TaiIccn Lines
q printed mio mill 10 for one D- ana
t"'"yf'o eeas for eoarg sase7t~ isrilongsr ia
proportion.
:; TIE humJer Of iasersions must be noteI on tbe
Us sf7er.iseasrs ~ii be continued aeeony
Ctqa1sry Orders rot crcccARy ira squares or
Nti'y-'is G's', 'oi be pai,j'tsi for fee d,itars
O. lNiet!ers aitresseI 20 tie Editors must be-
gostp'il, o. they nil no, be ai.eadcl
sz<se7srH-ssnn
We lately noticed i recent amaudnout of the
rules of the Senate, by which the Vice President
as presiding officer of that body is authorised, 20
call members to order for words spoken in debate
Before he had declined exercising this bower
because he did rot believe that he possessed if
ana Tor tins forhearance he was most violently as
sailed by the friends Of the Administrations I'm
the course OF the discussion to which the rronoe;
ton TO amend the rules, gave rise that officer
made the following explanation of the ro,so,s
which had influenced his conduct We publish
II us well Tor the purpose OF justityinr him ms of
exposing the principles of the party who censured
INN 1t cannot be dene: however that they are
nn'ied to the merit of consistency at least md
tAat such claim of power for the Vice Presi-
dcht, was 10 nave been expected from those who
20 zellousy defend the usurpations of the Presi
dent.-lt is necessary to add in exclamation or
ms remarks, that by the amendment it was not on
~ proposed that he should have the power ofcall
ing to order, bat that appeals to the Senate from
his decision should be allowed
The VICE PRESIDENT remarked. that the
senator from Maryland (.lr CnAMngas.) mis-
'ooA the decision OF the Chair Oh the occasion
alluded to, III surprising that it had decided \
nalilSt TIE al calliDr 10 n-J>
cision was, that the Chair had not the power of
ealing to order, for words spoken in debate
Ahe Chair does not doubt its power of calIinr IN
order III many cases for it is in fact in the daily
exercise OF such power As much msapprehen-
SION seemed to prevail as to the opinon of tho
Char, OF Tie extent of it's power with tho in
diligence OF the Senate il would conciseIv state
its opinion
me CONSTITUTION provides, that the Vice Prcsi-
dent be I. esidcnt of tie Senate and that each
i!ouse shall prescribe its rules, and punish for
d.sordcrly conduct
1t is a tar presumption. that it was not tho IN
tehtioh OF the authors of that instrument to dele
gaze the same powers to the Senate and its pre
Suing ofIcer; and in order to ascertain what
powers were really delegated to the Vice Presi-
dent. as the president Of this body, it is only ne
cessary to know what were the powers conferred
on the Senate by the Constitution in reference to
the subject IN discussion. Those powers fortu
nately for the decision of this question, admitted
OF m doubt. The power of making rules and
OF Punlshing for dsorderly conduct are expressly
delegated to the Senate. The power of punish
ing involved that OF Judging In the Senate,
then, was clearly vested by the Constitution. the
legislative ana judicial powers over its own pro
"eealnsS' winch leaves to the presiding officer
'le m isteiiai power of the body only which is
neithcr more nor less than the power of APPLYING
t:lc rules OF the Senate to its proceedings
L ne exercise OF this power involved the right
or Gaii'h9 10 order, or what was the same thing
ofdirectin9 the attention of the Senate to in
stances "i intraction OF its own rules-whch
would explain thevarous instances of it's exercise
by the Chair, referred to by some of the Senators
III Tue DEBATE ln the very unpleasant instance
referred to by the Senator from New Jersey (Mr
DickERsoN) the Chair did not hesitate i'm making
the call; not for words spoken-either bv the
Senator from Virginia or from Massachusetts.
both of whom, Mr.. RANDoLPs and SIR I,ovn
nave since ceased to be Members OF this BODY
HE Senator from Virginia. on that occasion was
ia possession OF the floor and by the rules of the
body, no other Senator had right to rise until
fe mad finished, except to call to order. As soon
as the Chair perceived that the object of the SEN
atof from Massachusetts, was not to make a call to
ofder,it Inerfered. its duty under the rules
oupPosIng that the Senator from Alabama
khf. kING,) who had risen on the occa-
Son 10 make call to order, intended his call for
words spoken by the Senator from VIRGINIA (,Ir
~ the Chair directed that the words should he
reduced to writing, In conformity with the seventh
rae; but 1T IS inclined to think that it misconceved
Tie object of the Senator from Alabama. (Nr.
Il: IN making the call to order.
ne tapping on the table which was alluded to
10y the Senator from New Hampshire, as instances.
III iact, OF calls to order, the Senate would find
justified under the second rule, which provides
That no member shall speak to another, or other
wise interrupt the business Of the Senate. or read
any newspaper, while the Journals OF other public
papers arc reading, or when any member is speak
ing IN debate In the case alluded to by the SEN
ator from Missouri, of pronouncing questions
out OF order, the Senate would see the source "a
the power IN the rule which prescribes the order
IN which questions should have priority
M There being no rule that would authorize the
Char to call to order for words spoken in debate.
u became serious question: which deliberately
engaged the attention Of the Chair, whether il
possessed the power from any other source, which
resulted In the conviction that it did not This
opinion was made known, on the first suitable
occasion.
Il lie Chair perceived that such poyyer cou1d M.