Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Wayne County, Ind.) 1831-1837, 1834-03-22
rwu1gTx-TuI1D CONGRESS.
Tuesday March, 4, 1884.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE

Mr.. POLK, from the Committee of Ways
and Means, to which had been referred the
Letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, giving
his reasons for Withdrawing the public depos-
ties from the Bank Of the United States; the
memorial Of the Bank, and various other pa
pers on the same general subject, made Re
port: He moved that it be printed, and its
Mr. CLAY called for the reading of the
report.
Mr. McDUFFIE objected.
The CHAIR decided that it was the right of
member to have any paper read first prcsen-
ted to the House.
Mr.. McDUFFIE moved that the reading be
dispensed with.
The CHAIR pronounced that motion out Of
order; as the reading was Of right.
Mr.. HARDIN demonstrated against the I'M
necessary consumption of time in reading a
long report, and probably counter report,
both Of which would be Immediately prin-
ted.
Mr. CLAY said that he wished the reading,
because he meant to follow it by a motion
for printing an extra number Of copies Of the
Report.
MIR. HARDIN said he would vote for the
extra number without reading.
The CHAIR stated the grounds on which
he had decided that the reading was of right,
when called for by member Of the House.
He said that the member from Alabama (Nlr.
Clay had right to have the report read be-
fore he could be required to vote, and that it
was not in order to dispense with the reading,
nor the power Of the majority Of the House so
to direct, if persisted in by any member Of the
House. The rule which declares that, when
the reading of paper is called for, and the
nhpe tod TO, hat ft,r,A hall DR.
termine by vote whether it is to be read or
not, does not apply to the case Of paper first
presented for the consideration and action Of
tbs House. That rule was adopted, no doubt,
IN consequence of its having been supposed
that the right OF a member, to have paper
read for information, extended to all papers
which were on the table, or in possession Of
the House and on which the House might have
passed. To guard against the delay and incon-
venience which would have arisen from the
exercise Of such right, the oath rule was a.
doptcd.
The rule, however is only applicable, in the
opinion Of the Chair, to papers upon the table,
or in possession Of the House, and does net APP
ply to papers first presented to the House, and
on which its action is to be had. When any
paper is thus presented for the first time, in the
business and proceedings Of the House, any
member has right to have it read through
once at the table before he can be compelled
to give any opinion or vote in relation to it i
but, having been once read, it is like every
other paper that belongs to the House, to be-
moved to be read, if again desired; and, III
objection be made, the sense Of the House is to-
30 taken by the Chair. This is an important
right to each individual member, one Of the
lew that can be exercised by him against the
opinion Of the House, and which no majority
can, as if the law now is, deprived him Of. I'll
has been 50 regarded, and hello sacred, by thel
Individual who fills the Chair, and he has been
sustained by the practice and decision Of the
House. In 1SO2, the question was first raised
IN relation to a communication from the Sec
rotary OF War: a motion having been made toI
dispense with the reading Of it, was decided,
BY Mr.. Speaker, Macon, to be out Of order,