Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-04-08


Houses have been published from day day, with such
special and limited exceptions have been universally
approved by the public judgment.
This publication, when made, is the practical fulfil
ment and consummaton of the design of the Constitu
ton in requiring journal to be kept, by either House
of its IL agreed all hands that the
great object Tor which journal required to be kept is
give authentic information constituents of our
proceedings and that is 10 be given as the
Constitution Provides by me ms OF publication. from
time to time, of the journal itself The rcquisitOn TO
Keep journal, which gentlcncn have laid much
stress therefore merely Introductory what the law
call matter of induceme only that which forms
the life aud substance of the provision, the pub
iieaion from time 10 Time oil the journal The whole
strucace and of the sentence susains this
depreciation Each House shall keep journal oil its
proceedings, apd from time To te publish the same.
1t is evident that the whole practical virtue aud effect
OF the provision is in the latter member of the sentence,
and that the former would have been picd and
pretended in it, though not expressed 1, will be- seen,
that the corresponding provisions in the Articles of Con
federation was founded explicitly this idea; for pre-
snPposng the keeping of journal matter of course,
II proceeded al once To require that Congress shall
publish the journal OF their proceedings monthly except
ing such parts thereof relating to tiraes alliances
military operations as, in their Judgment, require
crcsy.
Nothing was said of keeping Journal that being
pe,supposed and necessarily implied butcan any
doubt though the Articles of Confederation were silent
as TO keeping journal, that Congress was as much
bound 10 keep journal of their proceedings under that
instrument, as each House is now bound TO do under
the existing Constitution? How could they make the
required monthly publication of their journal, unless
journal were kept by lhem The requsition, therefore,
In the present Constitution 10 keep Journal
expression, for the sake of greater uncss what would
otherwls have been implied, and only
formal Introduction to the practical end and substance
oil the constitutional provision the subject, aud that
with which ewphatcaliy concludes wit Me publ
cation from time to time of the journal. That pueca-
lion made the people put in possession of The
authentic evidence of the proceedings of their agents
the purposes of the Constitution fulfilled and the
preservation of the original manuscript journal become
thenceorward an official iornaty.s
Even the true and only meaning of the reqnsition
6eepa journal were that which has been much insisted
on that 49, 10 preSerce do not gentlemen perceive that
the preservation of the journal fully and surely
accomplished in its publication The thousand and
ten copies which the Secretary has told regularly
printed and distributed by order of the Senate tie
sembers of Congress- 10 the various public unctionaries
to the State Governments, to public institutions and
ciees throughout the Union furnish far better security
or the preservation of the journal than the scrupu
lous care and vesal guardianship OF the original manu-
script which, in spite of every precauton, might yet be
lost destroyed by inevitable accident These multiplied
printed copies, while placing the preservation of tie
Journal beyond the reach of contingency are the
time for every practical public use whether legal evil
dence or political accountability footing of equal
validity with the manuscript original
The numerous parliamentary precedents in England,
as to the power of Legislative bodies their journals
are not denied but ii is contended that those
should have weight here because the Constitution
the United States expressly requires that each of
Congress shall keep journa while, in England it is
SAID no such reqnsiton exists in regard either House
oil Parlament The requsiton in The Constitution of
the United States have already shown is but declara-
tory OF The natural and pre-exisng law of all egisla
tive bodies OF whose organization and functions il is
lnvarable n lof
their proceedings; and in this view am borne
only by the example of the Articles of Confederation
but by that OF several of the State Constitutions which
pre- surprising The Keeping OF Journal matter of
course provide only, after the of the Articles
Confederation, for the periodical publication of from
time time But without dwelling frther ON this view
of the matter, it is altogether mistake say that there
is no positive requisition that either House of Parliament
IN England shall keep journal of their proceedings
lind The classic historian of that country stating that
1907 when the nascen pretensions of the Stuarts and
the spirit of the age first made the House of Commons
sensible both of its Importance and responsibility
guardian OF the public liberty that body entered for
NAL order Tor the regular Keeping of their journals
Subsequently, in 1921, learn from another aut,or
ty not less authentic, (Hatsell entry was made in
the journal OF the House of Commons, on the motion
of Sir Edward Sackvie, in these words: That all our
proceedings may be here and Kept as records
Now sir II very remarkable that these two orders of
the House of Commons contain the identical lanruauc
OF the Constitution Of the United States wits that a
journal shall be hPt of their py0ceedines. la each
them, The magic word to keep which 10 have a.
erttd potent spell the imagnalions of gentlemen
is found; and yet know, il has never been held 10
be violation OF, or inconsistent WITH ibis order keep
journal OF their proceedings for the House of Com.
MONS in certain cases TO apply ceeI~Oi corrective to
wrongful or mprov,dent entries previously made in it,
IL may bc said, however that this order, being made by
the body itself, is obligatory its action 10
this reply that the rules prescribed by parliamentary
bodies for their Government are always binding upon
them, till rescinded repealed aud while rule or or
der is retained nothing with If can he done
unless the rule be first suspended by the body
Such is the invariabe practice, both Of this and the
other House OF Congress- as IF Legislative bodies else
| where.
But this matter stands on vet higher ground Anact
of Parliament which all will admit is binding on the re-
spective Houses and which neither House repeal
or control by ITS separate action, virtually requires Jour
nal TO be kept by the House of Commons IN recurring
certain entries TO be made in it, refer the statute Of
Henry VIII, which provides, " that the license for
members departing from their service shall be entered
OF record ia the book of the clerk Of the Parliament
appointed TO be appointed for the Commons House q
The book of the clerk for the Commons House here re.
ierred to- and IN which certain things required DO
entered u recoTd is OF the journal of the House
But how these entries be made in the Journal un-
less journal be kept. This act Of Parliament there
tore requires and virtually commands the keeping of a
journal by The House Of Commons; Just the articles
Of confederation, already referred To, providing that
Congress shall publish the journal of its proceedings
monthly virtually requires Congress keep Journals;
Tor otherwise, the required publication could not take
place.
The distinction, therefore, which has been relied upon
to justify the rejection Of the British prcccdents on this
subject is founded in Just view of the Constitu
tiona or parliamentary history of that country The two
Houses OF Parliament are, iaci bound and required
to Keep journal of their proceedings well the
Houses OF Congress. They bound TO do so by the
very nature OF their institution, by their rules by
The virtual command of act of Parliament. IT, therefore
similarity, community Of principle could in any
case, justify arguing from the institutions and usages Of
the country to those of the other certainly upon
question like the present find that much was made
ON another and recent in this body of British
parliamentary presidents, by gentlemen who seem now
inclined To dsavow and reject them altogether IL am
not mistaken, the Senator from South Carolina (Nir
Calhoun,) on The question which earnestly and
ably debated here recently, the right ofeiiher House
To refuse to rececc petition introduced Hatscls work
The great repository of British Parliamentary precednts
and drew largely rom II IN support Of the position he
aInianed that II would be violation Of the right