Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1836-04-25
VOL. XXV:....Jv.O. -.

: snion 10 hhPa Journal were that which has been
50 much insisted on, that Is pycserre do not gen.
temen perceive that the preservation of the io,,r.
nal is fully and most surely accomplished m h.
publication ! The thousand and ten copies whcl,
The Secretary has told US regularly printed and
distributed by order Of the Senate to the members
Oh Congress- 10 various public missionaries, to tho
sla'o Governments, topublic institutions and soci4
cues throughout the Union, furnish a far better
security iof the preservation OF the journal than
inc most serupuous care and vestal guardianship Of
Tue original manuscript; which, in spirit Of every
Pieeanfon, might yet be lost or destroyed by in-
e''ab'r accident. These multiplied printed CO.
PIES, while placing the preservation of the Jour
nal beyond the roach of contingency, are vet N
The same time. for every practical public use.
whether OF legal evidence or political accountable.
''y, ON footing of equal validity with the manu-
| script original.
lie numerous parliamentary prccedents in
England, as 10 the power Of legislative bodies o.
yer then Journals, are not denied but il Is con-
tended that those proccdcnts should have M
weight here, because the Constitution Of the United
states eApresd. requires that each House OF Con-
rress shall keep journal while. ia Eng land, il
IS SAID no such roqnsiiion exists in regard to eli
Tier House oi Parliament. Tie ,equsilion in the
Constitution Of tie United States, | have already
Shown, Is hui declarnioiy ui tue natural and pre-
"hNilte la" oi all legislative bodies of whose or
P'hl2all"h and functions II is necessary and in,
variable incident to keep Il journal of their pro-
'eedmgs; and IN this view am horne our, moi on
" by The cAanp Of the articles of considerations
but by that oi several OF the State Constitutions
which, pres pposng the hepiag of n Journal as
matter OF comse, provided only, after the manner
OF The articles oil confederation, for the periodical
pnbiedtloa Of from lime 10 time. Bur without
dwelling farther on this view of tho matter, il is
altogether mistake 10 say that there is no posi-
tive requlsiiion that either House OF Parliament i'm
England shall keep journal oftl,eir proceedings
find iho classic historian Of thai country stating
MAT, III loof when the nasto.t tfecnsons oi tho
Alnnri', and the spirit of the age first made thu
House OF Commons sensible 10th OF It's Importance
and responsibility as acnardian of he public bcr-
y, that body entered formal order for " the reg
n'ar keeping Of thor journals" Subsequently,, in
lo2l, as learn from another authority not less
authentic, (liascl, an entry was maj IN the Jour
nal OF the House OF Commons, on III i, lion Of
SIR Edward Saekvillc in these words That all
our trorecdmgs may be entered here and kept as
records Now, sir, it's very remarkable that these
two orders of the House of Commons contain tho
identical lanenaee OF The Constitution of the Uni
ted States, 10 wit, that the journal shall be kept
OF their proceedings, In each of them, the magic
word 10 keep, which seems To have excrcd so po-
tent spell on the imoeinations Of gentlemen, IL
found ana YET We know il has never been held TO
De violation OIL or inconsistent with, the order 10
he'P journal OF their proceedings, Tor the House
OF commons ~ certain cases. Ia apply an etlec-
'ua' corrective To wrongful mprudcnt entries
previously made IN IT. II may be said, however,
tina, tins order, being made by the body itself, is
no, obligatory on IT'S own action. To this rcply,
that the rules prescribed by parliamentary bodies
Inr their government are always binding upon them,
nil 'csc'ndcdor repealed; aud while rule order
II retained, nothing consistent with il can be- done,
unless the iule be first suspended by vote Of the
body. Such isihe invarlabe practice, both ofihis
and the Other House of Congress, as of legislative
bodies elsewhere
but This matter stands still higher ground.
Anaet OF Parliament, which all will admit is bind
my on the respective Houses, and which neither
House can repeal or control by its separate ac-
ton, virtually requires journal 10 be- kept by the
House of Commons, in requiring certain entries
to be- made ia IT, rcicar to the statute of Hem
ny VII, Which provide "lha the license for
members departing from ,hcr service shall be
tered OF record IN the book OF the clerk Of tho
Parliament, appointed, orio be appointed, FOR the
Commons House The book OF the clerk of the
'ommons' House, here referred TO, and in which
certain things are required to he entered Of record,
IS Of course the journal of the House. But how
can these entries be made in the journal unless a
journal be kept This ACT of Parliament, there
fore, requires, and virtually commands, the keep
ing oi the journal by tho House of Commons j;
just as the articles Of confederation, already re-
icrrcd 10. in providing TINT Congress shall pub
llsh the journal of its proceedings monthly"
virtually requires Congress to kcepa journal for,
otherwise, the required publication could not tako
place.
The d tinclion, therefore, Which has been rc.
he'd upon TO Justify the rejection of the British pre-
cedents on this subject, i, not founded in Just
view 81 the constitutional or parliamentary history
OF that country The two Houses of Parliament
are, IN fact, bound and required to keep journal
OF their proceedings. ms well the two Houses Of
Congress. They are bound to do so by the very
nature OF their institution, by their rules and
orders and by the virtual command of act Of Par
Lament. If, therefore, similarity or community
OF principle could, in any CASE Justify arguing from
the institutions and usages of the country to
the other, il is certainly upon a question like the
present. l find that much use was made on anoth-
or and recent occasion in this body of British par
iiamen,ary preccdenis, by gentlemen who
now inclined 10 disavow and reject them altogeth-
rr. III am not mistaken, the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr CALHouN,) on the question which
VAS 50 earnestly and ably debated here recently,
the right of either iIonsc to refuse to receire
petition, introduced !'atsel's work, the great re-
pository of British ar ,mcntary preccdents, and
drew largely from II ~ support of the position he
maintained, that it would be no violation OF the
right of petiioning, guaranteed by the Con-
snuon, to refuse 10 receive IA petition after pre-.
scr