Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-12-14

Mr. SMITH of Maine said that the Chair had direct
ed that the gentlemen from New Jersey were enttea
vote An appeal had been taken from that decision
and il had been reversed and the gentleman from Rhode
Island MIR Tllinghast had attempted TO give me fea
sons for this vote of the House, but he would tell inc
gentleman, that the strongest reason when oPei'so
upon him. was the 34th rule of the House nc thoush
the House had right to decide under that rnle "eh
gentlemen were directly, personally and immediately
interested. that they should not vote he beiieVeu
that many other gentlemen besides himself had voted
AGAINST the decision Of the Chair in consequence oil ts
rule
Mr. MCKAY moved that none of the disputed mem IN
bers from New Jersey be Permittea 10 VOC u''' ''
question was decided. ~,
Mr. GRAVES rose to a question oil oraeI: us
point was this: there question before inc ouse
and the previous question had been moved upon ~
therefore no gentleman had the right TO brlng up Sc
parate and independent proposition u''''' '""'
was disposed Of ala 80, ho
The CHAIR said the previous question could mol De
mt until this question to who should represent Inc
State of New Jersey should first be decided
Mr. MCKAY then moved that neither set OF members
fo Now Jersey shall vote until the question rho shd
tan n, S,a,e of Neu Jcrseuo shall be first decided
IN. ,Le House He contended that this was theIroPer
course TO be pursued and read extract from atzeii
IN .upport of his position. 1t was the UNIFORM Placuce
in the British Parliament when seats were con'es'ea'
thai both parties should withdraw unt! their case was
decided by those who not personally interested IN
~ matter This was the only correct and proper
course to be pursued, and he hoped hls proposition
would be agreed by the House de also referred 10
the case of Howell and Everett of Rhode Island, IN he
Continental Congress, which had oceh cilea D! tue
Chairman. and showed that the Rhode Island members
did not vote on their case in the hrst instance
Subsequently, however, they did vote upon such cues
tons as presented.
MIR. PROFIT rose to appeal from the decision OF
the Chair ['What decision: from different parts oil
Mr.. w. {. JOHNSON rose and stated that he held
in his hand series of resolutions TO offer, which would
bring the House directly to vote on the question al
issue TCries of "order, order, order.
Mr.. PETRIKIN rose to point of order. He wished
to know whether it competent for the Char to en-
t,rtain three or four propositions at one time.
MIR JOHNSON. Let the gentleman reduce his
point of order to writing.
The CHAIR requested that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania should reduce his point of order to VIII
ting.
saw upon his resolution while the gentleman was pre-
parinq his point of order Mr. j. held that the House
had not the rpht to vote the Representatives OF
entire State The House conform to the Constr
tuition and the laws, and they expressly inhibited the
House from taking such course, unless the members
wore sworn in He commended that they could not
adopt the proposition of the gentleman from North
Carolina because, by the law of apportionng Repre-
sentatyes New Jersey entitled to six Representa-
tyes and it was not in the power of this House to de-
prve her of that representation
MIR. PETRIKIN then presented his point of order
in writing; but
The CHAIR decided against If, because the ques-
ton 10 Law on the table could not be pending while the
preliminary question was undecided
Mr., PETRIKIN raised an additional point of order,
as TO whether any other motion could be made, when
voud set aside that motion. lfsuch was the decision
of the Chair, he would appeal from that decision.
The CHAI said that whatever question might arse,
the moment the House to vote upon it, the qucs-
ton would arise who should vote upon IT. and the
question who should vote, must be settled before
the question to lay on the table can be put.
Mr.. RHETT thought the proper course would be to
decide one question at time. Mr. R. went over and
summed up the various questions presented 10 the Cha
and concluded BY moving the previous question on the
appeal taken by MIR Petrkin.
MI. BRIGGS contended that as the question pend.
ing was on the motion of Mr. Mckay. an appeal could
not be taken on any other question.
The CHAIR then decided that MIR. Petrikin motion
could not be entertained
MIR. PETRIkIN Then appeal from that decision.
Tioud cries of "order :" 'ordcr "order
Mr.. JOHNSON then asked for the reading of his re-
solution.
Mr. BYNUM objected to this course Of piling mo-
ton upon motion. If did not go on and decide
questions according to some rule OF ORDER 1t would be
utterly impossible to do any thing,
Mr. JOHNSON said he offered his resolution as
substitute for the motion of the gentleman from Ca
rolna: Mr.. is resolution was then read as follows:
R,solrcd That certificate of election as member
of the House Of Representatives OF The Cnted STATES
duly made in conformity with the laws OF the State
which the parties profess to represent and signed by
the proycr officers under the great sen OF the state,
sufficient per Sc g entitle the person to whom L. given
70 he sworn in as member of the House. provided tina
mn State shall have Representatives than IS allow
cd to it BY the Constitution and laws OF The l. States
R,soyrrd That under the fifth section OF the second
Article of the Constitution, the House OF Representa-
lapE he suc
certificate, aud Judge Of the election, returns, and
Qualifications of its own members, after II shall have
been organized and sworn
Mr.. JOHNSON said he offered this proposition as al
amendment to the motion of the gentleman from NORTH
Carolina because he felt that he could not vote on Tho
motion of that gentleman. We have not yet beer
sworn: we have not taken the oath of Office prescribed
by the Constitution Of the United States, and he could
not consent TO see the House proceed to the solemn
farce or mockery of voting the Representatives OF {
whole State out of this House, when the members o
the House were not under the moral and religious Oh
legations required by the Constitution
The CHAIR said he did not feel authorized to enter
tain resolution the effect of which would be to deprive
the State of New Jersey of her representation on tins
floor 1t was not competent tor tins meeting TO pass
such a resolution. The resolution of the gentleman
from North Carolina declared, in effect that the people
of the State Of New Jersey should not be represented
this floor and the Chair could not put the question, upor
such a resolution, 10 the House
Mr.. JOHNSON. Then I will offer my resolution
rs separate and distinct proposition In reply to
proposition which had been made by some gentlemen
on the floor that all the members from New Jersey
might vote, provided the result was not changed hi
wished to say few words. New Jersey was entitled
to but six Representatives under the laws appotonins
Representatives, and ne held that it would be mon
strons innovation for the House to permit eleven mem
hers from that State to vote. That State ent.t
to six Representatives, and she was entitled to no more
and the question here was who those six Representa-
,yes should be; This question settled by the Con
sttution of the United States and the laws Of New Jer
sew and it was incompetent for this House to take any
question upon that until first organized and gen
tlemen had taken the oath of office.
Mr.. FRANCIS THOMAS rose to ask the gentle
man from North Carolina (Alr Mckay to withdraw
his proposition, in order that another effort might be
made to settle this question Mr. 7 said he had moved
no preliminary proposition, he had offered no amend
ments propositions which had been before the House
not because he had not felt deeply interested in the