Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-12-27

motion for the previous question did not cut off amend
men,s motion to amend The resolution would, there
fore, be in order ,.o,,,,;on ;,
striking out the words wlth the exception OF ''ie
rule AZ
Mr. BELL offered amendment to strike OUT inc
10th and 4lst rules in relation TO the previous ques'o
which, as it stood, was liable to great ,
He did not wish to do away with tins prncpe a.,oge
Their hut wished it referred committee to undergo
certain notifications. :
MIR. FILLMORE also offered an amendment, the Ell.
feet of which the reporter did not understand ou'
was subsequently withdrawn by Mr. r.
Mr. FRANCIS THOMAS said that he was one OF
the number of those who entertained the opinion that
WINS not necessary at this time, TO 60 into discussion
of the propretv of modifying the rules uiaer WHEN
they had acted for the last two sessions, win 70
the manner of putting the previous question. ne
would now content himself with saying that alter e1-
arnncno ,nuch from the want OF them,
ihe House found necessary to adopt the rules Wheh
the gentlemen from Tennessee proposed 10 dispense
with Mr. T. thought that now was not the time 10 go
into consideration of these rules, ana mat th house
pould find il much more its convenience to take them
n they ysted at the last session of Congress 10 get
decision of the question-to get the majority Will
bim-he would move to lay on the table the resolution
of the gentleman from New York, together with the
amendments that had been offered to IT. tor the purpose
f submitting us substitute for it. resolution pro-
vdnu for the adoption of the rules as they stood at the
lac, Session. If the Chair would look at the Para-
mentary law, he would find that motion to lay on the
table had precedence of motion Tor tic previous
question. ,,. = loo;aoa
b The Chair that the motion to lay the table had the
nracedence and that motion should prevail, ne should
,hen object 10 The gentleman from Maryland offering
his substitute because, by the parliamentary law you
cannot adopt the substance of the same proposition at
was laid on the table.
| NJ JAMESON observed that, according to the doc
trne laid down by the gentleman from Tennessee the
| resolution of the gentleman from New fork couid no'
h ,dontcd for the substance of it had been laid on the
table and the gentleman and his party had pernacous
" refused this morning 10 take " up Nay he,c was
nm appeal of the gentleman from Alabama from the de-
cison of the Chair that the motion to reconsider the
vote on LAYING this very resolution the table could
moi he taken up But all this (Mr J. sadly was foreign
10 the subject absurd to suppose that they could
not adopt rules for their government because points
order might be nterposed He of the opinion tina
they had the right to adopt rules for their government
NJ any time from the very necessity of the case.
Mr.. MERCER made few observations, giving hi'
opinions on the subject of order
Mr.. DAVIS of Indiana offered as substitute t
Mr. Hofman's resolution, n resolution providing fo
Tho ,don;on of the rules of the last House Of Repre-
senatives, until otherwise ordered by majority of The
House.
The SPEAKER said that the motion of the gentle
man from Indiana not in order, as the question
was on the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia
| (AIr Craig)
MIR BELL here withdrew his motion for amend
ment, and
Mr. CRAIG called for the yeas and nays on tn
| question.
Mr. BELL then addressed the House at length il
opposition to Mr. Craigs amendment, appealing to tn
gentlemen of the State Rights party to assist hun Il
DESTROYING the rira coce privilege of voting, which
looked upon as species of Executive whip to be az
piled to the members on this floor One OF these gen
emen the other day stated that there had been for
raj wears past too much Executive action felt in thl
Government, and he would appeal TO that gentleman
and those who thought with him. to seize this first OF
portunity of striking blow at Executive influence
He looked upon this rira princ pie one of tn
most powerful eng ines of Executive influence and
was essentially important that II should be destroyed
Every man who had been in this House for the last v
or six years must nave seen the alarming increase
Executive influence and Executive patronage, and tn
alarming control which party discipline and party drl
had over the members of this House. He called upo
gentlemen of the State Rights party to join him i
destroying this dangerous agent OF Executive iniit
| encc.
Mr.. PETRIKlN observed that he, as one of the DE-
mocratic members of the House who had been allude
to bv the gentleman from Tennessee being acted upo
bv Executive influence, felt himself called upon ndiG
nantly to rcpel the nsInuation. Though he did NJ
pretend to contend with the gentleman from Tennessee
in eloauencc and argument, he neither admitted I'm
nor any other member to be his superior in trmness
purpose devotion 10 the best interests OF tho oountr
He had listened to the gentleman while ne was char
ing the party with which he had acted with beng OPP
rated on BY Executive influence, with surprise and II
dgnation and as far us he himself concerned,
pronounced the charge to b. untrue in point of fac
Mr. r. said he boldly declared il to be his belief that II
RIGA principle of voting was the true Repubica
principle, and that the man who feared openly to e.
press to his constituents all his votes, was not tit
be Representative in Congress; he should be thru
out Of the hall MIR. Petrikn said that the first III
ton he ever made, when he first here, fires
from his native State of Pennsylvania, was to G
tablish this rira roce principle OF voting He vi
not listened to, and perhaps il was because he ".
not in the habit of occupying the time of the liou
in brawling speeches; but he had made the IN
ton because the principle he sought to establish pr
vailed in the Legislature of Pennsylvania. The repr
sentatves of the people there are too proud Ar sa
skulk behind the ballot boxes No; they never fe
let their constituents know in what they give the
votes. What! (said Mr.. P.) am l., and the party wi
which act, under Executive influence? Are we u
der any other influence than that of our constituent
No, sir, retort the charge, and ask if it is not dlsa
pointed ambition-the modification of defeated part
which powerfully influences those who seek to de
troy the prncipe' ask if it is not the cowa
fear Of walking up to the chalk and openly proclamI
their votes to their constituents that operates her
do not say Continued Mr.. P) that they operate
on by such influences; but do say, that it is fair
us to make such charges against them, as for them
charge US with being under Executive influence S
(ssid Mr.. P) the charge made by the gentleman fro
Tennessee, is equivalent to charge of perjury al
fraud-of treason to constituents-and thereto
Indignantly repel it.
J, 1--WE regret that compelled to cut short Il
day proceedings at this interesting stage of the deba
:, to make room for the Presidents Message.]
Tuesday, December "a, 1899.
in SENATE.
A message was received from the President of I
| lit b..A Nor Zee
!. cretary.
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE.
The annual message of the President to the t,
Houses of Congress then read by the Secretary
the Senate, and was as follows:
I Fsllo,c- Citizens Of the Senate
:, and House Of Representatives.:
regret that cannot on this occasion congratula
YOU that the past year has been of unalloyed pre-
pcrity. The ravages Of fire and disease have painful
afflicted otherwise fourishng portions of countr