The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-12-14

tN I'OcSNSHN" obN'
he had seen none of the papers Of the claimants,
and did not know what they were. Was be TO
admit all who said they had commissions according
to the laws of their state? Mr. d. knew no bet
ter how to discharge his duty as teller, than be-
fore he inquired of the Chair.
Mr.. Adams replied, but, owing to the loud con.
v~ersation which now arose throughout the Hall,
the first part of what he said was inaudible but
when heard, he was understood to say that it had
been stated by the Clerk that the commissions of
five other gentlemen, whom he named, were in
the same words of that of Mr.. Randolph, whom
he had recognized as a member.
Mr.. Vanderpoel took an appeal from the decis-
ion Of the Chair, which he pronounced an act of
usurpation. [Cries of ~"Order"-otlers of Go
on! go on y" 1t was virtually declaring that
the gentlemen from New Jersey should vote in
their own case, when a rule of order was staring
the Chairman in the face, which declared directly
to the contrary. He appealed from such a decis-
ion.
Mr.. Rhctt read to the Chair the rule of order
referred 10, which is in the words following:
mo member shall vote on any question in the
event Of which he Is Immediately and particular
" interested"
The Chair replied, that the rule did not apply
to the present case, because It was not the Rep
lGSGlitullNto nun 1NCW OClSCy WIN NOhSN''
ed; but their constituents and their state. 1t was
not these individuals case, it was the case Of 1heir
District, and the stale of New Jersey.
NIr. W. Thompson of South Carolina, contcn-
ded that a member had as much right to vote on
this question as on any other. When a man
brough: a regular commission from his State, he
was clothed with all the rights belonging to any
other member of the House, and though Mr.. L.
should in such a case, decline voting, yet if these
gentlemen wished to vote, they had a clear and in
disputable right to do so.
Mr.. Mercer said that gentleman were contour
ding two distinct propositions, and treating them
as if they were but one. The first proposition
was the appeal taken by the gentlemen from New
York, (Mr. Vanderpoel0 the other was built up
on it, viz whether those who hold regular COM
missions from the Governor of New jersey
should be allowed TO vote on that appeal. He
supposed, of course, that all the testimony would
be read, and why it had not been he knew not.
Nobody wanted to shut it out; on the contrary,
he was utterly at a loss TO conceive how the
question could be acted on without reading it.
Mr.. M. was extremely unwilling to have it sup
posed for a moment that he had meant to exclude
the reading of any documents belonging TO the
case.
Mr.. Stanly wished to say a few words in re-
ply to The gentleman from New York, (Mr. Van
derpoel,) who had already, before he had zen
three days in the House, been referred to as one
of The leaders of his party. The gentleman had
volunteered here as an advocate Of order and de-
cency, and had now undertaken to read the gen
tlemen from New Jersey a lecture on the shocking
enormity of voting in their own case. The Chair,
however, had very justly decided that to vote as
to their right TO the seats they claimed was not to
vote in their own case, but in the case of their con-
stituents, whose rights were at stake in this contro-
versy. The gentleman from New-Yori was es-
p~ecially indignant at the thought of the violation
Of precedent which the decision of the Chair would
sanction. Indeed And pray when had this new
born zeal of his for precedent arisen in the gentle
mans bosom ? Had not the gentleman been all
along raising his roaring voice against the doctrine
of precedent? Had he not secuted the very idea
of resorting to such a thing? But now he was
shocked-convulsed with horror-at the thought
that precedent is to be violated The gentleman
had just r~eturuSnh from an European tour-he was
fresh from the Court Of Victoria herself, and was
of course well prepared to lecture rude Americans
on the laws of ~decency, and to instruct the Chair
in the principles of order. For one, Mr.. S was
quite prepared to trust the course of the gentle
men from New Jersey, 10 themselves. If they
voted, it would not be in their own cause, but the
cause of their State, their constituents, and the
Constitution of their country. Should they prove
recreant at such a moment, they would be unwor-
they ofthe State which gave them birth-a State,
whose soil, as one of themselves had truly said,
had been "drenched to a mire with the best blood
of her children"
Mr.. Briggs called for the reading of the Clerks
minute, stating the decision from which an appeal
was taken, and it was read accordingly.
He then expressed his hope that gentlemen
would not confound the questions before them, but
that they would proceed according to the rules Of
order and right reason, and discuss only the ques-
ton before the House. The true question was,
whether men duly commissioned from their States
were or were not entitled TO vote as her Represent
%tatives; that was the question, the only question
and Mr.. B.. again invited the gentleman to walk
up and meet it.
Mr.. Granger, ofNew York, rose in reply to Mr..
Vanderpoel. He said he had hoped, yesterday,
that he might at length congratulate the nation on
the fact that her Representatives were now pre-
pared to come up TO their work & TO say, distinct
y and openly, who were, and who were not, 10 be
permitted to vote here as members of Congrcss.-
He had Aattered himself that now, at least, they
had reached a point where no man could hide
himself behind the doubts or the arguments OF a
Jool CIor1, I,. Al. a.. aaa.1 e IL. II. -