Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-02-04


and defeat the purpose of the suspension or reconsde
ration as it might be. On this occasion, the gentleman
from Indiana {Mr. Davis,) the gentleman from Ken
lucky, (Mr. Graves) and the gentleman from Virginia.
MIR Wise) all rose at the same time, but the gentle
man from Kentucky got immediatelyin front of the
gentleman from Indiana, and the Speaker awarded the
floor TO him. and his proposition being ruled out Of order
Mr. Wise handed over his proposition to him. Thus
i, will be seen that adrot members, under the Speaker
decision will have the best chance; and that if sus
,aned the Speaker can give the floor to whose
propositions he favors and thus direct the legislation
OF Congress These gentlemen, he said, had been the
most fortunate this session in catching the Speakers
eye and hence they have directed the legislation to
u great extent He called upon tue young members,
whose rights might be abridged BY those who were
possessed of much adrotness and tact in obtaining
the floor beware how they sustained this decision
Mr.. DUNCAN moved the previous question on the
appeal which was seconded, and the main question or
dered.
Mr. r. GARLAND demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and were-yeas lO4, noes 81.
So the decision of the Speaker was sustained.
Mr. GRAVES then addressed the House on his pro-
position, and the Of his remarks he gave way
Mr. GARLAND Of La to offer the following amend.
mcnt:
land into the expedcncy of entirely separating the
patronage from the newspaper or public press OF the
Mr. PARMENTER, in answer to some of Mr.
Gravess remarks in reference to the price of the print
ing for the Massachusetts, Legislature, said that
he had doubt but the gentleman was correct as to
the prices but that ought be recolected that the
amount Of it very small and It did not therefore
require much capital to carry IT on-that IN tact was
usually given out to several Offices who executed IN
c;dentav to their other business. Public printing
could be done much lower in Boston than here, well
for the reason he had mentioned as from the clrcua
stance that the composition was principally performed
ed by females who worked for considerably less than
what was paid here. He would add that, in his expe-
- 10 Teo hah n fen
known thar body to be subject to much embarrassment
and delay Of business in consequence Of their printing
not being done in time.
Mr. DAVIES said that before he proceeded he de-
sired 10 know whether it in order for him to offer
an amendment to the proposition OF the gentleman from
Kentucky, mir. Graves)
The SPEAKER replied that il was not The ques-
ton was on the amendment submitted by the gentle
man from Louisiana, (M.. Garland)
Sir. DAVIS desired to know whether 1t was compe-
tent for the gentleman from Kentucky, the gentleman
from louisiana and the Speaker TO decide what propo
ston is before the House, without its knowledge and
consent.
Mr.. GARLAND, of Louisiana, called Mr.. D. to or
der; when
Mr. DAVIS disclamed any intention Of impugning
the motives of the Chair. He asked for information
whether q gentleman who had the floor on PROPOSE
ton he had submitted, could allow another to offer an
amendment to it without its being statedto the House.
and thus cut off all other amendments
Mr.. CRAIG made few observations which were
moi distinctly heard-but he understood to contend
that the amendment of the gentleman from LOUISIANA
was not and could not be before the House-t having
been offered while gentleman was addressing the
House BY his Welding the floor and It not having been
uroporndcd bv the Chair. He said that It was compe-
lent for the gentleman from Kentucky to receive the
p-oposition of the gentleman from LOUISIANA "a moo
fcaton and make il part of his proposition 1t would
then being Of ie original proposition, DC subject
N- DAVIS of Indiana commended that the gentle
man from Kentucky had right 10 yield the moor 70
the gentleman from Louisiana TO offer an amendment,
and then Immediately go with his remarks The
gentleman could in this way offer an amendment,
without the of the House, and the amendment
was not propounlcd TO the House by the CHAIR IL
this decision was sustained the House would perceive
that any two gentlemen could combine together and, in
this way cut off all amendments. 1t was known, sir'
% said that he was about to offer an amendment from
the fact of his having moved the reconsideration and
this amendment of the gentleman from LOUISIANA, u !!
was sustained BY the Chair precluded HIM from doing
Mr. BRIGGS suggested that the proposition of the
gentleman from Kentucky was, of itself, an amend
Inent amendment; and therefore It was not com
pe:ent either for the gentleman from LOUISIANA or the
gentleman from Indiana to move to amend H.
Mr. DAVIS apprehended that the gentleman IRON
Massachusetts, with all his acknowledged knowledge
of parliamentary law, in an error The House mao
adopted certain rule, and no matter whether II nae
bccn amended or not, before its adoption, 1t stood on
the record as a rule Of the House. He had moved
reconsideration and that motion prevailing the whole
rule and not the amendment came up tor reconsdera
ton.
Mr. WISE understood the facts to be these: There
substantive proposition adopted in relation to the
public printing. The gentleman from Indiana (Air
Dayis) voted in the Affirmative and yesterday moved
a reconsideration of the vote adopting IT, which recon
s;deration prevailed What then, was the substantive
proposition before the House, Why it was the ProPo
ston of the gentleman from Ohio that was adopted as
an amendment When, therefore, the gentleman from
Kentucky introduced his proposition, he introduced i
as an amendment to amendment and, therefore, mel
Their the gentleman from Louisiana, nor the gentleman
from Indiana could move to amend it.
Mr. VANDERPOEL said the matter struck him dit.
ferentiy. II was resolution Of the gentleman from
Virginia, in which was Incorporated an amendment
that was offered by the gentleman from Ohio, lAlr
C;ddinps) that was adopted; and the motion OF the
Gentleman from Indiana proposition to reconsi-
der that resolution as syhol and not part of it,
was clear that this was the understanding Of both the
gentlemen from Kentucky and Louisiana.
Mr. DAVIS. In order to set that matter right,
ask if it be in order 10 amend the proposition Of the gen.
tlcran from Kentucky
The SPEAKER said it was not. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from louisiana Mr. Gar.
- gTDErpoEL appealed from the decision OF
Mr. WADpY THOMPSON said he objected to The
gentleman making point Of order without reducing
Mr.. VANDERPoEL 1t is not point of order,
hut appeal from the decision OF the Chair and ask
the gentleman from South Carolina if lie can find any
authority in parliamentary law, o. the rules OF the
House, for requiring a.memher to reduce an appeal to
writing. Mr. v then stated the grounds on which he
took the appeal
[Here several voices were heard saying is too late
TO appeal.
Mr.. vANDERPoEL said the objection was made
the very first opportunity that occurred He did not
wish ia interrupt the gentleman from Kentucky while
he was speaking though he knew out of order for
him to yield the floor merely for the purpose of having
an amendment offered, bnt he made the objection
soon as that gentleman had concluded He commended
that the objection was made IN tme and that was not
in the power of one gentleman 10 bargain away the
rights Of others to his avortes The abuses to which
this practice would lead were obvious One gen:
tleman in the midst of his speech, yields the foo to
another who requests him 10 do so that member ohef
his Amendment makes long speech, and IN his turn,
,elds The floor to the friend who had so kindly accom-
rpI.. ia Mr " \ bv he bland cour