Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-06-09
TWENTY-sIxTH CONGRESs---lst SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
uonday, June l. $40.


i were then in order from the State of Maine
Fl The SPEAKER answered in the affirmative
Mr. SMITH Then wish to offer the following re-
solution: which desire may DC read oy the CLERK
Mr. STANlY moved to adjourn
Mr. SMITH have the floor, and do not yield IL
for the motion to nd ourn.
j MIR. STANLY insisted on having ms motion 10 ad-
\ iourn put.
The SPEAKER decided that the motion 10 adjourn
could not be entertained, nasmuch as the gentleman
from North Carolina had no right TO The floor TO make
the notion the floor being i'll the possession OF the
i gentleman from Maine.
Mr. SMITH said he was certainly entitled the
floor and so long as he kept il, no gentleman could
make any motion. He had risen IN The hrst place ana
asked the SPEAKER If resolutions were IN order from
Maine The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative. That
heinz the case he now offered the resolution he held in
his hand and on il he moved the previous question
| Mr. PROFIT to point of order. The gen.
man from Maine could not offer resolution, and move
the previous question upon before 'e resolution was
I read.
/ MIR EVANS said he wished also TO state question
| Of order.
| MIR DROMGOOLE objected to than one
I que stion Of order being entertained at a time
! The SPEAKER SAID that the point of order OF the
| gentleman from Maine Mr.. Eyans] could not be en-
tertaed until after the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Indiana should have been disposed Of
After some remarks from Mr.. BELL in relation to
/ the rules for governing such proceedings,
/ Mr. EVANS persisted in urging his objection, winch
was that the rule required the Speaker to cali for reso-
In tons whereas the gentleman mir. SMITH had offer
&C the resolution without such call.
/ The SPEAKER again reminded Mr.. Evans that but
one question of order could be raised at time.
In relation to the point of order raised by Mr. Proht,
| after further debate,
| The SPEAKER decided that it had been his first
impression that the spirit of the 'd rule required re-
solution to lay over, If any member ntImated wish
debate it, although the previous question had been
called But in conplIanc with numerous suggestions
from members in the House, the practice had been
changed; and it decided the Monday before on
the Cumberland road memorial, that if The previous
question were call and seconded, the memorial wonld
not lie over, although! member expressed the wish to
debate the motion to commit with Instructions because
the previous question would cut oil such debate, should
the main question be ordered
: From this decision, Mr.. PROFFlT took an appeal,
which appeal the Speaker decided not then in order
Mr.. SMITH explained that the resolution he offered
the resolution OF which notice had been gwen on
Saturday BY the gentleman from New Hampshire, (Alr.
Atheron) Mr. 5. contendcd that although the notice
4 had been given By member from another State, yet
he, with the permission Of that member, had right To
e submit the resolution
) Mr. ATHERTON here stated that he had given his
f. consent.
II The SPEAKER decided that the gentleman from
Maine had right TO offer resolution, notice OF
o which had been given by member from another
State.
on that appeal moved the previous question: which be.
ing seconded The main question was ordered, and beng
1t put the decision Of the Chair not sus,ancd-ycas
$ -, nays ~.
e The SPEAKER was about TO divide the House TO
ascertain whether the previous question demanded
,, when
II Mr. BELL submitted the following question of
:, order:
$, "The gentleman from Maine offered resolution
and before was read stated from the chair, moved
The previous question The point o: order was, that
il was not in order to the previous question Oh
}, resolution before read stated from the chair.
no 4 vas
with the former decision and practice OF the House,
l. to the previous question when the resolution was
moved, for the reason that the member who offered the
resolution entitled to the hoor upon II before any
other could obtain it; and therefore suved tme with
st out violating the right Of any other member, to enable
him TO offer the resolution and call the previous ques
l. ton at the instant without going through the
form of announcing the proposition before the floor
given him demand the evious question uponIt
d From this decision Mr.. BELL took appcal.
al The question being on the appeal of NJ. Bell,
n Mr.. CLARK moved n call of the House
lie On that motion Mr. PROFIT demanded the yeas
ID and nays, which being ordered were-yeas II, nays
y l39.
a. So the call was ordered.
ST The question then taken the appeal and
ID being put follows: "sha the decision Of the Chair
y stand' il passed in the afmatve-yeas ll2, nays 81
lie Mr. BELL then demanded that the question, "Will
" the House consider the resolution" be put aud
ID stated that he desired TO debate the resolution. He
n also demanded that under the 22d rule, which pro.
is vides that sail resolutions that give rise 10 debate,
lie shall lie for discussion, &c, the resolutions
[ should lie
10 The SPEAKER decided that the call OF the previous
j. question did not deprive any other member OF the right
e to raise the question of consideration This could not
A. be demanded according TO rule, until the proposition
of annnunced and The mover of the proposition might
n, defeat this indispensable right of another member by
NJ calling the previous question: If that to be construed
i. as cutting off the demand for the consideration. So
the previous question precuded debate upon the
c. resolution ITSELF il violation of the rights OF any
n. other member TO permit the mover to call the previous
question: because, under any OF the he would
be entitled the floor make this demand before
A. another could get it debate the main question. And
Id here oo he sustained by previous decision OF
his predecessor: "A the third session Of the Twenty
j.; fifth Congress, Mr.. Grant, of New York, moved re-
" soution and demanded the previous question, when
u objection TO the consideration Of Tie said resolution be-
o. ing made, it laid the table, under the rule
s. House Journal, page 3s.
Sc This resolution would, therefore, lie
j. Mr. SMITH appealed from that decision and on that
of appeal moved the previous question
is Here much confusion arose, from many members 1T
g. tempting TO speak at once; and moments be-
A. fore order could be restored.
re The SPEAKER said the appeal was not dcbaable
s. Mr. PROFIT asked whether, in the resolution
H. should he entertained and debate arose. il would not
lie necessarily lie He gave notice that he objected
of TO it.
IN The SPEAKER said It would be quite time enough,
IN when the question the appeal should have been de-
$ cided.
n Mr.. BANKS desired the Clerk TO read the rule
IT which related TO notice Of resolutions which read
As accordingly.
e. Mr. SMITH repeated his call for the previous ques
g, ton the appeal, which seconded, and the main
e question being ordered, the question "Shal the deci
of sion of the Chair stand: decided in the negative
" yeas o. nays ll5.
/ The previous question moved by Mr. SMITH, when
II he submitted the resolution, then seconded.
II The main question then ordered to be putyeas
40, nays %.
The main question the adoption Of the resolution
= was then put, and decided in the airmatve-yeas 10
> nays az, as follows:
}. Yeas-Messrs John w. Allen Atherton, Banks,
!, Beatty, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Boyd, Aaron V.
= Brown. Albert G. Brown. Burke. Sampson II Butler,
d VIM. 0. Butler, Bynum, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chap.
h man, Clifford Colqutt, Common, Mark A. Cooper,
! Crarv oh Davis ]