Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-12-09

,pnosed TO the previous question, because lc =" y
mol only unconstitutional, but UNJUST, Tor mehioe's ~
be called upon 10 vote Without 'ehe iet""" no,n,
n,sss their sentiments on the question they were Young
r, He saa no reason why the merits oil the us. RUE
should noi Be discussed; and If any excitement sl"ui"
the consequence of such discusSIon' why iet w ie
s,onsib;lity rest on those who would thrust aooit'oh
upon the HOUSE ~
Mr. PROFIT contcnded that he was proceeding IN
ordor lie found. ne said, laid on his table, with broad
lines dra wu round it, n circular, ealing on ihose 10
H. !, y,s addressed to be at their posts on the hrs'
of the session, 10 meet THIS question, anu s"yns
,b., il was the important question oil The session. is
this fac, 10 show, ,hat'h.te was ~ o,sa"
Abolition party in this country, who had tneir hgeh's
here 10 90 round the house and dictate TO IT'S hein't.s
The SPEAKER here called MI. !. TO order tor 'r
relevancy, and he took his seat. .u.
Mr ADAMS here said that he objected to the Prev.
ous question as moved by the gentleman from Nol'l
Carolina, because IN ltc aosence y .ns, IT, ue
oues,ion could not b. recognised IN mat iioOFe' 1T
ddh;sc,ed nlso 10 the amendment oil the gentleman iron
Nor,h Corolina. because under II, all petitions OF every
nature whatever would lie excluded for fifteen days
MIR. PROFIT here interrupted MI. ADAMS, ant
s,,,ed Thai he considered himself entitled TO The moor
,hs, he believed himself 10 be proceeding in order whei
;ntsrrnn,ed bv the Speaker, and asked in what Particu
lnr, hs Sneaker deemed him to be out of order.
The SPEAKER replied that he had called the gen
,leman to order for irreicvancy.
Mr.. PROFIT appealed from the decision OF tn
The SPEAKER asked him to state the grounds o
his appeal. c
Tho s,,;ctes, limits of order while lie was proceedlr
10 show that the previous question ought mol oSfct
tanned. lie was showing the reasons why me mere
onnht 10 be discussed: and one Of them was. commit
was an organized Abolition party, who ha'aha au III
lees in attendance 10 wait round this'
CARRYING out its designs. .eh,ah from inui
The SPEAKER said that the yastead Of coniining
ana was out OF order, becauspre vious question, ne
himself to The propr'ey d. =. h ~ ann
had gone off into the quahdrew ms appeal
Mr. PROFIT thePealed from The decision oil the
Mr. ADAMS the;us question was in order i'll the
Chair that the nrnles Of proceeding. The previous
absence Of wr5, was an artificial process, adopted by
question, heR, without which it was OF no efficacy
an exprementary law was not, in his opinion, III force
The rIfouse-
in r. SPEAKER stated that, in the absence Of writ.
In rules, il had in all cases been the practice of the
House Of Representatives TO be governed by the Lfh
Dartiamentaria, in which the previous question was
and that, in cases precisely analogous TO
he present, the previous question had been moved, re.
.ornised. and put, in the House; and that he should
therefore, receive tho motion for the previous question.
MIR. ADAMS denied that the parliamentary law was
n force in that House, and appealed from the decis'on
4 the Chair, calling for the yeas and nays on the ap-
which we're accordingly ordered.
Mr.. GlLMER inquired by what authority The parl'a.
pen,arv law of England was in force in that House.
wanted to know whether the parliamentary law, de.
rived from the previous history 81 the British laIlia'
nent. was to be adopted here. II IL was an open qurs-
ion he would vote against IT.
Mr.. JOHNSON Of Maryland said that if he under
stood the parliamentary law, which the Speaker had de-
,idcd 10 be in force, the question would first he taken
ON his motion.
MIR. EVERETT offered some remarks which were
no, sufficiently understood by the Reporter to enable
him TO give them.
MI. CUSHING thought that some misapprel,ension
might exist as 10 the merits OF the question, IN cotse
cuence ofthe manner in which his colleague had stated
i. The case was simply this: Was that House now
governed by Parliamentary law, what was that law, and
under its Implication what should be the form OF the
previous question. There must he, N his opinlon, 4
Parliamentary Law Of some kind; or,herwise the House
must be governed hy the arbitrary will OF the Speaker
"a state Of things which he was sure the Speaker was
anxious TO avoid. Without undertaking To say what
the parliamentary law was, whether The decision OF the
British Parliament or the previous decision ol TINS iiouse
or both together, he would assume that there was a
Parliamentary law Of some kind, and would, therefore,
vote 10 sustain the decision OF the Char.
Mr.. CHARLES BROWN observed that, before
he would be willing 10 be governed by The Parllamen-
tary law, he wanted to know where II was to be found.
The gentleman from Massachusetts said that, if there
was M Parliamentary law, they must be governed by
the arbitrary will of the Speaker. Now, he would pre-.
Ter beng governed Nv tIc lVIiiiiJ Va 1880
House. Ii, e1 acrrsSiiair, there must be a ParlIamen.
tary law, he would prefer taking The laws Of their pre-.
decessors-ihose which prevailed at The last session
to being governed by the laws OF The British Parlia-
ment. lie was opposed to the previous question. lie
was for free discussion, and he would remind the House
that il was the denial OF The right OF beng heard lhat
had occasioned their greatest difficulties. If he vas to
be driven, forced, gagged, and compelled 10 vote on
This or that question, without the privilege OF helng
heard, he for one would, like all obstinate people, pull
back.
Mr.. WISE said he roresaw that if this debate was
continued, il would cut Off all the other business oil
the House. lie hoped gentlemen would, by genera
consent, agree TO appoint a committee, IN conjunction
with the committee Of the Senate, TO wait on the Ere
siden, and inform him that the two Houses are organ
lied and ready 10 receive any communication he may
make.
Mr.. BRIGGS suggested TO the gentleman from Nir
GINA TO modify his motion, so as 10 send 4 message &c
The Senate, informing that body Of the organization o.
the House, and Of the appointment ola JOINT Commlltee
to wait on the President.
MIR. WISE having accepted Of The modification, the
resolution as modified was adopted, and Messrs. Wise
Briggs, aud Clifford, were appointed The committee or
the part ottlle House.
The question was then taken on the appeal of Mr.
Adams. and the decision Of the Chair was sustained
yeas AZ, nays u.
A message was received from The Senate by Mr.. Dick
ems, their Secretary, stating that that body had concur
red in The lolnt resolution oil the House lot the appoint
ment of a committee TO wait on the President, and thai
they had appointed Messrs. Bayard and Bates as The
committee on their part.
The question then came up on MIR. Stan!y's amend
m~cnt-when
MIR. ATllERTON observed that if the amenhmen
prevailed, it would, while in operation, preclude al
petitions except those on the subjects embraced in thu
Presidents message of the last session. In addition t
what had been said by the Senator from Massachusetts
that il would deprive the people Of the United States 0
the right Of petition for fifteen days, he would observe
that the rule referred TO was only 10 be considered il
force Tor the last session. Mr.. \. called 70. the reading
of the rule, and it was read as follows:
The following is the rule adopted at the last session
in relation TO petitions:
I"Upon the presentation of petitions, and other pa
pers on subjects not specially referred TO the considera
ton Of The House in the message of the Presiden
at The opening Of the present extra session, objection /
the reception shall he considered as made, and the ques
ton of reception shall be laid on the table-this rule t
be considered only in force during the present session
Petitions and other papers for or against a bankruptlaw
TO be excepted from the operation Of this rule. TIL
action of all committees on all subjects not special.
referred 10 the consideration Of The House in the mes