The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1842-03-05

~ ~ OuSoSSH6utSs ana we therefore re- 1
pudiate the recommendation contained |
IN the message of the Governor not to
pay the bonds of this State.n Mr.. Tuck |
er moved ga division of the question con-
tanned in the first resolution; which mo-
ton prevailed" If, then, division of
one resolution alone, on its final passage.
was IN order, a fortiori would be a divi-
sion of different resolutions or sections
containing distinct propositions. (See
Senate Journal, 1s4l, page 312)
1t Is also contrary to the usage of all
civilized parliamentary bodies; because
the object ola vote is to obtain full, fair
and untrammelled expression of the OPT
Mon of the House, and to enable each
member TO record his vote in favor of or
against each and every principle submit
ted to his consideration. The better to
secure this privilege and at the same time
secure the responsibility of every mem
Der, the rule authorizing call for divi-
sion by any member was Instituted.
But If series of distinct propositions
are strung together, of which some are
acceptable and some obnoxious to any
number of members of the House; and
division ofthe question on such PROPOSE
tons is denied by a majority ofthe House,
then the whole object of the rule is de-
feated. The majority can force the mi
norlty either to vote against the accept
able propositions or for the obnoxious
propositions, unless the minority in all
cases ofsuch outrageous tyranny refuse
to vote at all.
We believe that the plain and obvious
meaning ofth 26th rule of the House is,
that the division of the question shall be
compelled by the call of any member;
and that the only question that can arise
for the decision of the Speaker or the
House is, as TO the diuiSibiiity of the
question. Any other construction would
| In effect, change the rule so as to require
a majority to call for division of the
question, instead of any member, as the
rule reads. We affirm, therefore, that
when the division of the question was
denied US, in refusing to vote we were re-
slsting, in the only manner in which we
could resist, the contempt manifested by
the majority for the rules of the House.
| The preamble and resolutions contain
ed the ever memorable resolutions of the
ancient and venerated Commonwealth
of Virginia, and of her more youthful
but not less patriotic daughter, Kentuc-
! ky. To them alone we would have
yielded homage, less ostentatious but
not less sincere than that protested by
the majority, who have degraded these
sacred and time-honored oracles to the
purpose of giving currency to mass OF
stale, hacknied, electioneering opinions,
and have attempted to dignity the slogan
of party by an association with the voice
of '98.
We protest against such an associa-
: ton; and when a majority ofthis House
shall determine, so far to infringe our
rights as members of this House, as to
compel US contrary to parliamentary
law and usage to vote in opposition to
our sense of duty, we will, as we have
already done, assert our rights and re-
sist the brief authority of those who use
: it only for the purpose of promoting
their own ends, regardless of every 9TH
er consideration.
4 On the fourth day after our refusal to
vote under the circumstances above set
forth, Mr.. Besaneon, representative
from Tunica, offered series Of resolu
tions, declaring that those persons, ma
ming them, who refused to vote either in
the affirmative or negative on the reso-
lutions condemning the acts ofthe extra
session of Congress, 1871, were guilty Of
high contempt of the House, and that
they be censured by the House, for the
same. Mr.. Tompkins offered an amend
rnent, declaring that it was important to
know the character and motives of those
who would censure others. and setting
forth certain correspondence of Mr.. Be-
saneon with S. Starkweather, Esq. off
York, which went to show those facts
F Mr.. Besan9on went into lengthy argu-
ment in his defence, and after he conclu.
ded, Mr.. Boyd, of Alfalfa, raised a ques
ton of order, thatsthe amendment of Mr.
Tompkins was irrelevant to the main
resolutions, which was sustained by the
| Speaker. Mr.. Tompkins appealed from
the decision of the chair. The appeal
was discussed at length, and before i
J was decided, the House adjourned. The
next day the question of appeal wa:
t postponed until IL o'clock the succeed
|, ing day. On the second day after The
amendment Of Mr.. TompkIns had beer
j offered, placed upon the journal and de
bated at length, Mr.. Speaker Robert
, called the attention Of the House to tn,
} fact that said amendment was improper
! ly placed upon the journals, and inqui
rad r II WAS the Measure of the Hous