The Whig standard., 1843-12-12

Mr.. &. J. lNGERSOLL moved that the whole
subject be laid upon the table.
Mr.. BARNARD asked for the yeas and nays !;
and this motion was rejected by 50 to SO.
Mr.. WISE (the previous question having been
withdrawn) informed the House that the whole
difficulty in the case arose from a snpposition
that there was House on Monday, whereas
there was not what wonderful abstraction y
Mr.. BARNARD said the Constitution Of the
United States required the" House of Represen-
tatiyes" to choose Speaker, and therefore, that
there was a [" House" on Monday
Mr.. WISE went on to argue the contrary.
Mr.. DAVIS, of Kentucky, replied, and briefly
recapitulated the history Of this case he de-
clared that the protest could not be stricken
from the journal II was part of the resolution
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Barnard)
and it was violation Of his right thus to divide
part of it, excluding the remainder.
Mr.. CLINGMAN, of N. G., replied TO Mr.
Wise.
Mr.. WELLER again called the previous ques-
tion and the call was sustained.
The main question was the motion OF Mr.
Gimer to "expunge and draw black lines' across
the protest on the journal of Monday. The
House sustained this motion.
The next question was the motion of
Mr.. HARRISON, Of Ga, TO eIpuage the pro-
test Of Tuesdays journal.
Mr.. BARNARD demanded the yeas andnays,
and this motion was likewise sustained, by a
vote of 90 to SO.
Mr. CAMPBELL then submitted a long rcso-
luton to amend the journal of Monday last by
inserting his efforts aud action in endeavoring to
arrest the calling Of the General Ticket mem
bers.
The SPEAKER decided this motion not to be
in order.
Mr.. DROMGOOLE, Of Va, then submitted a
proposition that hereafter nothing be placed up
on the journal when the House have taken di-
rect action upon the subject, and refused TO en-
tertain it. This is as briefly as we can state
the proposition, which is, in fact, to make new
rule, @ s.
Mr.. WINTHROP, of Mass, showed that, with
| such rule, the House might act whole day
and the Journal would not shew the subject OF
their action. H 4e#
Mr.. BARNARD, of N. Y, spoke briefly, and
with much spirit, against this arbitrary attempt
to violate the rights of the minority. He was
glad, however, that the question had finally
taken this tangible shape; the country would
| know how 10 characterize it, This effort on the
part of the majority to deprive the one-hfth Of
their constitutional right in reference to the jour
nal was without parallel or precedent.
Mr.. WHITE, Of KY, after showing how this
proposition conficted with the Constitution
which could not be sruled" out in any code oi
parliamentary regulations, asked the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Dromgoole), what sort of a
record he supposed could be made up of the pro-
ceedings of this House, under such rule as he
proposed The record would be absurd.
| This question was further debated by Messrs
NEWTON Of Va. HALE Of N. H., and another
gentleman, whose name we did not learn. Mr.
Hale suggested that motion, made a few day.
since, for printing the Message in the Dutch
language, might, had the mover called the yea:
and nays upon it, have required that the mes
sage in Dutch should be spread upon the journal
What then, would The journal have been de.
| filed q
On motion of Mr.. WELLER, the House ad-
journed. s.ss