Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-01-05
REMARKS OF Ma. COLLAMER OF YER
MONT, IN THE HOUSE OF REPREoENIA-
TIVES, Dec. 18th.


Mr.. Dromgole proposed the following amend
ment Of the rules and orders of proceeding
:" 1t shall not be in order for any member under
cover OF a proposition to correct the journal, 10
move TO spread on the journal any paper or docu-
ment which the House has previously refused to
receive or hear read.
"When motions are made to correct or amend
the Journal by the insertion oil papers or docu'
menis thereon il the House shall mt decide IN Ia
vor OF the proposition, the matter proposed to be
inserted shall no, he spread on the journal, not
wthstanding the yeas and nays may he entered
on tho journal"
Mr.. Collamer rose and addressed the House as
follows:
The proposed rule involves, in substance, this
general principle, that in particular case, the
House tray prevent the whole or any part OF the
proposition, by them rejected Ivy yeas and nnys,
from going on the journal. Now sir II we could
free our minds from The recollection and infid-
ence of the recent discussion Of what has been
calIe,ldho protest, aud consider this matter upon
general principles, as it should be considered ON
the present question, 1t seems to he we could
hardly differ. The general parliamentary prac.
lice in England, Is TO enter upon the Journal what
is agreed TO by The House. that it s there, in =
deed, the journal of The majority. But in this
country il is not So Here, every vote is placed
on the journal. This d ference has grown o,t OF
no rule in Houses: it is the result md nece>sa-
ny consequence of the provisions OF our constitu =
ton, and 10 that alone is il attributed in The approx
ell Manual. The Constitution provides that "each
House shall keep journal of its proceedings"
&C.; sand the yeas aud nays OF members OF Ell
ther House on my question shall, nj the desire OF
one fifth of those present, be entered upon the
Journal" Now, VIVA, was The Object Of the provis-
ions, ind what are their limitations? Most clear
y the object is, that it may be shown, by the re-
cord, how each man voted, aud on what PROPOSE
ton that vote was taken. This as much includes
proposition rejected one adopted by majority
OF the House. MUsI obvious the nature, much less
the merits Of the proposition. cannot appear with
out the whole paper on which il arises, is present.
And if the majority may suppress any part, they
may suppress the whole of every proposIticn they
reject, and So utterly destroy all the beneficial nd
vantages Of that clause in the Constitution and re-
iucc cur condition to what it was before the
Constitution, and make the journal but The jour
nal OF what the majority ddopt, and at the sarle
time deprive Of the ancient privilege of protest.
Ii is true, the proposed rule applies only To The
case of proposition TO amend the journal, but il
excludes from the journal all papers constituting
The proposition, il the House reject it, even Wien
done by yeas and nays. Now, sir, this is nothing
more nor less than to make an exception of one
case Of yeas and nays from the general aud un
qualified provision of the Constitution. | insist
that, as the privilege did not arise from rule il can
not be limited or qualified, exceptions he foru
ed to II, by rules OF this House. If Ibis House can
by rule niake this exception, they can make any
other, and so entirely destroy the privilege.
But this is attempted TO be doue on the ground
of necessity. Ii is insisted thnt one fifth of this
House might, by milking the proposition aud call
ing the yeas and nays, place the Mormon bible or
Huuon's mathematics, or any other matter, on the
journal, aud require it read, which would require
our whole time aud entirely defeat the Legitimate
purpose of our organization. Sir, IL is not 10 be
presumed that one fifth of The House is 10 he guilty
OF such preposlerous abuse OF their privilege, aud
for which they alone must stand responsible.
The provision in the Constitution that The yeas
and nays can only be required by one nm was in.
tended as our security against unreasonable cap.
liousness, and witt, that security we SHOULD he
content Neither would this rule, If adopted, he
any security against abuse. The nth part, if so
disposed, might employ tho whole time OF this
House in taking the yeas aud nays on resolutions
introduced TO be overrued.
Arguing against the existence of power, or
forming exceptions 10 lis use from the possibility
of lis abuse, is wholly inati,nissabe, aud protest
against it's adoption. 1t is said to be neceSSdry.-
Necessity is the plea OF yranls. Every power is
susceptible Of abuse aud il the power is TO be de-
MED or curtaed from such n consideration, we
may destroy all the power in the different branch
es of The government. This House may expe t.
member, but only Ivy majority Of two thirds
Now, a member might he so d,sorderly and con-
lumncious as entirely 10 interrupt the proceedings
OF the House, and persist in it, and more than one
third might uphold him therein. Would that =
thorse The majority TO say, from nee s,ty that the
case must and could be made an exception, and
the member be expelled by bare najorny'
The rule, sir, is hut an attempt 10 qualify and
limit constitutional right, which cannot in suct
way be djne.