Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-06-18

lnn. thai ], Was nndrr consideration till informed
of the fact by member OF the ilo ,s,.: he
Chair returned Tor the purpose oil renewing 'iJ
gentleman who was occupying his seal, anu
was informed by him what the question Was,
The Chair did not know OF ti,e ueli>rU -"
upon which that question was preaicdte;u' a ~,
ill his attention was called 10 W n'1 -,
league from Virginia. The House Woulo aou ,',
less recollect that he ON taking the chait, Pu.
The question ON nosrnonement, when his colleague
rose and asked whether he entertained Inc opliiioh
that The effect of the previous question: Has -
bring the House 10 vote on the q'lts''oi' y, 70
nonemen, as had been decided by the gentleman
temporarily in the Chair Being called upon 70
express his opinion. he did not hesitate 10 dissent
from that given by the gentleman IN tie onan'
and he decided that the effect OF the previous qu1'
ton was 10 bring the House 10 o'rec' 'o', o' VIZ
bill. Ii was said by the gentleman rom Nlassn
chuse,ts mir Adansl that there was decision
pronounced nj the last session OIL CohSieH ".'sn
was in conflict with the opinion he haa gwen VI
this occasion In making up his opinions, ne was
always governed by the rules ol Inc House, ny
parliamentary law. and By the precedeilS cid
blshed bv the decisions of his predecessors ne
main question on a motion like tins, (ior theie
could be hui one main question was, iiNaIiaDly'
on the subject before the House: and according 10
parliamentary law, cut oil all amendments anu
according 10 the principles OF parliamentary EiW,
there could be but one main question II biIl
had been pending. either on lis en"rossineh', oI
passage and the previous question had been cailed
for and sustained bv the House, all the amend
menlS or collateral questions would pc cut OH !;
and there was hut one exception; ana that was me
rule of this House, which, in violation OF par
aneniary law, provided that The effect oil the pre-
vious question was 10 bring the House 10 direct
Il.
gentleman could show that po>tponement was
pcnlins amendment, the rule wouldnotapply 10 nor
s.,plou The ease liz was cndeavorin9 To make
ont. But j! had beer argued that this motion tor
reconsideration ought IL I've entertained! The
Chai' had held otherwise. How was ii that a
motion 10 reconsider was ever entertained! IL
was only in virtue of the rules of the House
Whenever bill was passed OF rejected, The
rule provided that it was competent for any
member oflhe majority 10 move areconSiderallon.
lie asked if this had not been already done in the
case before them. The bill was passed some days
ago, and il was no sooner passed. but motion was
made 10 reconsider ii.
That motion was rejected; all power under the
rule was exhausted; the hill was passed, and mo-
ton 10 reconsider was rejected. And had II ever
beer heard Of when Il motion 10 reconsider had
once been made and rejected. that il could be re-
ncved and again rejected? II that were So where
was the limit at which il was 10 stop? But The
Char held that there was power higher than
the mlcs OF this House; that power was that Con-
stituion which h. and each of them had sworn 10
maintain and defend. That Constitution plov-
ded. hat whenever hill was returned by the Pre-
>ile.l OF the e. S 10 the House in which ii orr
ginacd il should be the duty Of the House
TO proceed 10 reconsider il: and without that prov-
sion the House never could have touched the sub
lect Yesterday al all. That Constitution. then,
stoot in The place ol their rules, and was para
mount 10 all rule IL laid down The rule ot heir
proceedings that rule had been COMPLIED with. and
there was Eo power in the House Ia touch the
subject again. Gin the best reelection The Chair
sawno cause 10 change the conclusion 10 which
he lad cone.
Mr.. Holmes inquired il the veto message was
cnteed at length on the journal as The Constiu-
tionprescribcd before the House proceeded 10 the
reconsideration ofthc bill.
The Speaker was understood 10 say, lhat that
asnot done al the moment bu; that II was done
subsequently; and it appeared on The Journal when
it vas read the next morning.
Mr.. White proposed 10 submit few remarks
on ilc question before the House, which he held
to b. one ofvery great importance. He was com
pelld by his convictions Of what proper dcci-
sioi should be, To differ from the Chair on this
point and 10 take an appeal from that decision.-
Tlr question was Il very narrow one, and the
Clnir had fallen into ali error in relation Ia H.
Tie question was not on The reconsideration OF
the vote by which The bill was passed. but a
reconsideration of the vote taken in the attempt
10 pass il by the constitutional majority after 1t
h,d been returned with the Presidents obJccuonS.
Thai was the question, narrow and isolated; ana
ire House, he commended, could entertain that mo-
ton Ia reconsider that vote He argued that The
rules ii the House made provision for the recon
sideratoh OF anv vote, on the dag on which II
wa given. on the dav succeeding, and that there
was no limit placed on the number OF times v hich
such motions should BIZ made and entertained
He read some precclent>. which he said. bore
him cut in The position he had assumed. and
proved that the decision OF the Chair ought not
10 he sustained. There was no difficulty in The
way Of entertaining the motion which had been
made nor could anyevil arise out OF il. There
was however evil in maintaining The decision
of the Speaker Is il served To sustain and en-
large the ''one-man power" which had been en-
crciscd in this case He then reviewed the pro-
ceedinps oflhe House Yesterday, and commended
that the House had been guided by the rules OF
the House, as we'll as the provision in the Con
siiiulon which was applicable to such cases; for
the vote was taken under the operation ot The
previous question: which had no sanction in the
Constitutions they fell back on rule of this
f House which was made bv the same authority as
the rule which gave the power 10 reconsider votes
! taken in this House, and by those rules, without
conflicting with The Constitution. he insisted this
motion was one which ought 10 be entertained.
, Mr. Bavv, after stating The facts OF the case as
they existed, and reading the clause Of the Con
siluion applicable thereto, said the simple qlIcs-
ton now was, Shall The decision Of The Chair
which has been apreae'lfrom, stand the decision
of the House? The gentleman from Massachu-
sets Mr. Adams had con,cndel that the House
I,J
siuion, inasmuch as reconsideration implied
, dehciaiion! and he agreed with the gentleman
from Massachusetts that if this bill had not been
reconsidered in fact, il would be their solemn du-
" undcrlhat instrument which thcv had sworn 10
maintain and defend 10 proceed 10 reconsider it.
4 But had it been rcconsidcrcd That was a mat
: ter TO be determined By evidence and the highest
evidence. where a record was kept, was the re-
cord itself Nov, when the journal of their pro-
. ceedings of Yesterday was read ii was found
n there recorded that the bill had been reconsdered
:, and that il had failed TO pass By the constilu
: tonal majority: and, if the record was incorrect
: the remedy which presented itself 10 the gentleman
from Massachusetts was a motion 10 correct the
# journal. Bui no such motion was made; and
consequently the question was settled and settled
i by the highest testimony 10 which they could
resort The gentleman from Massachusetts com
r planned that the constitution had moi been complied
with: but he had here shown that il had
H. however, there was too much precipilancy, thai
: was. perhaps, a reason why The previous question
ought no, to have been sustained: and the proper
: course for the gentleman from Massachusetts
would have been, 10 move reconsideration of the
/ vote hy which the previous question was sustained
: But that was no, done; and il was not his voca-
d ton to defend this House Tor any of its action
n nor did he deem that defence was necessary
4 He might, however, observe, that the very act o.
n voting implied consideration and dclibcration, fol
: no one, he presumed, would vote without delibe
: ration and considerations but if there was but lit
Tie deliberation it was perhaps. because the qucs
tons involved had been 50 long before the reorle
A and 50 much discussed that they were we'll un
e derSioo
Heweni on 10 explain The constitutional pow
: ers of The House in such cases and commended
IL IL I IL, q, b,I