The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-02-20


the result was announced, Mr. Schenck raised
the question whether the votes of persons SO
Interested could be counted? The Speaker de-
cided that the objection came too late. II should
have been made, he said, before the call OF the
ayes and noes commenced We say nothing
now Of the absurdity Of presuming that men are
going to vote upon their own rights, contrary to
rule and propriety, before they do it, nor Of the
improperly Of raising the question in advance.
On these grounds alone, all in the least acquaint-
ed with parliamentary law and usage, must adj
init that Mr.. Schenck was perfectly right in his
question of order.
But the Globe, with more Of cunning than OF
honesty, suppresses the fact that Mr. ). was fully
sustained in the very identical question at for
mer stage of the proceedings, by the Chair, then
occupied, we believe, by Mr.. Beardsley. Will
the Globe say that the Chair was wrong in that
decision? Mr.. Schenck appealed from this new
and contradictory decision The speaker decided
that the appeal could not be entertained; yet Mr..
Beardsley in the former case sustained an appeal
under precisely similar circumstances. And then,
to put the finishing stroke to this arbitrary OPP
preston of the minority, the Speaker decided that
there could be no appeal from his refusal to en-.
terrain Mr.. Schenck's notion Could power be
exercised with greater disregard Of right9 And
this is what tho Globe calls "piling appeal upon
appeal" The Speaker refuses to entertain the
motions Of the minority, where they seem to in
terfere with party purpose, and then as if to
insult those whom he has injured, will not allow
that minority to appeal from his decision! If
there be any greater despotism beyond this, we
confess we are unable to conceive how it could
be exercised
We very cheerfully accord to the Speaker gen.
eral courtesy Of manner, and impartialty in all
matters not of party character; but he is a
party man, and when party purposes are to be
accomplished, acts upon impulses communicated
to him by his political associations and preudces,
by which his judgment is blinded or warped. In
his hours Of leisure we doubt not Mr.. Jones will
review his decisions and admit their injustice j;
if not, we give him credit for more candor than
he possesses.
AS to Mr.. Schenck's conduct in the affair, ii
was both orderly and gentlemanly, and in saying
that he had "several times seen this gentleman
irge this process of pling appeals on points o.
rider, until he was compelled by the Speaker to
take his seat" the editor Of the Globe has assert
d an unqualified FALSEHOOD, wilfully and
knowingly. This is nothing, however, for him
Mr. Schenck was never, upon any other occasion,
voI 70 .Ln
called to order by the Speaker. and his being re-
quired to do SO on this occasion was an arbitrary
exercise of despotic power on the part of the
Speaker, which he never would have exercised,
out for the fact that he knew he had majo-
rity in the House ready to sustain him.
The Globe has a motive in thus attacking Mr..
Schenck. He has shown himself able, fearless,
and indomitable in defending the rights Of the
minority: he is therefore troublesome 10 the ma
jority, and must, if possible, be broken down but
the Globe in this miscalculates its strength, and
wholly mistakes it's man. It may whip in the
restlve, turbulent or tilnid of its own party, who
have SO often felt and witnessed the scoring eff
fects OF it's lash, but in attempting that game
with Mr.. Schenck, they will find they have
walked up the wrong passenger" and have
"caught Tartar" his gall and wormwood poured
out in such profusion fall harmless upon Mr. S.,
and, indeed, are the best evidence, to all honest
and upright men, that he is in the line of his duty
and is doing it faithfully and fearlessly.
The Globe says:
After this extravaganza was put down by the
fr,mness OF the Speaker 1--we should give this
frmness! another name] and when the formal
vote was about to be taken on the question of
the right OF the members to their seats-the
right being, in effect, established by the vote on
Mr.. Dromgoole's amendment as substitute
MIR. Schenck started another objection. He in
sisted that the New Hampshire delegation should
be excluded from voting on it, as they were in
terested it. He gave no pretext for this obiec.
lion."
He gave no pretext for this objection !" This
is another untruth. Mr. Schenck objected for
the reason already stated, namely, tina, they
were interested in the uuestion 10 be decided