The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-12-06

dozen men should throw themselves in front TO OBJ
struct the working of the Government II, how
ever, they prefer TO take that position, let them do
So and go before their constituents to answer. For
himself he never would consent TO break down
valuable rule, founded ON a proper construction OF
the Constitution, or make arrangements by which
few individuals shall control the people OF the
United States He was averse to the amendment
Of the gentleman from Massachusetts, the
vote shall be taken by ballot He abhorred the sys-
tenn every where. The very idea presupposes that
the candidates unworthy He could not con-
ceve that any member afraid to say for whom
he voted. If there such one, he must be
among the impracticable crowd who refuse to or
ganize. Let the fact go forth to the country,
that ten fifteen stand Off and prevent organi-
cation. The responsibility did not rest upon him,
and the majority of gentlemen on the other side.
He would rather see the whole session spent in vot-
ing than that the majority rule should be broken
down.
Mr. BURT said he was satisfied that discussion
on this or any other subject, at present, would only
increase the difficulty which exists in the House in
electng the first officer; and he was sure that he
would meet the Of the House by moving to
lay the resolution ON the table. There were loud
cries of "Agreed," "agreed."l
Mr.. JOHNSON asked the gentleman to withdraw
the motion; but
Mr.. BURT declined acquiescing deeming il inn
portant that there should be debate.
Mr.. JOHNSON desired that the question be taken
by yeas and nays, as he wished to who stood
out against organization.
The question was taken, and-by yeas 2l0 nays
l0-the resolution was laid upon the table. [Those
who voted in the negative were Messrs. Bocock,
Ewing, German, Hackett, Harmanson, Harris Of
Tennessee, Johnson Of Tennessee, G. w. Jones,
Kaufman, Savage, and R. H. Stanton.]
MIR. STANTON, of Tennessee, proposed to elect
Speaker within three votes, avoiding the objec-
ton made to the resolution of his colleague, and
without the violation of any rule whatever. With
this view he submitted the following resolution:
Resolred, That after the House shall have again
voted for Speaker, if there be choice, the House
shall proceed by vote of the majority to select for
Speaker the four candidates having the great
est number of votes upon the last preceding trial;
and, if there shall still be CHOICE then the House
shall by vote select for Speaker two persons
having the greatest number of votes on the last
trial.
MIR. HARRIS, of Illinois, moved to lay the reso-
luton on the table.
MIR. JOHNSON of Tennessee, arose for the pur-
pose of delivering his views upon the subject;
when
The CLERK informed him that debate was not
now in order a motion to lay upon the table
Mr.. JOHNSON replied that it was debatable
under the parliamentary law, there being no rules
of the House.
MIR. SCHENCK interrupted the gentleman but
the purport Of what he said was not ascertaned,
owing TO the loud calls for "the question:" "the
question"
Mr.. JOHNSON remarked that he was anxious
that the House should be organized; he more
than anxious to transact the public business
["Order," "order."l He had been decided out of
order and in order. He was going to say that he
was anxious to see the House organized, and
Mr.. PRESTON KING called the gentleman to
order.
Mr.. JOHNSON asked the gentleman to state his
point.
Mr. KING did 30, to the effect that the consent of
the House was necessary to enable Mr.. JOHNSON TO
proceed.
There were few other remarks of an unimport
ant character.
TheCLERK put the question, and the House
fused to permit Mr.. JOHNSON to debate.
The motion of Mr.. HARRIS to lay the resolution
on the table agreed to.
The House again proceeded TO vote for Speaker,
and the following was the result, viz: