The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-01-23
THE UNION.

to thatmany years sgos distinguished gentleman from
his State (Mr Randolph) was accosted py DOOR
keeper in manner he considered dsrespectiul 70 me
body OF which he was member, He came al once into
the House, and moved his expulsion,
Office But this cannot affect the question OF order NO
could know the grounds OF the motion until y De en-
erained q one in order The reasons o the motion can
have nothing to do with the question OF order Ihat
depends upon the character Of the resolution ITSELF and
upon the reasons which prompted IT. II De one anect
ing the House, one OF ts membefs or oicers u y prv
legged for that reasons and the motives which have prompt
ed cannot be considered or even known ul the ques
ton is entertained.
II such be the rule where an officer is in by election.
is il not still more clearly where, as IN TINS case ne
is tolerated only by suferance
But. said Mr. b. It is suggested by those around me,
that the question is too plain to justify debate ana ne
Mr. p KING made few remarks to show that the
whole difficulty in choosing the officers OF the House mad
arisen from the course of those IN the m
Mr.. McLANE called him to order
Mr. p. KING had risen to move TO lay the subject on
the liable, and was about proceeding when
Mr.. SCHENCK, having been recognised by the Char,
remarked that but for the declaration OF the gentle
man, Mr. KINc,l that he designed moving to lay the
subject on the table, he would move that he Mr..
have liberty to proceed. This he could not do, as ne
Mr. 81 desired to make few remarks upon It, ere
Il may be thus disposed Of
MEMBER (whose name the reporter could not learn
moved that the gentleman from New York INF. r.
KINal have liberty to proceed in order but
SPEAKER ruled that that melton ioS mot Ss
having been recognised before II was made
Mr. STANLY desired 10 call the attention Of the Chair
e the ssh rule 81 the which r. FS en nr
coed with his remarks.
The SPEAKER explained the condition Of the imme-
Ks y s O. ne liz
Gliding that having been decided to be out OF order, he
lost his right to the oor and could not regain i unless
the gentleman who had been subsequently recognised
moved that he have permission to continue his remarks
in order
Mr. p KING contended that his remarks had been mis-.
SH se D wsa on 70 hat
Mr.. SCHENCK claimed the floor; but
The SPEAKER decided he had the right to continue
Mr.. McLANE. rising to point of order. maintained
that the objection OF any member sufficient to
deprive the gentleman from New York OF his right to
the floor, and for himself objected.
The CHAIR decided that It did not require the unan
consent Of the House for liberty to the gentleman
Mr. KINGl to explain how and why he was improp;
been made, il would be proper to decide whether he
shall have permission TO 60 on
After few remarks from Mr. r KING, to show that
he had been entirely misunderstood by the Chair and the
gentleman calling him to order, he (Mr being about
to make motion to lay the subject on the table.
o,ss % S sas
duty OF the gentleman Mr. kISG] to take his seat and
unless receiving the unanimous consent Ct the House 70
proceed in order after the Char had sustained the point
The SPEAKER, on examining the 35th rule. sustained
the view taken BY the gentleman from Maryland, MI.
Mr. STANLY was Of opinion that the question should
be propounded- the gentleman from New York
mr. KING] have leave to proceed in order before the
gentleman from Ohio have leave to proceed with his re-
marks.
Mr.. GENTRY made remark inaudible at the desk Of
The SPEAKER, in reply, stated that, having been
rulp nj the assigned another, the
Chair did not recognise the motion OF the gentleman from
New York Mr. KrsGl to lay the subject on the table
Mr.. SCHENCK then went on to address the House at
length, maintaining that the resolution OF the gen.
tleman from South Carolina Mr. BURT] did not refer to
question Of privilege. and referring to TWO or three rules
argued show that the duties of the Dookeepe could
moi be performed by the Sergeant Arms:
Mr.. GENTRY, In few remarks, sustained the appeal
from the decision OF the Chair He considered that IN
the Of choosing its officers the House could ex-
ecise very large discretion II could decide to post
pone the election Of Dookeeper to the end Of the SEES
son which he regarded equivalent TO the reelection
Of the Doorkeeper and Postmaster of the last House
Mr. BURT remark ed that the gentleman from Ohio de-
sired the House to rest this question under the rule Of the
House providing that its officers to be chosen by
Mr. ScHENcK explained, correcting the gentleman's
M, BShT Of his remarks ia,
rule upon which egenueman from Ohio Mr. ScHENcKl
relied prove that his tMr BURrs) resolution to direct
The to perform the duss s o. me
to discharge them, was not privileged resolution.
had application to the question. His proposition did
not look permanently enlagng the duties OF the Ser
geant at Arms The course taken had left the House
without Doorkeeper until very the close OF this
Congress The gentleman from Ohio admitted that, as
the matter now stands, the Doorkeeper of the last
House acting in that capacity merely BY suerance
He understood the gentleman from Tennessee MT
GEsTRYl to argue that the Doorkeeper like the Clerk,
having once been elected held until might
be chosen. There was he conceived, no authority Tor
eectng Doorkeeper but that found in the 73d rule oil
the House II should be remembered, in considering
this question: that half of the members OF the present
House had no voice in originally installing the Door
keeper OF the last House, not having been members
thereof; and il was also worthy OF note, that q ma
jory OF The members in this election had steadily OPP
posed the re. election OF that individual
Mr.. p. KING called the gentleman mr. BuRT] to or
der, and
The SPEAKER having sustained the point Of order,
On motion of Mr. McLANE, leave was granted for
Mr. BURT, continuing, argued to show that his resou
tion relating 10 question OF privilege, has precedence
all other business and TO sustain the decision to
that effect M
Mr. MCLEAN called the attention Of the House to the
fact that some weeks before IT had directed the Door
keeper to proceed the discharge Of such OF his duties
he conceived equivalent to recognition OF his right
to continue in the discharge OF the duties OF the office until
a successor may have been elected.
Mr.. HARRIS, OF Illinois, argued TO show that under
the 73d rule, il the duty Of the House 10 choose
a Doorkeeper and also that the Clerk was chosen
by law not in accordance with House rule only. BY
the 81 rule il provided that the Clerk should hold
over until his successor be chosen There was no such
provision be held that the Doorkeeper shall hold over
IN sk.ttk atara hall