Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-03-29

The PRESIDING OFFICER There has been the
eading Of large part or the document.
Mr.. DAVIS Of Mississippi. think nothing has inter-
1ened which can elbow the question 10 be taken again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator appeal
rom the decision Of the Chair,
5 Mr. DAVIS, Of Mississippi. lido.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A large portion of the
document has been read motion has been made to dis
with the further reading The Chair has decided the
motion 10 be 10 ORDER and from that decision the Senator from
Mississippi takes appeal.
Mr. DAVIS, Of Mississippi Upon that appeal ask the
yeas and nays.
The yeas aod nays were ordered.
Mr. FOOTE spoke at much length the subject Of the
appeal.
Mr. MASON. ! understood the Senator from Kentucky,
whom do in his seat (Mr. CLAI) to say this morn
ng that when he became satisfied that it the purpose Of
The minority to defeat the passage Of this bill he would vote
10 lay 1t on the table, presume by this time he is satisfied
do not kaow how far gentlemen that side agreed with
him. and, to test the NATTER move to lay the bill upon the
labc. u M
4 MI. WALKER. Is thu. in order while there is ques-
ton pending,
! Tue PRESIDENT I. is suggested ths. the motion Of
" Senate, rom Virginia = net IN ors and As the appeal
Mr DAVIS. Of Misssspp II has been % long since the
decision Of the Chair given that presume Senators have
lost tight fit take special interest in the question
shall take issue wheher the remainder of the paper shall
might have been read and reead while have been argu
ing whether it should be read not take but little ne
in the question reading because have read the docu-
ment myself, and presume most others have.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair viii ask the Senator from
Virginia to state his motion.
Mr.. MASON. twas to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. DAVIS Of Mississippi. uus. have nothing SO Pc
culiar in my mode Of stating the subject about to
withdraw the appeal which had taken. The Senate have
discussed the question Of reading the document until the
whole subject dead If the reading to at
the point where il interrupted could establish the
connexon between the portion which has been read and that
which remains The object therefore, in calling for the read
ing is lost by the motion of the Senator from Vermont
have desire have read after it has been broken off
wanted read in connexon, when the few pages which
left would be in connexion with what has gone before
have now no interest in having that object aas been
defeated
The PRESIDENT The Chair will take the sense Of the
Senate upon the question The Senate had ordered the read
ing Of the document by vote Of the Senate that document
was partially read when Senator moved to dispense with
the further reading belongs the Senate say whether
they will dispense with the reading not The question
raised whether was proper to make such motion, and
the decision of the Chair being announced that pro-
per, the Senator from Misssspp took appeal The yeas
and have been ordered that question: and they cannot
be withdrawn except by the unanimous consent of the Sc
nate The question s the decision Of the Chair correct
Mr. DAVIS Of Mississippi Before the question is taken,
wish to put myself right say nothing bad ntervened,
and part only the document had been read when motion
made dispense with the reading Of the remainder
hold that only part had been read when the Senate
dered the reading Of the WHOLE the decision was not para
mentary.
Mr.. CLAY. think it was parliamentary decision.
When the Senator from North Carolina moved dispense
with the reading Of the report there positive order
read the report but the Senate overuled the motion to dis
pense with the reading Sir hope will be taken down
the senogphers that the reading of this report has
pied about hour Of the precious time that any deb
eative body had Well sir the Senate overrued the
motion 70 dispense with the reading and has the Senate
right 70 say s any time during the progress Of the reading
This is the question: whether they refused dispense with
the reading at first they have not the right say, after
hour has been spent in its reading they will dispense with
the further reading Of the report
Mr.. FO0TE. merely wish to say, in perfect good hu-
NOR, that really seems to nothing should excite
for getting extremely well and very calmly was
about to say that the reporters should the suggest
ed would be going out Of their ordinary line 70 do
hope they will also report that the report which refused
to be readwas OF very interesting character and very sce
tc one containing amount Of valuable instruction.
f Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi The Senator from Ken
lucky, (Mr CLAr for the second time in this debate
lecture members Of the Senate because Of
Of opposition this bill, in which participate. He FIRST
raised the question Of fairness in the assertion of right
check the majority by the privileges Of the minority which
involves the consideration whether the minority entitled
to parliamentary law not Who these rules made for
For the stronger They need defence. not for the mi
nority they are waste paper They are made raionay
cessarly be made protect the minority their rights
among which the least the right be heard before they
are required to vote But Senator who has wasted
hour after hour in speaking petons questions of
ference and this BILL talks about the precious time wasted
in reading the report Why is time precious consumed
Because the last hours Of the session wasted that Sena
tor and his trained band insisting upon the further considers
lion Of this bill
The PRESIDENT. The Senator should no. make such
remarks. ga@@na RI
Mr.. DAVIS, Of Missssppi. choose to tell the truth.
That should be 10 ORDER Is in order for Senators he
ectured for doing what constitutional opinions require Is
order that the minority, who conending under paa
entay rules for constitutional rights who resisting what
they believe be encoachment upon principles sacred
the preservation of the Union ITSELF should be rebuksd be-
cause they do not passvey yield the dcaon of the ma
ioritv r. sir live under Government OF fixed law, if
he minority have rights of which the majority cannot Justly
deprive them ask where Is the propety Of holding those
sensursbe who take advantage of the rules made for Their pro-
lection Upon what foundation rests the claim Of the mao
ry govern Is it absolute Is natural right
conventional Isay conventional merely It may be
sumed by that the majority have natural right de-
rived from the power the force which belongs them. II
does not follow that the majoy have the fcethat they
have the power to the obedience Of the minority
They may may not have the natural right Of the stronger
The claim here far il Is just upon compact 1t is
and being conventional is held subject every
limitation and restriction which belongs to the convention
The majority here have power to govern the minority only
according to parliamentary rules according the constitution
and laws Of the land. say then that is unjust and on
aragn the minority because they do not bow with cub
neck to receive the yoke Of the majority wherever
hey choose to impose il, II this s land OF freemen
worthy Of those from whom we derive our political in
dependence s because are in the minority that we
viii sacrifice rights dictaon however naughty the die
ator may BE- If we legitimate descendants of those
Vho whcnfew and feeble contested the authority Of the proud
8; Power upon the gobs and staked their lives their pro-
ey, aud sacred honor the issue, hardly be ex
eced to tarnsh fair fame by the abandonment Of
Fashionable rights and the surrender of opinions