Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-03-18


be spread before the country in contrlvsntion
of parliamentary law and the rules of the
House, but he was not willing that the report
should be made as the report Of the COMMITTEES,
as he, with six other members of the Commit
tee. declared that the Committee had not dis
charged its duties under the terms of the res
olution appointing them.
further discussion ensued on this point
when Mr.. Marshall's motion was agreed to.
Adjourned.
March r.
SENATE-Mr. Chandler of Michigan address,
ed the Senate on Kansas affairs. lie was opposed
to the Lecompton Constitution for four reasons.
First-Because it was conceived and conclu-
ded in fraud
Second-Becaues it does not emanate from the
people Of that Territory, nor express their will.
Third-Becauso it was one series of aggress-
ions on the part of the slave power, which it
consumated in the submission of the Consti-
tuition.
Fourth-Beeause it strikes death blow at
State rights and popular sovereignty.
In arguing the first of these points, Mr.. C re-
ferred to the conditions and workings of the
Missouri Compromise, contending that things
worked smoothly, with occasional exceptions,
until new light broke upon the country in the
shape of popular sovereignty, and that, up to
the appearance of the Nicholson letter, the pow
Ell of Congress to legisate for the Territories
was undisturbed This letter was held up by
the South as q high bid for office, but bids still
higher were demanded. Then Mr.. Fillmore bid
the Fugitive Slave bill Mr.. Webster followed
with his 7th of March speech, and Mr.. Doug
las with the repeal of the Missouri compromise.
What was the reward of these three men? One
was voted down in the nominating Convention !;
one did not even receive the poor compliment of
q nomination, and died OF broken heart; and
the third has now the whole power of the Ad-
ministration on his trail hunting him like blood
hounds and there are three other men tn whom
this Administration owes its existence, who are
now meeting with similar reward. lie alluded
to Messrs Stanton, Walker and Forney.
Adjourned.
HoUsE.-The House passed the Consular and
Diplomatic bill
The Speaker announced that the pending ques-
ton was the appeal of Mr.. Harris OF Illinois,
from the decision of the Chair, that he could
not read the journal and statement of the Kan
sas Committee to show that the committee had
not executed the order of the House, for the rea
son that the minority could not make report
from the committee and therefore it was not
question of privilege.
Mr.. Harris said that nothing but imperative
duty impelled him to raise the question. 1t
was not done rashly. Cases quoted by the
Speaker, he contended, were not analogous to
that under consideration. He and others, the
minority, did not propose to make report from
the committee, but merely to show that other
members of the committee have disob0yed the
orper of the House. The minority report no
bill for legislative action. The substantive pro-
position is that the privileges of the House have
been infrnged, and that tho minutes of the com
mttee are part of the majority report; there
fore the minority had a right to refer to or pro-
ducc those minutes. He reported that this was
not report but merely a production OF facts to
sustain the action of the minority. lie quoted
various authorities to show that the House may
entertain such movement as question OF PRIV
ilcge. The doctrine is laid down that when a
committee isremiss in duty it is sufficient ground
for further proceedings I" in the House." Il
this be 50, how is it ever to be known to the
Hous, that committee is remlss, unless that
knowledge is brought to the House, and one
member is sufficient to produce the fact
Mr. Stephens of Georgia replied that no pre-
cedent for the movement, as had been claimed
by Mr.. H., could be found in the records of the
British Parliament, or any Legislative body ii
the world. The gentleman from Illinois hadno
produced an authority to sustain him. The
question is, whether the remssness of the ma
jority or minority of a committee is q question
of privilege. lie contended that it was not, ant
said that no precedent or authority could bt
found in Hansard, or any other authority. The
gentleman had utterly failed to make out hi
case.
He (Mr. ST. considered this the most impor
-
tant NOV oment ey er made in the House slnc'
the foundation of the government. 1t is revolu
tionary and strikes at the foundation OF the ru
les and orders of the House and under its op
GRAFTON, the House could do no business. MIR
Stephens further contended that the majority
must first make report before the Hous
can determine whether the Committee have ex
ecuted the order of the House. He was pre-
pared to show that it had been fully executed
If the report is not satisfactory to the House
let them discharge the Committee, and recon-
nit, or turn the question over to another com
mittee He was ready to meet the issue, bu
was opposed to sideway of overturning tn
rules and orders of the House, and upsettin,
parliamentary law
Mr. Grow of Pennsylvania caused to be real
the resolutions under which the committee wa
appointed, to show that the committee was in
structed to inquire into all the facts connecte
with the adoption of the Lecompton constitu
tion and whether said constitution was satisfac
tory to majority Of the legal voters of Kan
Sas.
Mr.. Stephens rose to a point Of order.
Mr.. Grow said that it came with bad grac
from Mr.. Stephens, who has INDUCED in the III
most latitude of debate.
Mr.. Stephens replied that he had confines
himself strictly to the question before the Hous
If Mr.. Grow wanted to 60 into an investigation
of what the committee had done, he (Stephcns
was ready.
Mr. Grow said that Parliamentary law requ
red that majority of the friends Of the meai
ure should have been put on the committee, bu
the presiding officer had put a majority of tn
opponents on. 1t is a correct principle that
child should not be put to nurse with one thf
cares nothing about it.
Mr.. Winslow of North Carolina called MI
Grow to order.
The Speaker said the question was delicai
one, as Mr.. Grow was commenting on the actio
of the chair.
Mr.. Grow resumed, saying that if a majorit
of committee violate the order of the HOUSE
how is the Hous. to take action, or ascertai
that fact, unless by the statement Of one Q
more of the members of that committee.
Mr. Stevens said he was ready to show whe
the report came up, that the committee had e.
amined every material fact.
Mr.. Grow replied that the committee had n
discretion They were directed to investiga
all the facts
Mr. English of Indiana asked how they wei
to know whethnr the committee had execute
the order of the House under the present aspe
of the House. The gentleman from lllino
(Harrs) says the committee have not done 81
Mr.. Stephens takes the opposite ground. l
(English) thought the proper way was to sui
init the official record which he understood, EN-
L.aand tl,o ont;ro n ctinn of the cn1nmttne incl