The Washington union., 1858-03-13
THE WASHINGTON UNION.


case fhe ventuied to aa) could not be md anywhere,
where case had been presented like the present but
what had been found legitimate aud proper take into
consideration, u was true, as general rule that the
proceedings IN committee could not be alluded 10 IN
debate, but when there Was Immediate relief OF The
committee itself the rule admitted OF an exception
lie asked to present the minutes and records of
the committee, that they might go before the House
to show and sustain the correctness of his state
ment, that the committee had failed to discharge
It's duties The proposition laid down in Cush-
lngs Parliamentary Law aud Legislative Practice,
mat whefp The subject presented fslated ~ the ae-
ton OF the committee they had right TO refer to that
action, because that the very subject itself; and
1t further stated the mode of reaching the minutes by
motion that they be produced The form Of the motion
wis not particular Il substantially te PROPOSITION
that the privileges of the House had been infinged
therefore, the proposition which he made abundantly
sustained by the he cited He also referred to the
10th volume Of Hapards Debates TO sustain his position
The particular distinction which he made between the
case rst cited by the Chair that it member
who attempted to submit report Rising in their places
and stating to the House that its order had been
piled with entirely different IL was not claimed to be
report and could not be characterized report
eniarating o,i the authority OF the committee, but
members o the House charged with duty OF bringing to
the knowledge of the House the facts which they alleged
There was no rule which he thought directly pertinent to
the How the question to get before the House
that committee remss, if the minority could not
report The majority refused to obey the order of the
House. and there were grounds for proceedings in the
House II dangerous to force precedents and safer
to rest upon good sense and sound Judgment
Mr., STEPHENS, of Georgia, did not wish to ptoong
the discussion Hs STATED yesterday that precedent to
sustain the attempt of the minority could not be found
in the British Parliament in Parliament, in the
history OF any Legislative body in the world in his udg
ment He had listened to the gentleman from Illinois,
but he had not produced single authority to sustain
him. He could not do It. When committee
miss In Its proceedings it went 70 this cktehthat the
committee, before making the final report were subject
to the order of the House How BY question of priv
ege No! When they could make that point, they
could control the committee. Such parliament
ary law To that extent the authority sustained the gen
teman. But that was not the question The question
Was the remssness of the minority the majority
question of prvilege2 There privileged questions
and questions of privileges higher than the privileged
questions. The question whether il was question
of privilege. He said it not The precedent for it
could not be found in Hansard any other writer
parliamentary law. What would be the use of such
precedent They have fifty questions of privilege every
monng--thirty at least There was no difference be-
tween select committee and standing committee.
Under instructions their duties pointed out
just the committees under the rules. The doc
rne that the minority in every of the committees
could come in override the business, raise question of
privilege and bring the action that occurred in the
mittee before the House, unbeard of. How could
they egsate if the minority could say that the majority
had not done its duty because they did not look into
particular piece of evidence which the merits of the
rested upon They would have nothing but questions
adjourn, the previous question, SC. There were also
questions higher than these relating to the conduct of
membersthe personal rights and the comforts of mem
bers IA VOICE. ''Iheit duties. Their duties, if you
please would prefer the question of dutythe duty
to behave in committee and of it, and the authorities
which the gentleman had read upon that subject
right. If members behaved dsorderly in committee it
involved question of privilege. The gentleman said IL
was difficult to get precedent The fact that such
precedent to be found in the British Parliament
conclusive to his mind that it entered into the
brain of any of them that il question of privilege
He looked upon it Of the most important
ments that had ever been made in the House from the
foundation of the government II was revolutionary,
and struck ut the foundation of the rules and
ders of the House Under the operation of it, they
could do no business whatever, if il perfectly
competent for any member who supposed commit
tee not to be acting in conformity with his views TO
have that matter presented question of privilege
Turning to the authority which the gentleman had read
from he found what he conceived to be the entire doc
trne upon the subject. When committee has gone
through with the business referred to it, {Mr STEPHENS
read and agree upon report the duty of preparing
the report devolves upon of the members by
whom it is prepared accordingly and submitted, when
the report is agreed upon by the committee The chair
or some other member directs it to be presented, and
when that is done they adjourn without day But the
committee only act together, nothing being in the
report but what has been in it when the committee
actually assembled The report, both in form and sub
stance ought to correspond with the authority Of the
committee If it does not it will either be recommited
disagreed to- or directed to be withdrawn There was
the parliamentary law IL the majority have agreed to
report they had and offered TO present it, if it not
pursuance of the authority of the House. they could
disagree to it, recommit it, discharge the committee
The House had control the committee and the
mttee forced to report by the majority.
Mr.. STANTON, of Ohio, inquired whether, if the
joIty refused to report there any mode by which
the question could be brought before the House except
by suspension of the rules
Mr.. STEPHENS replied, in two ways. BY suspension
of the rules resolution day, when member had
right to offer any resolution he pleased But there
no question of privilege. He prepared to show that
the order of the House had been fully executed If it
not to the satisfaction of the House. they could re-
commit the subject, discharge the committee turn it
to another, just they pleased The majority
ready to meet the ISSUE but did not intend to ovcru
the rules of the House and upset parliamentary law He
for abiding by the rules and laws, and for
psing nothing in an indirect way If the minority had
my views TO present. let both papers be presented and
let day be fixed for their consideration If the mi
nority could show that the orders of the House had
been executed let them do it, lie prepared to meet
them He asked that by general consent this should be
done. The select committees could not be called for
three months, and that the why he apx-
ous to bring this report before the House.
Mr.. GROW, of Pennsylvania, presumed there no
difference of opinion that the orders of any legislative
body were to be obcyed by their committees and if not
obeyed that aquestion of privilege. The only gues
tion to how the question to be got at. He
contendcd that the order of the House inquire into
III the facts relating to the constitution framed at Le-
compton.
Mr. STEPHENS raised point of order that the merits
IF the report were not before the House.
Mr. GROW said it with ill-gTace from the
gentleman who went over the whole question to make
point Of order
Mr. STEPHENS replied that he had confined himself