Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1858-08-07
N U UMBER 45.
E4ettcr from Senator Hudson Of Good.
hue County on the Points Of Order
Involved in the Holcomb Outrage.

.Ezzz.E=zzzl...EzzRs<szEE 2
E-etter from Senator Hudson of Godd.
hue County on the Points OF Order
involved In the Holcomb Outrage.
Sr. PAUL2 July 29tk, 1858.
To the Editors ct tie Ainnzsotsaa. s.Os.. q =
With your permission, wonld Hike to state
/ few among the many causes that produced
in the Senate on tie 9th inst. what the Pic
,eer ard Democrat styles "a must disgraceful
'uthraak on the part of the Black Repuoli-
IAN members
Mr.. CowAN, of Nicolet, moved that the
vote b. which it required two-thirds of the
rembers to suspend proceedings under call
&c ,cconsiiered. e-dt
The object for which this motion was made
need not be told to those living in St. Paul:
'i.c-fules We're likely to defeat the election
"a h.ra United States Senator by this Leg
l-la'ure. Much time has been spent and the
IHgcnuitg of the Democracy taxed to devise
-on.e means 10 get rid Of the effect OF this
rule But all honorable means have failed
nd the circumstances demanded tl.e.sl;,Ee
something desperate rather than give up the
gre object for which the Legislature has
been compelled to sit here through the hot
weather. Without entering into details in
relation to motions that were made, appeals
ihat wcie taken, points of order that were
ai,e'! by the Republicans and rejected by
The President, some Of which you have al
ready published, will proceed to offer some
If the fundamental principles of Pariamen-
tary Law which were violated by the major
ity, and invite the attention of the unpreju-
diced to the points make:
One of tie definitions of the term ''order"
as gwen 10y tie same author, in the same
work is, a rule for the government of the
body. My conclusions are, then, if the mo-
ton TO reconsider was out of order, all that
foil,we was out of order and the rule is still
unchanged.
lst. The motion to reconsider the vote by
which that part of the rule was adopted was
out Of order, and one that could not be en-
tcftancd. 1t is true Rule 26 says "a member
voting with the majority can move a recon-
sidcIutipn on the same or O succeeding day."
but there are exceptions to this Rule as every
parliamentarian will admit To illustrate
This point, Rule % says it shall always be
in order to adjourn, yet every boy that ever
attended Lyceum knows it is not always
n order. Gushing in his Parliamentary Law
established the point beyond question, that
an order that has already taken effect, in
whole or in part, cannot be reconsidered.
The only way that it can he reached is to
rescind or amend, and
Cd. For the sake of argument, grant that
the motion to reconsider was in order, and
that it was seconded. Rule l9 of the Senate
says, ''when motion is made aud seconded,
1t shall be stated by The President" Rule II
says, " !fer motion is stated by the Pres-
dent, or read by the Secretary, it shall be
deer,ed to be IN tie possession Of the Senate.'
Now. the President never stated the qucs-
lion to reconsider consequently there was no
question in possession of the Senate for, in
no parliamentary body in the world do they
move the previous question on motion until
it is deemed in possession Of the body. In Con-
grcSs member sometimes moves the previous
question Oh his own motion, Ltore it is stated
by the Chair. But the Rules Of Congress do
not require the question to be stated by the
Chair, unless some member requires it, to put
the House in possession of the question. Our
Rules do! Yet under the rules of Congress,
entirely different from ours, Mr.. Gushing, in
his Parliament Law, page 557, sec. 14-26,
says: "This is contrary to the spirit and let
ter Of the Rule, and this anomalous and un-
pailiamcn' 'ary proceeding has been frequently
called in nqucstion, but sustained on the ground
of usage and convenience" My deductions
on this point are, that there was no question
in the possession of the Senate; consequently
there was no previous question to move-that
all that followed was Irregular and Rule 80
Is unchanged.
Sd. Bat to assist our opponents still far
,hcr admit that the motion to reconsider was
in order-that it was in possession of the
Senate. Even then the previous question
was not in order, for the mot on to reconsider
is privileged question, taking precedence of
all questions except to adjourn. ard the pre-
ri,us question cannot be morea on a pyicileged
question. Gushing, in his Parliament Law,
page 357, says :: " When question is under
debate, certain motions may be made as priv
llegcd quc.,ions' He also says: "The word
qatsiioa, as used in this rule, refers only to
original questions, and not % amendments or
merely subsidiary motions.' My deductions
are taen, on this point, that the motion to re-
taking precedence of the previous
question, the last question was not in order;
tie question was then directly on the motion
to reconsider, and it is admitted that call Of
the Senate was demanded before that motion
was put, but disresarded. Hence all that
followed was irregular, and Rule 80 stands
4'h. Admitting that all the motions were
in order, and everything done in an orderly
manner, Rule 81 says no rule shall be changed
without one days notice being given before
the motion, and that the Senate dare not give,
and did not give hence my deductions upon
this point are that Rule 30 is not changed.
the declarations of the President to the con-
trary Notwithstanding.
An of which is respectfully submitted.
Yours, &C., AARON u. HUDSON.
The Torc:IsroSE OF DEMocRAcY.-A Loco
foco politician may be anything else provided
he is " true to the South" He may be