The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-21

of the sfenoGrapnic repOrt tnot attu ally took place-it betng next over the to the last column before you strlke the blank page: "President pro teI That is the recollection of the present occupant of the Chair. and the Chair will state further that so far as the demand of the delegate from Mobile for the ayes and noes. the Chair did not hear him. If the Chair had heard the gentleman. he would have put the ques- tion over. and the Chair will ask now to be permitted to do so ard that the gentleman be allowed to make the point he was about to make. There being no objection, the leave was siv- en-
 MT. carmichael-I will say that that was interpolated by the stenographer and was not correct.
 Mir. Pillans-I think he Is wrong there. May ask at whose instance 1t was interpolated?
 Mr. Carmichael-It was not interpo- lated at the instance of any delegate, and did not say that. but the steno- grapher put that down in his notes, not as a matter that occurred, but simply wrote that in his notes. There was some confusion, and the President never did ask this Convention wheth- CT there was unanimous consent that the vote be taken by ayes and noes. l would have objected.
 Mir. Ashcraft-May interrupt the gentleman for the purpose of asking question? FL
 MT. Carmichael-Yes sir.
 MT. Ashcraft-Look next to the last column, you will see rose to point of order, and stated that when the President put the vote on the motion to table the amendment by the gentle man from Dallas. as soon as the ques- tion was announced, the gentleman from Mobile began to demand the ayes and noes. but the Chairman, not hear ing him, proceeded until. as the Clerks records show. he had announced that the vote had carried, thereupon the gentleman from Mobile was heard by the Chair and the Chair by unanimous consent proposed to repeat the ques- tion, and thereupon the gentleman from Calhoun made the point of order that the question was res adjudicata, hav- ing been passed upon at a previous hour. The Chair sustained the point of order made by the gentleman from Calhoun. and thereupon the gentleman from Montgomery appealed from the decision of the Chair. The President pro tenn said: That is the Chairs rec-' ollection of it,"
 Mir. Carmichael-Yes, sir.
 MT. Ashcraft-Dont that confirm that part that the gentleman from Mobile calls your attention to?
 Mr. Carmichael-No. sir: what I sub- init is this. that the President of this Convention never did submit the ques- tion to this Convention as to whether there was unanimous consent. Now, after he had declared that the amed- ment was laid upon the table, the Pres- ident then presiding said that he would like to remedy the wrong if any was done, in substance that-he had not seen the gentleman from Mobile, and that he would like unanimous consent to be given, but he never did ask is there unanimous consent? Shall the vote be put by ayes and noes. is there objec- tion? I submit that no man will in- sist that that motion was put in that manner. There are those here who would have objected to such a propo- sition. I wish to read further on, next to the last column in the last line. The Chair goes on to say: The Chair did not hear him-having reference to the gentleman from Mobile. If the Chair had heard the gentleman, he would have put the question over, and the Chair will ask now to be permitted to do so and that the gentleman be al- lowed to take the point he was about to make" There being no objection" these are the words of the stenogra- pher, but the Chairman never. stated that-there was no adjudication on the part of the President of the Convention that there was no objection. and that unanimous consent was given. MT. Harrison--Was there not at the time. half a dozen or more on the floor?
 MT. CarmichaeIAThere were a dozen on the floor.
 MT. Piilans-I think perhaps. you will recollect with me that the unani- nous consent occurred in this wise. was insisting upon the ayes and noes, and my insistence was not heard among the confusion, beyond a doubt by the acting President-stated there was an objection by the gentleman from Cal houn that could not be heard from because I was not in my seat?
 Mf. Carmichael-Yes, sir.
 Mf. Pillans-Then didn't the acting President say in the interest of fair ness. with a desire to be fair--i don't know about the stenographic report but substantially he would put the question to the, Convention whether they would give unanimous consent for the gentleman from Mobile to insist upon theseail from the seat that he was then occupying, and was not that the matter of unanimous consent spoken of here now and perhaps in the steno- graphic report. Wasn't 1t then the unanimous consent was given? There was no objection and the acting Presi- dent declared that there was unani- nous consent that l should be heard from. or the gentleman from Mobile be heard from the seat I was then occu- pying?
 MT. Carmichaei-That is true.
 MT. Pillans-Then didn't the acting President announce that he would put the question upon the ayes and nAes, and just then there was an interrup- tion from the gentleman from Calhoun with his point of order. Is not that the fact?
 MT. Carmichael-The facts are stated in the journal as they occurred. As to unanimous consent being given to make a point from where he was sit- ting is correct, but the point make IS this. that the amendment was tabled in fact by this House and so declared by the President, and that could not be abrogated except by reconsideration. The further fact Is. and l insist upon this. that the President of this Con- yention never did submit the question as to whether there Should be vote taken by ayes and noes for unantmops consent of this house, and this house never did give unanimous consent for the passage of that amendment by ayeS and noes. Now, I shall read from the stenographic report on the last page: If the Chair had heard the