JULY 11, 1832.] time as well as any other. The violent and angry man-dent were now to be set, it should be done with deliberaner in which he had addressed the words to the Chair, tion. Whatever might be his opinion as to the merits of was as important as the words, and was included in the this case, he wished to proceed according to parliamentresolution. ary usage, if any existed. It was but reasonable that the Mr. McDUFFIE requested the gentleman from Ten-member should be allowed time to consult authorities. He nessee [Mr. POLK] to withdraw his resolution, in order moved that the further consideration of this subject be that he might move the previous question on the subject postponed until to-morrow. which had been before the House when the occurrence The motion was negatived. to which his resolution referred took place. Mr. POLK said, as the resolution could be renewed hereafter if necessary, he would withdraw it, reserving to himself the right to renew it. Mr. McDUFFIE immediately demanded the previous question. The objections raised by Mr. MERCER to the decision of the Chair, that the resolution of Mr. FOSTER (moved by Mr. BATES) was in order, were read. The resolution was then read. The CHAIR stated that the main question would be on the appeal of Mr. MERCER. The motion for the previous question was carried by Mr. SUTHERLAND moved a call of the House. Mr. ARCHER inquired whether the Speaker had been in the chair when the resolution was offered, and, if not, whether he coincided in the decision which had been given. The SPEAKER said that the journal would show he had not been in the chair; upon the decision of Mr. CLAY he gave no opinion. The main question was now put, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" and decided by yeas and nays-yeas 82, nays 48. So the House sustained the decision of the Chair. Mr. McDUFFIE said that every member must be satisfied that no good could arise from prolonging this debate, and he therefore moved the previous question upon adopting the resolution. The question now being about to be put on the resolution, Mr. V. inquired of the Chair whether no interrogatory was first to be put to the gentleman from Ohio. The CHAIR replied that on that question the gentleman could judge for himself. Mr. ADAMS requested the reading of the resolution; which being done, Mr. A. said he denied that the words in the resolution were used by the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. McDUFFIE rose, and said, "I affirm that they were used." Several other members corroborated the statement of Mr. McDUFFIE. Mr. ARCHER wished the Speaker to put the question to the member from Ohio, whether he denied or admitted the speaking of the words. The SPEAKER said that, in the present stage of the proceeding, he could not propound interrogatories to the member. Mr. CRANE then asked that the resolution be again read. When it was done, Mr. C. said he was not present, and could not tell whether the words were used or not, and could not vote on the question. Mr. NUCKOLLS said he was in the same situation. He had not been in the House when the words were used. If an interrogatory should be put to the member, and his answer in the affirmative or negative be obtained, Mr. N. would then be prepared to vote; otherwise, he could not. Mr. IRVIN said he had not been present when his colleague made the remarks to which the resolution referred. Mr. STANBERRY put to the Chair the question whe-He should therefore ask to be excused from voting. ther this motion was in order. He claimed the liberty of Mr. VINTON objected to the excusing of any member being heard. If the resolution should pass, it was in itself from voting on the question. He was present, but could a censure, and he should have no opportunity to defend not repeat the words. He was as much entitled to be exhimself. cused as those who were not present, for he really did not Mr. EVERETT moved a call of the House, and de-know what the words were. Had the words been put on manded the yeas and nays. the record, every person, whether present or not, when They were taken accordingly, and resulted in refusing they were uttered, could vote understandingly. We are the call-yeas 53, nays 74. now called on to pronounce judgment without any facts Mr. LETCHER said he would submit it to Mr. Mc-on record. DUFFIE, as a great constitutional privilege was involved, Mr. McDUFFIE said he had withdrawn the motion for whether he would not withdraw his motion, and allow the previous question, only to enable the member from the member an opportunity of being heard in his own Ohio [Mr. STANBERRY] to explain. If he did not wish to defence. do so, he would renew the motion. Mr. STANBERRY then rose, and said he protested against the whole proceeding as tyrannical, unjust, and not warranted by law or precedent. As to the words charged, he would neither explain, retract, nor deny. On the contrary, he re-affirmed them. Mr. McDUFFIE called him to order. The SPEAKER ordered the words to be taken down by the Clerk; which was done. They were decided to be out of order. Mr. McDUFFIE said that, as he conceived it to be the constitutional privilege of the member to be heard, he would, with that view, withdraw his motion for the present. Mr. VINTON inquired what ought to be the mode of proceeding in such a case. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. WAYNE] had said that this was in the nature of a criminal prosecution against the gentleman from Ohio. In criminal prosecutions for contempt, some interrogatories were propounded, or some other means adopted to ascertain the facts which had occurred. Ought not an interrogatory to be put to the member, to know whether he admitted or denied the fact charged in the resolution, and on which it was proposed that the House should proceed to pass a resolution of censure? If the member denied the charge, it must then be established. Mr. V. appealed to Mr. KERR had voted on the appeal against the opinion the common sense of the House. The question was mo- of the Chair. No member was more convinced than himmentous to the rights of every member. He did not self of the necessity of maintaining the good order and know whether there was any case on record in which a dignity of proceeding of the House. If the words were member had been censured by the House. If a prece-taken down, and no excuse offered, he should not hesitate Mr. STANBERRY then rose. The SPEAKER said, the member having been called to order, he could not proceed, unless by the express permission of the House, as he had been pronounced to be out of order. a moment in voting for censure. But the facts should be established in some way. Could not the older members of the House suggest some mode of proceeding that should get at them? Would it not be proper for gentlemen who had heard the words, to rise in their place and state them? Did the member from Ohio acknowledge the words? [JULY 11, 1862. Mr. VINTON called Mr. HOWARD to order. The SPEAKER directed Mr. V. to state his question of order in writing; which Mr. V. having declined doing, Mr. HOWARD proceeded. The member from Ohio, [Mr. STANBERRY,] in his speech, portrayed the character and conduct of a former Speaker of the House, (Mr. The SPEAKER said the subject before the House was Macon,) and by very einphatic negatives evidently intendthe call to order of the member from Ohio, by the gentle-ed to contrast his character and conduct with those of man from South Carolina, [Mr. McDUFFIE.] He directed another. He had eulogized the former Speaker because the words spoken by Mr. STANBERRY to be read by the he had not prostrated the dignity of the House at the Clerk; which being done in these terms, "I neither deny, foot of Executive power. While he had been proceeding, retract, nor explain the words I used the day before yester- Mr. H. had been reflecting whether he could not be called day, but do now re-affirm the words I then used,' to order; but so long as he confined himself to negatives, Mr. DRAYTON said he was satisfied that the language it could not be done. In his concluding remarks, which used by the member was disorderly; but, as he was dis-had been repeated by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. posed to hear any justification that member could make FOSTER,] he applied the whole remarks he had previously of his conduct, he moved that he be permitted now to made to the present Speaker of the House. As there proceed. was no doubt an intentional disrespect to the Speaker of Mr. ARNOLD objected. The charge was in no tan- the House, he was prepared to vote on the resolution. gible form. If nobody recollected the precise words Mr. J. REED said the House was about to set a preceused, there ought to be an interrogatory, and the mem-dent of vast consequence. The gentleman from Mary ber should be required to put his answer in writing. The land was prepared to vote upon this resolution. Why? privilege of one member was the privilege of all. The Because he had attended to the remarks made by the gen question was whether a member should be "infamatized," tleman from Ohio, [Mr. STANBERRY.] Other gentlemen, or perhaps expelled from the House, and gentlemen were leaping about from the right to the left in perfect confusion. He wished to know whether he was liable now to be censured and expelled for words he used at the commencement of the session. a member of the who were not present, or had not attended to them, had requested to be excused from voting. He would say nothing about the present case; he would not justify the course of the gentlemen from Ohio, but had much to say about the principles involved by the resolution. He was The question was put, and carried in the affirmative. unwilling to decide upon such a case without something Mr. STANBERRY rose, and proceeded. He had said to rest the decision on. If the course adopted in this that he neither explained, retracted, nor denied the words instance should become fashionable, in times of excite he had used; but, on the contrary, he re-affirmed them.ment it might lead to disastrous consequences. He would The words he had used were not those in the resolution. not say there was not in this instance abundant cause for He did not recollect the precise words he had used; nor the proceedings; but he should, as did he know, certainly, which the words were which gave House, be mortified hereafter to find this resolution on the gentlemen so much offence. He had stated that the journal inflicting the severest punishment upon one of the Speaker, from the chair, had his eyes fixed on the white members of the House, without any ground stated for its house. He had a right to make that statement. The adoption. language was parliamentary, and he could show high au- Mr. BOULDIN said he was not present when the origi thority for it. To attempt to censure him for such lan-nal remarks were made by the member from Ohio, [Mr. guage, was to attempt oppression. Mr. S. here quoted STANBERRY,] but he should not ask to be excused from an instance where Lord Chatham had said, in open Parlia-voting. He was not only ready to vote, but, after what ment, that "the eyes of the Speaker of that House were had to-day passed in the face of the House, he was pretoo often turned towards St. James's." Yet he had not been called to order, though he had uttered the words in the presence of as great an opposing majority as Mr. S. had now. Mr. FOSTER said that what the member had said about locking toward the white house was not the whole of the remark he had applied to the Speaker; he had charged the Speaker with shaping his course so as to obtain office from the President; and when Mr. S.had draughted and read his resolution, the gentleman had expressed a hope that he would add that the charge was untrue, in order that he might have the opportunity to prove it. Not a man had heard him that did not take up this impression from his language. pared to give a different vote upon the resolution from what he should have done yesterday. The technical ob jection had been done away. The member from Ohio had, in the hearing of the whole House, re-affirmed the words, but insists that he used parliamentary language. He bad distinctly admitted that he intended a meaning disrespect. ful to the Speaker and to the House, but contended that he was justified in his conduct by using what he calls par liamentary language. Upon this state of facts he [Mr. B.] was ready to vote in favor of the resolution, for, in such cases, every thing depends upon the intention with which language is used. was liable Mr. E. WHITTLESEY thought the safety of the mem bers required that words which were the subject of cen[Mr. STANBERRY here interposed, and said that he sure should be reduced to writing, as language did not now deny but that was the inference from the to various constructions and interpretations. They should language he had used, but he contended that he had ex-be put upon record, to give a foundation for the proceed pressed himself in parliamentary terms.] ing. He had heard a former colleague of the gentleman Mr. FOSTER said, as the member now admitted, in the from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) assail an individual in the face of the House, that the words in the resolution ex-chair, hour after hour, without being called to order, bepressed his meaning, he would leave it to the House to cause he had expressed himself in parliamentary language. judge whether it ought not to assert its own dignity, by Before gentlemen adopted this vote of censure, which preserving that of its presiding officer. Mr. ARCHER moved the words just used by the mem'ber from Ohio be taken down. Mr. SPEIGHT said a gentleman was taking them down. Mr. HOWARD had heard and noticed the original remarks of the member to which the resolution referred, and, with permission of the House, would repeat them. of was the severest punishment that could be inflicted on a JULY 11, 1832.] Contempt of the Speaker. [H. of R. could come together with more of the milk of human persist in refusing to vote upon the important questions kindness. While so much feeling and passion was dis- which came before it, there must be an end to all legislaplayed, it was not a proper time to decide a question of so tion. When the House was not full, all that was necesmuch importance to his colleague [Mr. STANBERRY] and sary to defeat its action would be for the minority to rehis constituents. fuse to vote, and a question could not be decided for want of a quorum. Mr. McDUFFIE was opposed to any further postponement of the subject. It was important that the House proceed to the consideration of other measures which must be acted on before the House adjourns. He was satisfied that the language used by the member from Obio was more gross, direct, and unparliamentary, than was stated in the resolution. He, therefore, renewed the motion for the previous question. The question of reconsidering the vote refusing to excuse Mr. ADAMS, was taken by yeas and nays, and was lost--yeas 59, nays 74, as follows: YEAS.--Messrs. Alexander, Heman Allen, Allison, Appleton, Babcock, Banks, John S. Barbour, Barringer, Isaac C. Bates, Bullard, Burges, Cambreleng, Chandler, Lewis Condict, Eleutheros Cooke, Cooper, Crane, Mr. STANBERRY rose, and requested the gentleman Creighton, Daniel, Davenport, Dearborn, Denny, Dodfrom South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] to state upon his honor dridge, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, whether he believed the charge he had made against the Speaker to be untrue. Mr. McDUFFIE said he regarded the question as an insult to himself, and a gross aggravation of the outrage and indignity which that person had before offered to the House. The previous question was sustained—yeas 89, nays 41. The yeas and nays having been ordered upon the adoption of the resolution, The Clerk commenced calling the roll, in the order prescribed by the rules of the House; and, calling the name of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, Mr. A. rose, and asked to be excused from voting, for the reasons assigned in a paper which he handed to the Clerk, and which was read in the following words: T. H. Hall, Hodges, Heister, Hughes, Kavanagh, Kendall, McDuffie, Thomas R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Newton, Nuckolls, Pearce, Pendleton, Pitcher, Plummer, Potts, Randolph, Russel, Slade, Standifer, Taylor, Tracy, Verplanck, Vinton, Wardwell, Washington, Watmough, Wayne, Wheeler, Elisha Whittlesey, Edward D. White, Williams, Young.--59. NAYS.-Messrs. Archer, Arnold, Ashley, James Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, John C. Brodhead, Bucher, Burd, Carr, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Conner, Coulter, Crawford, Warren R. Davis, Dayan, Doubleday, Drayton, Fitzgerald, Ford, Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, Gordon, Griffin, William Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawkins, Hoffman, Hogan, Horn, Howard, Hubbard, Ihrie, "I ask to be excused from voting on the resolution, Jarvis, Cave Johnson, Kennon, John King, Kerr, Lamar, believing it to be unconstitutional, inasmuch as it assumes Lecompte, Lewis, Mann, Mardis, Mason, McIntire, inferences of fact from words spoken by the member, with- McKay, Newnan, Pierson, Polk, Rencher, Roane, A. H. out giving the words themselves; and the facts not being Shepperd, Smith, Speight, Stephens, Francis Thomas, warranted, in my judgment, by the words which he did use." "Wiley Thompson, Vance, Ward, Weeks, Campbell P. The question was then taken, "Shall Mr. ADAMS be excused?" and passed in the negative. The question was again propounded from the Chair, and the Clerk was ordered to call the roll. Having again called the name of Mr. Adams, Mr. A. said, “I decline to answer." Mr. McDUFFIE said he hoped the gentleman from Massachusetts would be excused; and he moved that he be excused. The SPEAKER. The House has just decided that he shall not be excused. White, Wilde, Worthington.--74. The SPEAKER then read the rule of the House, by which every member is required to vote who is within the House when the question is put, and stated that it was the duty of every member in the House to vote upon one side or the other. The putting of the question was resumed, and, by direction of the Speaker, the Clerk again called the name of Mr. ADAMS, and no response was made by Mr. A., who remained in his seat. Mr. DRAYTON said the present was a novel and, he Mr. ADAMS said he did not refuse to vote, from any believed, an unprecedented case. The constitution had contumacy or disrespect to the House; but because he authorized the House to establish rules for its government. had a right to decline for conscientious reasons, and those Under these rules every member in the House was bound reasons he had desired might be spread on the journals of to vote. Besides the grave consideration of the violation the House. of the rules, this course might be attended with dangerous Mr. BOON observed that if the House put those rea- consequences. Should the present example find imitasons on the journal, and excuse the member, it would be spreading on the journal its own condemnation. The gentleman might have easily avoided voting by going out of the House. tions, the legislative action of the House might be defeated. He proposed to submit the following resolutions on the subject, which he sent to the Clerk's table, and requested might be read. They were as follows: Resolved, That JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, a member from Massachusetts, in refusing to vote when his name was called by the Clerk, after the House had rejected his application to be excused from voting, for reasons assigned by him, has committed a breach of one of the rules of the House. Mr. ADAMS said he did not choose to be absent from the House; he did not choose to shrink from his duty by such an expedient. He should have been glad to have been saved the alternative, which a solemn sense of duty imposed on him, of refusing to vote; but the House had refused his request to be excused, and he did not choose to shrink from the alternative which that refusal imposed Resolved, That a committee be appointed for the purpose on him, by absenting himself from his seat. It was not of inquiring and reporting to this House the course which his rights alone as a member, but the rights of all the it ought to adopt in a case so novel and so important. members of this House, and the rights of the people Mr. D. proceeded. He considered this the proper of the United States, which were concerned in the ques- time to consider these resolutions. The course of legistion, and could not evade it. He regretted this state of lation was completely stopped. Any proceeding in such things, but he must abide the consequences whatever they a case should be contemporaneous with the breach of the might be. rule. Should this breach be passed over in silence, it might hereafter be in the power of a minority to defeat the legislative functions of this body, by combining to gether in a similar refusal. It was from a deep sense of Mr. WAYNE moved to reconsider the vote by which the gentleman was refused to be excused. Mr. FOSTER said, if any member of the House might VOL. VIII.-245 H. OF R.] Resolutions of Censure. [JULY 12, 1832. duty, and with great regret and pain-unfeigned and un-McIntire, McKay, Thomas R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg, New. affected--that he had offered these resolutions. Some nan, Nuckolls, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Rencher, Roane, such step appeared to him to be absolutely necessary. If A. H. Shepperd, Smith, Speight, Standifer, Stephens, the House did not adopt them, it could only be from per- Francis Thomas, Wiley Thompson, Verplanck, Wardsonal respect towards that distinguished individual, or from well, Wayne, Weeks, Campbell P. White, Wilde, Worth a feeling that he was unwilling to suppose existed--a wil- ington.--92. lingness in the members to discharge themselves from their obligations of duty. NAYS.--Messrs. Heman Allen, Allison, Appleton, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, I. C. Bates, Briggs, Bullard, Burd, Burges, Choate, L. Condict, Eleutheros Cooke, Cooper, Corwin, Crane, Creighton, Daniel, Dearborn, Denny, George Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Mr. BURGES remarked, as the members must be call-Hodges, Hughes, Kendall, McKennan, Newton, Pearce, ed alphabetically, he would be glad to know whether any Pendleton, Potts, Randolph, John Reed, Russel, Slade, subsequent name could be called without a breach of the Southard, Taylor, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, Elisha rule, before the gentleman from Massachusetts had an- Whittlesey, Edward D. White, Williams.--44. So the resolution censuring Mr. STANBERRY was adopted. Mr. WAYNE inquired whether the resolutions would not interfere with the progress of the call. Mr. DRAYTON. Not necessarily. swered. Mr. WAYNE was uncertain what would be the most correct course, and he presumed others might be in a similar situation. He moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolutions until to-morrow; which was carried. Mr. ARCHER inquired whether it was proper to receive and record the paper which had been offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The SPEAKER said the question, so far as he knew, was altogether an original one. Mr. COULTER thought, upon a question so vitally involving the power and dignity of the House, time should be taken for consideration. For the double purpose of giving the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] time to reflect upon the proper course for himself, as to enable the House to decide upon the correct course to be pursued, he moved the House adjourn. The SPEAKER said the House had ordered the main question to be now put. The call upon the question has been begun, but not completed. He doubted whether a motion to adjourn was in order. Mr. I. C. BATES said his learned and distinguished colleague doubtless felt that he had good grounds for the course he had adopted. It was due to him and to the House to proceed with deliberation. Mr. ARNOLD never had more unpleasant feelings in all his life. He hoped- The SPEAKER said the House had ordered the main question to be now put, and, until it was decided, no debate was in order. The question was taken on the motion to postpone the resolutions till to-morrow, and carried. The call then proceeded. When the name of Mr. DANIEL was called, he moved to be excused from voting; which motion was negatived. His name was again called, and he gave his vote in the negative. The name of Mr. E. WHITTLESEY having been called, he asked to be excused from voting on the question, "because the resolution assumes the existence of facts not proven nor attempted to be proven." His request also was refused by the House; and his name being again called, he gave his vote. The resolution censuring Mr. STANBERRY was adopted by the following vote: YEAS.-Messrs. Alexander, Archer, Ashley, John S. Barbour, James Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, Branch, John C. Brodhead, Bucher, Cambreleng, Carr, Chandler, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Conner, Coulter, Craig, Crawford, Davenport, Warren R. Davis, Dayan, Dewart, Doddridge, Doubleday, Drayton, Fitzgerald, Ford, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Griffin, Thomas H. Hall, William Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawkins, Heister, Hoffman, Hogan, Horn, Howard, Hubbard, Ihrie, Isacks, Jarvis, Cave Johnson, Kavanagh, Adam King, John King, Lamar, Lansing, Lecompte, Lewis, Lyon, Mann, Mardis, Mason, McDuffie, It was then, on motion of Mr. ADAMS, resolved that a committee of conference be appointed on the part of the House, to meet a committee appointed by the Senate on the differing votes of the two Houses on the tariff bill. [The committee of conference on the part of the House of Representatives consisted of Messrs. DRAYTON, HOFFMAN, GAITHER, HORN, and J. DAVIS.] THURSDAY, JULY 12. Mr. HUBBARD moved that the House proceed to the consideration of the message from the Senate, asking a conference on the subject-matter of the amendment depending between the two Houses to the bill for the relief of the invalid pensioners of the United States. The motion of Mr. H. prevailed, and he was, with Mr. BURGES and Mr. MASON, appointed by the House as managers to conduct the conference. [Mr. HUBBARD subsequently made a report, that the House should adhere to its disagreement to the amend ments of the Senate.] RESOLUTIONS OF CENSURE. The House resumed the consideration of the following resolutions, submitted on Wednesday by Mr. DRAYTON, VIZ. Resolved, That JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, a member from Massachusetts, in refusing to vote when his name was called by the Clerk, after the House had rejected his ap plication to be excused from voting, for reasons assigned by him, has committed a breach of the rules of the House. Resolved, That a committee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring and reporting to this House the course which it ought to adopt in a case so novel and so important. Mr. DANIEL moved to lay them on the table. On this motion Mr. SPEIGHT demanded the yeas and nays; which being taken, stood--yeas 59, nays 63. Mr. TAYLOR said he was unwilling, at this period the session, with a mass of important business before the House, to consume the day upon this question. could be taken up on Monday, when no bills could be sent to the other House; he moved the postponement of the resolutions till Monday, and demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. MERCER suggested to Mr. T. to modify bis resolution by substituting the first Monday in September next. The SPEAKER decided such a motion to be out of order, the House having agreed to adjourn previous to that date. The yeas and nays having been ordered on Mr. TAYLOR's motion, Mr. E. EVERETT moved a call of the House, observ of ing that the last vote had been decided by a majority only two or three, and that, too, by changing votes after the result was known. The motion prevailed, and the House was called. The further proceedings of the call having, on motion of Mr. HOFFMAN, been suspended, Mr. WICKLIFFE said that he regretted the gentle. Juur 12, 1832.] Resolutions of Censure. [H. OF R. question at present before the House was on referring a subject to a select committee. Mr. ADAMS inquired whether such a motion was now in order. The gentleman from South Carolina had moved two resolutions, of which this was the second. How could the Speaker say that the second resolution was before the House, when the first had not been acted upon? The SPEAKER replied that it was in order to move to refer both resolutions to a committee. Mr. TAYLOR inquired whether his motion for post man from New York had fixed upon Monday next, for the same reasons that he regretted that the motion to lay the resolutions on the table had failed. In what were the House now engaged? They had been occupied seven months and more in one of the most laborious, most distracting, and, he would add, one of the most distressing sessions of Congress that the country had ever witnessed. And now they were occupied on a topic calculated to destroy all those feelings which they ought to carry away with them from this place. On the day of separation, when every irritating subject ought to be for-ponement had not been entertained. gotten, and nothing ought to prevail but feelings of harmony and mutual good will, they would be called on to appoint a committee to inquire into the conduct of a brother member, who conceived that on a particular occasion he was not bound to vote. Had that occasion been of such a nature that a refusal to vote must put a stop to all legislation for the rest of the session, the case would Mr. E. EVERETT entreated the gentleman from South be different. Did the gentleman from New York wish Carolina [Mr. DRAYTON] to withdraw the proposition he that they should take leave of the business of the ses-had offered. Mr. E. had been for seven years a member of sion by an excited and angry discussion, in which the that House, during which time he had witnessed innumeHouse was to be divided by lines of party distinction? rable breaches of its rules; but he had never known a reWould he have the members separate under the feeling solution to be offered naming a particular individual as that such a contest was likely to engender? Could any guilty of a breach of them. The rules of the House reone wish that on the last three days, when they were quired every member to be in his seat whenever a queswinding up the business of the session, it should be closed tion was taken. How was that rule observed? How often by a contest, from which no public good could possibly did the House find itself without even a quorum to do arise, and by which nothing but bad personal feeling was business? He was confident that the whole House would likely to be occasioned? He thought it was much better bear him witness that he spoke no more than the truth, to give the subject the go by. When indeed some great when he said that there was not on that floor an individuquestion should arise, when a refusal to vote might jeo-al to be found more regular, more attentive, more assidupardize the interests and safety of the whole community, ous and laborious in the discharge of his public duty than then it might be necessary and very proper to enforce his friend and colleague. And was he to be selected for the rules of the House. But no such case now pre- a species of censure which never had been inflicted on sented itself: and in the hope that the unpleasant feelings any man since the foundation of the Government? What which had grown out of the present debate, might, du- evil had resulted from his colleague's declining to vote? ring the three remaining days, have time to subside, he The call had gone on. The business of the House had would venture to renew the motion to lay the resolutions of not been suspended. He hoped the gentleman who movthe gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DRAYTON] upon ed this resolution, considering how extremely odious it must be for the House to act upon it, would consent to withdraw it. The SPEAKER replied that he thought the gentleman had withdrawn it. Mr. TAYLOR said he had not. Mr. ADAMS said that, on the motion to postpone the subject to Monday, he had nothing to say, except that it would produce a waste of time. the table. Mr. McDUFFIE said that if the object of the mover was to save time, he would beg him to withdraw this motion. Mr. McD. would be the last person in that House to observe rigor in enforcing its rules upon any member. But he could not consent that the resolutions should be laid on the table. The case which had arisen presented a novel question, which he hoped would be referred, sub silentio, to a select committee. For himself, he was strongly inclined to doubt the constitutional right of the House to enact any such rule. He was by no means sure that the House could compel any of its members to vote when they scrupled the propriety of doing so. The gentleman from Massachusetts was responsible to his own constituents, and not to that House, as to the question whether he would vote or not. of the Mr. ADAMS said that this whole affair was a subject great mortification to him. With respect, however, to passage of the present resolution, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McD.] who had just taken his seat, seemed to suppose that it would pass of course. Mr. A. hoped that it would not pass, and that opportunity would be afforded him to show the reasons which prevented him from voting. The resolution began with naming him personally, and affirming that he had been guilty of a breach of the rules of the House, and thereupon it proposed that a committee should be appointed to inquire what ought to be done on an occasion so novel and important. And was, then, a violation of a rule of that House a very novel and important matter? The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DRAYTON] himself violated one of the rules of the House when he made the motion. The SPEAKER said that it was not now in order to inquire whether the member had been in order or not. The | Mr. DRAYTON now commenced to address the Chair, when Mr. ADAMS called him to order. The rule of the House required that a member, in addressing the Chair, should rise "from his seat." The gentleman from South Carolina was not complying with the rule. He had just risen from a seat which was not his own. The CHAIR replied that the gentleman from South Carolina was in order. The interpretation uniformly put upon the rule, to which the gentleman from Massachusetts referred, had been that a member, when addressing the Chair, should rise up: but it did not prescribe in what part of the House he should do so. Mr. DRAYTON said it was certainly his desire to conform himself to the rules of the House. He had ever treated the gentleman from Massachusetts with that respect which, on various accounts, was due to him; and, though he could not but consider the conduct he had just exhibited as extremely uncourteous, he should pass it over, and would still treat the gentleman respectfully. That gentleman seemed to be under the impression that he had offered the present resolution under the influence of party spirit--a feeling with which Mr. D. trusted he was as little tainted as most persons in that House. But he could assure the gentleman that he had been actuated by no personal feeling whatever. On the contrary, his feelings towards that gentleman had ever been those of kindness and respect. Mr. D. had offered the resolution under a strong conviction that the most imperious duty demanded it from some member of the House; and, as no other gentleman had presented any resolution, he had offered his. It was true that the rules of the House were |