The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 27
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
"When motions are made to correct or amend the journal
l>y the insertion of papers or documents therein, if the
House shall not deside in favor of the proposition, the mat-
ter proposed to be inserted shall not be spread on the jour-
nal, notwithstanding" the yeas and nays may be entered on
the journal"
Mr. CARROLL called for the yeas and nays on
this amendment; which were ordered.
A brief debate ensued in relation to the right of
one-fifth of the members present calling for the yeas
and nays to insert the subject, as well as the vote, on
the journal; in which Messrs. HAMLIN, DAVIS
of Indiana, WINTHROP, DROMGOOLE, and
BARNARD, participated.
Mr. MURPHY said it was precisely because he
felt that regard for the constitution which the gen
tleman from New York expressed, that he felt
bound to vote for the proposition of the gentleman
from Virginia. As he (Mr. M.) understood that
instrument, it required that each House of Congress
should keep a journal of its actual proceedings; and
that the yeas and nays shall be ordered on the de-
mand of one-fifth of the members. The proceed-
ings of the House are the acts of the majority, not
of the minority. The minority has a right to de-
mand that the yeas and nays on the proceedings of
the majority shall be inserted on the journal. The ac-
tions of the majority alone are to be recorded; and
(except only the demand of the minority or one-fifth
of the House for the yeas and nays) the actions of
that minority are not to be recorded. The Consti-
tution does not say that the acts, protests, or argu-
ments of the minority are to be placed on the journal
with the yeas and nays; but it states that the yeas
and nays may be spread upon the journal. Now,
he took it, that there was a wide difference between
the yeas and nays and the question itself. What
was always the course with regard even to bills
passed by the House? Did the journal exhibit a
record of the bills themselves? No; it merely recited
their titles. And was not the present case one of
that nature? The minority could designate their
paper by its title, whether as a protest or other doc-
ument; and all the Constitution would demand
would be the record of yeas and nays in reference to
the decision as to that paper. He had as high a re-
gard for the Constitution as his colleague possibly
could have; and he considered that it was as much
his duty to see that nothing went on the journal of
the House but what actually did take place, as it
was to see that what did take place was duly re-
corded. He therefore considered it his duty to
see that the journal was kept free from the actions
cf the minority, and that nothing but the actions of
the majority should be there recorded.
Mr. "WHITE had but a word to say 011 both of
the propositions contained in the resolution of the
gentleman from Virginia. He objected to the first,
because of its language and its uncertainty. In the
first place, it presumed that there were members 011
that floor that would, by trick or stratagem, en-
deavor to defeat the will of the House. He consid-
ered this as an imputation 011 the honor of members;
and he was, therefore, not willing to have it inserted
in the rules.
Again: who was to determine, when a gentle-
man rose and made a proposition lo the House,
that he was doing it under false colors? Was the
Chair to say that he would entertain a proposition
or not, according to his judgment of the motives of
the member presenting it5 If this rule should be
adopted, it would be for the Chair to decide accord-
ing to his judgment of the motives of the members
who submitted motions to the House; and he would
leave it to all to say whether this was in accordance
with parliamentary law.
For these reasons, he objected to the first branch of
the resolution; but he placed his objections to the
second branch on higher grounds. He objected to it,
that it was subversive of the Constitution itself, as
well as destructive of the rights of the minority. Tell
me not, said he, to look into any rules of parliament
ary law or rules of the House, when you come in
conflict with the Constitution. It was true the
House had a right to make rules to govern itself,
and to be guided by the rules of parliamentary law;
but what was the plain inference? Why, that nei-
ther under the rules of the House, nor under the
parliamentary law, can it violate the Constitution.
Why was it that the yeas and nays were called on
the demand of one-fifth of the members present, but
in obedience to the commands of the Constitution?
The very amendment extorted from the gentleman
from Virginia, acknowledged the paramount injunc-
tions of the Constitutions.
The gentleman did not presume to say that,
when a proposition was offered to the House, and
the yeas and nays ordered on it, it should not go
on the journal; but that, if the minority offered a
proposition which was not received, they should not
get it on the journal by calling the yeas and nays on
it; which was, in effect, saying that the majority,
not satisfied with voting down the proposition, de-
termined that it was to be obliterated from the jour-
nal, and nothing known of it in -the country but by
parole or newspaper testimony. ,Mr. W. then re-
ferred to the authority of Mr. Jefferson in the Man-
ual, to the effect that when the yeas and nays are
called in either House, the proposition, whether de-
cided in the affirmative or negative, should be stated
on the journal.
Mr. DAVIS of Indiana was somewhat astonished
that gentlemen did not draw the distinction in the
parliamentary law referred to, and the clause of the
Constitution which the gentleman had quoted. No"^§
if the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Dromgoole]
had, in any part of his resolution, stated, directly
or indirectly, that questions should not go upon the
journal, he would vote against it. But the resolu-
tion stated no such thing. For his part, he under-
stood the Constitution as it was written, and he was
determined to support it as itwas; but it did not say
that all papers, protests, &c., no matter what they
might be, should go upon the journal, and he did
not feel bound to include them. The object of the
resolution of the gentleman from Virginia was in
strict accordance with the Constitution—to keep a
correct journal of the proceedings, and not to make
it a budget of blunders. It did not contemplate
keeping questions off from the journal, but to keep
it free from questions not taken.
In the case before the House, just decided on the
resolution of the gentleman from New York, the
question was, whether that particular paper, which
had not been read or received by the House, should
go on the journal. That question was fairly stated
011 the journal by the decision just made by the
House, though the paper itself did not go there.
This, however, was in accordance with the uniform
practice of the House; for there were numberless
questions stated and decided, in which the papers
they referred to were not copied out. For instance:
it was not the custom to spread every bill, memo-
rial, or petition, on the journal, though the yeas and
nays on questions relating to them might be ordered
and taken.
Mr. NEWTON moved that the House adjourn;
which motion was rejected.
Mr. N. considered this too important a ques-
tion to be disposed of without deliberation; and
he had, therefore', hoped that the House would
have adjourned. The question was not one merely of
convenience to the business of the House; but it in-
volved the higher considerations of constitutional
law, and the rights of the minority in that House.
It was of little consequence to those then holding
seats there, how it was decided; but it was to oper-
ate in all future times, and therefore involved conse-
quences more important and more lasting. Mr. N.
then went into a brief argument of the constitutional
question, to show that it was imperative on the ma-
jority to put any proposition in the journal that the
minority offered. He denied that the majority had
a right to refuse it- and contended that the framers
of the Constitution inserted this particular clause to
enable minorities to spread their uews before the
country. As to the absurdity that gentleman
spoke of, he insisted that it was on the other side;
and if it was inconsistent for the House, at one mo-
ment, to refuse to receive a paper, and at the next to
have it inserted on the journal, that inconsistency
was commanded by the Constitution itself. _ But
there was no absurdity, and 110 inconsistency in the
case; for a majority had 110 right to say that a paper
should or should not be recorded on the journal,
because one-fifth of the members present ordering
the yeas and nays rendered it imperative oil the
House to place it there.
Mr. HOLMES said it appeared to him that gen-
tlemen were all acting under a mistake in opposing
this resolution. This was as plain a question as
ever was presented. He granted that they could
not keep a written proposition from the journal, if
it should be offered, and the yeas and nays called on
it at the desire of one-fifth of the members present;
but he understood that the resolution before them
referred altogether to amendments of the journal,
and it was to this effect: that it a gentleman should
attempt, by a motion, to get any paper on it that
was not in the proceedings ol the day before, it
should not be the fact of ordering the yeas and nays
that would enable him to do it. Here was acasefift
which a written paper was refused by the
and hot being, therefore, in its proceedings, didjiot
appeal- on the journal; but the next morning a inem-
ber moves the sorrection of the journal, by insert-
ingit; and contends that, by the call of the yeas
and nays, he can get it inserted there. This; as
gentleman from Virginia justly observed, was '
absurdity that should be guarded against; anji fjbr
that reason he should vote for the. resolution. /
Mr. HALE observed, that as gentlemen on every
side of the House seemed disposed to giveNfew
Hampshire a kick, he felt himself called on to give
his views on the subject. In the few remajks he
made the other day, he professed an entire ignorance
of parliamentary rules and proceedings, but' Ob-
served, at the same time, that to his unsophisticated
mind it appeared that common sense diet&tetl
that the House should have the power of saying
what should and -what should not goon itsjournalsv
On this question tie Constitution had been jappe&feil
to by different g< itlemen, who had spoken in the
opposition, and he would say to them that he regard-
ed that sacred instrument as much as any gentleman
on the floor; and it was because he thus reverericei
it, and did not look upon it as a plastic instrumenfctff
be shaped to suit every m&n's purpose, that he
should vote for this resolution. The question was,
that this House should keep a journal; not ohe-
fifth of it, but the whole House. The Constitdtioti
required that, upon the demand of one-fifth-- of the,
members present, the yeas &nd nays should be called
and entered upon the journal. Then let them fmve
it.; but he appealed to the good sense of the" HB&sfe-
if the recording of the yeas and nays on questions
submitted, involved also the obligation of spreading
on the journal any paper, no matter how foreigpttp.
the proceedings of the House, that members niajf,
wish to place there. He remembered that since he-
came here, a proposition was made by a gentlematii
from Pennsylvania to have a certain number of cop-
ies of the message of the President of the United
States printed in the Diiltch language.* Now, a6~
cording to the doctrines of gentlemen, if theMeasfsaid
nays had been called on this proposition) the Clerk
of the House must have gone to work and written
out the message in Dutch. So, also, a motion-was1
made to print 10,000 copies of the President's latest
sage, and his friend from Alabama, [Mr. BelSer,,! -
who seemed to regard it with peculiar favor, moved,
to amend it by printing 20,000. Then, according- to
this construction of the constitutional obligation,
the whole 20,000 must have been written-out', If the
yeas and nays had been called. He was astonished
that gentlemen did not see the absurdity of the doc-
trines they were attempting to carry out. Why,
the Clerk could not write out a thousandth part'of
the matter that a minority would thrust in if this
principle were sanctioned. He would not say that
it was now the intention of the minority to retard
the business of the House; but he put it to the good'
sense of members to. consider the obstacles that
might be thrown in the way of the business of the
countiy, if this principle, contended for by the gen-
tleman from New York, was suffered to prevail.
In conclusion, Mr. H. contended for the adoption of
the resolution, and said that it was because he be-
lieved that it contained some practical good sense
for practical business men, that he would vote for it.
On motion by Mr. WELLER,
Tjie House adjourned.
IN SENATE.
Titesday, December 12, 1843.
THE DEATH OF SENATOR LINN. -
The journal having been read, Mr. BENTON
rose and said:
Mr. President: I rise to make to the Senate the
formal communication of an event which has oc-
curred during the recess, and has been heard by all
with the deepest regret. My colleague and friend,
the late Senator Linn, departed this life on Tues-
day, the 3d day of October last, at the early age of
forty-eight years, and without the warnings or the
sufferings which usually precede our departure from
this world. He laid him down to sleep, and awoke no
more. It was to him the sleep of death! and the only-
drop of consolation in this sudden and calamitous
visitation was, that, it took place in his own house,
and that his unconscious remains were immediately
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/51/?rotate=90: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.