The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 9
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
scribed the mode to be pursued, and under that rule
the bill could not now be introduced; but leave
might now be asked and-granted, and the bill could
be introduced by the gentleman from Ohio when res-
olutions were called for from the several States.
Mr. DUNCAN moved that the 114th rule be
suspended for the purpose of permitting him to in-
troduce the bill at this time.
Mr. WINTHROP called the attention of the
Speaker to the precise phraseology of the rule, by
which it would be seen that the motion must be
made and the bill introduced, if leave was granted,
when resolutions were called for. Hence he in-
ferred that the motion for leave could not now be
Mr. "WEIfLER remarked that the motion to sus-
pend the rule was now in order.
Mr. DUNCAN called for the yeas and nays on
hie motion to suspend; and they were ordered.
The Clerk, at the request of several members,
read the title of the bill as follows:
"A bill to establish a uniform time for holding the elec-
tion of electors of President and. Vice President in all the
States of the Union."
The SPEAKER put the question on the motion
to suspend the rules, and it was carried unanimous-
ly—179 voting in the affirmative, and none in the
negative, as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Arrington, Ashe, At-
kinson, Baily, Baker, Barringer, Barnard, Benton, Bidlack,
Edward J. Black, James Black, James A. Black, Blackwell,
Bower, Bowlin, Boyd, Brmkerhoff, William J.Brown, Jere-
miah Brown, Buflington, Burke, Burt, Caldwell, Carpenter,
Jeremiah E. Cary, Carroll, Causin, Augustus A. Chapman,
Chilton, Ciingman, Clinton, Cobb, Collamer, Cranston,
Dana, Daniel, Darragh, Garrett Davis, John W. Davis, Dean,
Deberry, Dellet, Dickey, Dillingham, Douglass, Dromgoole,
Duncan, Dunlap, Ellis, Elmer, Farlee, Ficklin, Fish, Flor-
ence, Foot, French, Fuller, Giddings, Goggin, Byram Green,
Grirmell, Grider, Hale, Hannibal Hamlin, Edward S. Ham-
lin, Hammett, Haralson, Hardin, Harper, Henley, Herrick,
Hoge, Hopkins, Houston, Hubard, Hubbell, Hughes, Hun-
gertord, James B. Hunt, Charles J. Ingersoll, Joseph R. In-
gersoll, Irvin, Jameson, Jenks, Cave Johnson, Perley B.
Johnson, Andrew Johnson, George W. Jones, Andrew Ken-
nedy, Preston King, Daniel P. King, Kirkpatrick, Lahranche,
Leonard, Lucas, Lumpkin, McCauslen, McClelland, Mc-
Cleraand, McConnell, McDowell, Mcllvaine, McKay .Marsh,
Mathews, Edward J. Moms, Joseph Morris, Freeman H.
Morse, Isaac E. Morse, Moseley, Nes, Newton, Norris,
Owen, Parmenter, Patterson, Pettit, Peyton, Pteenix, Pol-
vlock, Elislia R. Potter, Piatt, Preston, Purdy, Ramsey, Rath-
bun, David S. Reid, Reding, Relfe, Ritter, Robinson, Rock-
well, Rodney, Rogers, Russell, St. John, Sample, Saunders,
Sohenck, Severance, Thomas H. Seyjnour, David L.Sey-
mour, Simpson, Slidell, Albert Smith, John T. Smith, Thos.
Smith, Caleb B. Smith, Robert Smith, Steenred, Stephens,
Stetson, Andrew Stewart, John Stewart, James W. Stone,
Alired P. Stone, Taylor, Thomasson, Thompson, Tibbatts,
Tilden, Tyler, Vance, Vinton, Weller, Wentworth, 'With-
ered, Wheaton, John White, Benjamin White, Williams,
Wmthrop, Woodward, William Wright, Joseph A. Wright,
Yancey, and Yost—179.
So the rule being suspended—
Mr. DUNCAN asked and obtained leave, and in-
troduced a bill to establish a uniform time for hold-
ing the elections for electors of President and Vice
President of the United Slates in all the States of the
[A messsage was received from the Senate, by
Mr. Dickins, their Secretary, stating that that body
had concurred in the joint resolution of the House
for the appointment of two chaplains of different
denominations to serve during thesession, and had
appointed the Rev. Septimus Tuston on their part.]
Mr. DROMGOOLE called for the reading of the
bill; and it was read accordingly.
Mr. DUNCAN said it would be remembered by
most of the members,"that this was"the same bill
thaf'paSsed the House at the last session; and'having
already been referred to the Committee of Elections,
there was no necessity for any further reference
now. If it was desired by any member to refer it
to the Committee of the Whole, he would not ob-
ject; though even that reference were not necessary,
as the bill had been already considered by one of
the standing committees, and had passed the House
by an overwhelming majority.
Mr. ELMER observed that the gentleman from
Ohio was entirely mistaken in supposing that this
bill was the same as that passed by the House at
the last ^session; for, although it was the same in
substance, it differed essentially in its details. It
was an important subject, requiring the most mature
consideration, and should therefore be referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, which was the ap-
propriate cottimittee for considering subjects of this
nature. The gentleman had overlooked the consti-
tution in/raming this bill, and supposed that it was
necessary for the States- to elect electors by
the people; whereas the constitution provi-
ded that the States should choose electors.
In one of the States the electors were not elected by
the people, but chosen by the legislature. The
principle of the bill was correct, and entirely met
his approbation; but it required considerable amend-
ment in its details, and he hoped, therefore, that it
would be referred to the standing committee he had
Mr. DROMGOOLE observed that it was certain-
ly desinable that a bill of this kind should be passed
into a law, and that the elections for President and
Vice President, in all the States, should be held on
the same day. It might, perhaps, be necessary to
make this bill more perfect in its details before pass-
ing it; and to accomplish that end, the best way, in
his opinion, would be to print it, and refer it to the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
By taking this course, the bill would be in the hands
of every member, and every one would have an op-
portunity of suggesting such amendments and im-
provements as seemed to him necessary. The de-
tails of the bill could be as readily perfected in the
Committee of the Whole as by one of the standing
Mr. D. concluded by moving to print the bill, and
refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the State
of the Union.
Mr. BARNARD would much prefer a reference
to one of the standing committees, because he
thought that the various amendments and correc-
tions that were required by the bill could be better
attended to by the Committee on the Judiciary,
(which appropriately had such subjects in charge,)
than the Committee of the Whole.
He submitted to the Chair whether it would be
now in order to move to refer the bill to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER said that the motion of reference
to the Committee of the Whole would take prece-
Mr. BARNARD observed that neither the mover
of the bill nor any one else could imagine that there
was any desire on his part, or that of any gentle-
man, to throw any obstacles in the way of the pas-
sage of this bill. He disclaimed any such desire on
his part. All he desired was, that the usual course
in relation to bills should riot now be departed from.
He believed it was a rare occurrence that bills intro-
duced on leave should go at once into Committee ef
the Whole, without a previous reference to a stand-
ing committee. The universal practice had been
the other way. He desired to see the bill passed
after it should have undergone the necessary correc-
tions; and as he saw no other way of reaching the
object he had in view, he should move to lay the
bill on the table until the standing committees were
appointed, when he would take the first opportunity
to move its reference to. the Committee on the Ju-
diciary. Mr. B. concluded by moving to lay the
bill on the table.
Mr. DUNCAN called for the yeas and nays on
Mr. DROMGOOLE raised the~question of order,
whether, pending his motion to refer the bill to the
Committee of the Whole, the gentleman could move
to lay it on the table. The gentleman could, in his
opinion, move to lay his motion of reference on the
table, and that would carry the bill with it; but if
he laid the bill on the table, what became of that
The SPEAKER decided that the motion of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Barnard] was m
Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL suggested that the House
should adjourn over till Monday, by whieh time
the standing committees would be appointed. This,
he believed, was the usual course at this period of
The SPEAKER replied that it was not competent
for the House to adjourn over'for more than three
. Mr. DUNCAN wished to ask a question before
the vote was taken. If this bill was laid on the table,
would it not, he asked, require a vote of two-thirds
to take it up again.
The SPEAKER replied that it would.
Mr. BARNARD said, that as he felt no disposi-
tion to put himself in an attitude of hostility to the
bill, he would withdraw his motion to lay it on the
Mr. ELMER moved to postpone the further con-
sideration of the bill till Monday next. He had no
objection to the principle contained in it, but having
examined into the subject at the last session, he was
satisfied that this bill required the scrutiny of one of
the standing committees before it could be in a sjhape
to receive the action of the House.
Mr. DUNCAN observed that the motion of the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Dromgoole] to refer
the bill to the Committee of thQ.WhoIe on the state
of the Union would leave it under the control of the
House, and the printing of it would enable every
member to make himself acquainted with its details,
and suggest such amendments as might seem to him
necessary.' What more could the gentleman want' •
He well remembered that this bill was referred to
the Committee of Elections at the last session, and
that it was one month before he could get them to
report on it. They had then a session of eight
months before them, and yet the bill was acted on
and passed at so late a period of the session, that
when it was sent to the Senate—the want of time to
act on it was given as one of the apologies for lay-
ing it on the'table. Now that they had a session
of but three months before them, the same delays were
proposed; and he should consequently be obliged to
resist them, as he was satisfied that such delays
would result in the loss of the bill. Every member
was well acquainted with the subject. He repeated
that it was the same bill in substance that passed the
House at the last session, though not exactly in
the same words, and there Was nonnecessity for any
reference at all.
Mr. HAMLIN said he had no objection to th«
postponement moved by the gentleman from New
Jersey, provided the bill could be made the special
order for the day named by him. He therefore
moved to amend the gentleman's motion, by adding,
"and that the bill be made the special order for that
Mr. ELMER accepted the amendment as a modi-
fication of his motion.
Mr. HAMLIN continued. He believed that if
there was one single proposition coming before the
House that deserved the serious consideration of
every member, it was the bill before them. It was
a subject, too, on which he hoped to see union of
action, as well as a speedy disposition of it. His
friend from Ohio [Mr. Duncan] was mistaken in
saying that this was any thing like the same bill that
passed the House at the last session. . It was the
same thing in substance, it was true, but it was es-
sentially different in its details. For his part, he was
willing to have the reference made to the Committee
of the Whole, where he believed the bill could be as
readily perfected as in one of the standing commit-
ties; but some amendments were, in his opinion, ab-
solutely necessary. If gentlemen would consent to
postpone the bill till Monday, and make it the
special order of the day for that day, they would
find that it would, instead of delaying the bill, hasten
its progress through the House. His object was
not to delay it, but to hasten its passage.
Mr. DUNCAN asked, if the motion to postpone
prevailed, in what condition the bill would then be.
That would not refer it to the Committee of the
Whole, and the motion did not include the printing.
Mr. HAMLIN amended his motion by including
the printing; which was also accepted as a modifica-
tion by Mr. Elmlr.
Mr. BARRINGER trusted that the motion would
not prevail. He hoped the bill would take the usual
course, and be referied to the Committee of the
Whole, and printed. If there should be any differ-
ence of opinion in regard to the details of the bill,
the Committee of the Whole was the appropriate
place to reconcile such differences of opinion.
Should the bill be postponed till Monday next, and
made the special order for that day, he presumed
that some gentleman would, even after that, desire
a reference to one of the standing committees.
Mr. DUNCAN observed that he saw the diffi-
culty under which the gentleman from Maine, [Mr.
Hamlin,] as well as the gentleman from New,Jer-
sey, [Mrr Elmer,] was laboring. The bill -of the
last session provided for the time of holding the
congressional elections, as well as of President and
Vice President; while this bill refers to the eleetiona
of President and Vice President only. As to any
confliction with the constitution or the laws of the
States, the gentleman was mistaken; for the bill was
liable to no such objections. It provided that the
notices and returns of the elections should be rege-
lated by the laws of the States, as well as providing
for the day of holding the elections. He must-eb-
ject to any delay or reference, as that would, in his
opinion,-endanger the passage of the bill at this
session. With regard.to any differences of opinion
Here’s what’s next.
This document 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 Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/25/: accessed August 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.