The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 41
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
r t -
PUBLISHED BY BLAIR AND RIVES, AT ONE DOLLAR PER SESSION, IN ADVANCE.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1843.
[Continued from No. 1.]
finished business of yesterday, (Mr. Barnard's res-
The SPEAKER remarked that it would not.
Mr. WISE presumed the thing could be settled in
a more direct manner than by a motion to correct
the journal. He rose to a point of order—that it was
not according to the last precedents of the House
during the last Congress, to sncorporate the paper
rejected, with a resolution stating the rejection.
Some conversation ensued between Mr. WISE,
Mr. WHITE, and the SPEAKER, in relation to Mr.
Wise's point of order.
Mr. WHITE said the point of order of the gen-
tleman from Virginia had not been correctly made,
and it was now too late to reach the question at
Mr. WISE said the gentleman from Kentucky
would be very correct in his remarks, but for one
irresistible fact—and that was, that they had not yet
put on the strait-jacket of the rules of the last ses-
sion of Congress; they stood, as yet, on the parlia-
mentary law, by which he insisted he was enabled
to rise in his place and correct error when error ex-
isted. Here, then, a clerical error had been com-
mitted—yea, more than a clerical error, for it was
a question of privilege, and the common law of
parliament, which was the law of common sense,
would forbid that to be done indirectly, which the
House refused to do directly. The House had not
decided that the paper should go on the journal, and
non constat would not so decide. He (Mr. W.)
saw what the gentleman from New York was at,
when he introduced the paper; and hence the ques-
tion he asked, whether it would go on the journal.
Mr. RAYNER called the gentleman from Vir-
tinia to order, on the ground that the point raised
y the gentleman was involved in the question
before the House. The gentleman from Virginia
insisted that the paper should not have gone on
the journal. A motion to that effect was pending.
A motion was next made to lay the original motion
on the table, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Wise] proposed to discuss the question under the
motion to fay it on the table. First, then, the mo-
tion to lay on the table was not debatable; and
next, the point raised was involved in the pending
question before the House.
Mr. WISE replied, that if the gentleman from
North Carolina had studied the rules of order, he
would have known that points of order were not
cumulative, and could not be piled on each other.
Some conversation ensued on this point.
Mr. WISE contended that no motion to lay on
the table could be pending then.
Juries of "Question, question."]
The SPEAKER put the question on laying on
the table, and it was negatived—the vote being 64
in the affirmative, and 64 in the negative—the
Speaker's casting vote deciding.
Mr. WISE then contended that the paper of the
gentleman from New York ought never to have
fone on the journal; and, in support of his position,
e quoted from the journal of the last Congress sev-
eral cases as precedents.
Mr. BARNARD contended that the cases quoted
were not strictly applicable, even if they were cor-
The discussion on this point was continued some
lime by Mr. WISE and Mr. BARNAKD.
Mr. HOLMES contended that the protest intro-
duced by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Barnard] must necessarily go on the journal; and
that it was out of the power of the House to put it
off. It was admitted that the resolution offered em- .
bodied the protest; in other words, the protest was
the resolution. Well, the resolution was received
by the House: nobody could doubt that; and if it
was received by the House, it necessarily went on
the journal of the House—for the parts must go with
Mr. WHITE insisted that the cases quoted by
the gentleman from Virginia were not analogous;
he also justified the Speaker in placing the protest
on the journal as the record of business which was
unfinished and pending. The cases of the gentle-
man from Virginia might have had some weight
yesterday; but as the House adjourned, leaving the
question pending, it was necessary that the journal
should contain the record of that business.
Mr. WISE explained.
Mr. WHITE observed that he would remind
the gentleman from Virginia that, in the case he
referred to, the Chair arrested the motion at the
very threshold, and refused to receive it, on the
ground that the House had refused to receive the
paper it referred to. What was the case here? In
the protest case, the Speaker did not refuse to re-
ceive the resolution of the gentleman from New Y ork,
[Mr. Barnard;] and not only did the Speaker
receive it, hut the House received it, and entertained
a debate on it. Where, then, wets the analogy be-
tween the two cases? If the Speaker had refused
to receive the resolution, there would then have
been some analogy; but that not being done, but
being received in the exercise of his sound judg-
ment, and no point of order being then raised, the
time had gone by for raising it, and there was no
means of getting the subject out of the journal.
The matter had become part and parcel of the
proceedings of the House, and must be so recorded.
He would call the attention of the gentleman from
Virginia to one fact, connected with the illustrious
case he had cited, that could not have escaped his
memory. Every motion made by that gentleman
was refused by the Chair, and every proposition in
opposition to him was entertained. Why did not
that fact appear on the journal? It was not in
consequence of any arbitrary disposition in the
Chair that his decision was made; but the gen-
tleman would recollect that, in the proceedings he
had just read, it was stated that the Chair informed
him that he would, at a proper time, refer him to
his authority for the decision he had given. When
the gentleman, some time afterwards, came to his
table, he called his attention to the authority he re-
ferred to—which was the vote of the President of
the United States himself, when a member of the
Senate, in a case precisely analogous, against re-
ceiving the protest of the illustrious hero of New
Orleans. When he showed to the gentleman from
Virginia this authority, he admitted the decision of
the Chair to be correct, and asked if he had a right
to withdraw his motion. Soon after, he withdrew
Mr. WISE observed that, so far as the gentle-
man from Kentucky had stated the facfe m relation
to his showing him the vote of President Tyler, he
was correct; but his recollection failed him as to his
gfr. W.'s) reasons for withdrawing his motion,
e never understood the rules of the Senate as he
understood those of the House; but he knew one
thing—and that was, that that precedentnever would
govern him. He repudiated the vote of Mr. Tyler
on that occasion, as he would that of anybody else,
in refusing to rcceive a protest of a President of the
United States. The reason why he withdrew his
motion was this. He had appealed from CCesar to
Caesar's Senate, and he knew that his appeal would
not be sustained. His object had failed in getting
the protest recorded on the journal, and he with-
drew his motion. That was after the point of or-
der had been decided against him. And what lie
complained of was, that the journal was not made
to show that his motion was decided to be out of
order. There was no notice taken of it whatever,
though it was debated for some time; and, notwith-
standing what his friend from South Carolina had
said, it was debated to the ex'er.i of naif a column,
as the paper he had just read from showed, though
here was nothing on the journal to show it.
Mr. WHITE observed that he had no intention
of doing any injustice to the gentleman. He had
only stated the facts, from which he drew his own
inferences. He had no doubt but the reasons now
given by the gentleman for withdrawing his
motion were the true ones. While up, he would
refer to another precedent, and the latest one, which
was stronger than any that had been cited. It was
in the recollection of many members there, that
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, then in view
of him, asked leave to lay a paper before the
House, accompanied by a long preamble and bill,
and moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of
receiving it. The House, by a solemn vote, refused
to suspend the rules by a large majority. Upon the
day following, though that paper was not even read
and received, he moved to amend the journal by in-
serting that he had offered- a certain paper* amount-
ing to a long preamble and entire bill; and whatjyal
the action of the House upon, it ? The Chir enter-
tained the motion; it was acted upon; and what folr
lowed? The whole preamble and bill went-updo
the journal, and the gentleman himself, who was be*
fore him, would bear him out in the correctness ,of
this statement. The record itself would show it.
In conclusion, Mr. W. expressed the opinion, that
parliamentary law, and the usage of the House",
made it obligatory on the Speaker to receive the res-
olution of yesterday; and it thus being a part of the
proceedings of the House, it must, as a matter of
course, go upon the journal.
Mr. CAVE JOHNSON here moved to postpone
the whole subject till to-morrow, in order to go into
the election of the officers of the House.
Mr. WISE suggested to the gentleman that, by
indirection the other day, the House omitted to pass
upon the resolution for adopting rules for their- pro-
ceedings; and as that matter would take but a few
moments, he proposed that it should then be de-
Mr. C. JOHNSON said he was aware of it; and
therefore hoped that his motion to postpone would
The question was then taken on Mr.'JomisoN's
motion of postponement, and it was carried—ayes
89, noes 56.
Mr. C. JOHNSON then moved that the House
proceed to the election of a Clerk.
Mr. DROMGOOLE suggested to his friend from
Tennessee, that it would take but a few" moments to
dispose of the resolution relating to the rules; and
it would save them trouble in conducting the elec-
The SPEAKER observed that the resolution re-
ferred to went over, in consequence of a motion bei g
made to amend it; and pending that motion, the
House adjourned. ■ •
Mr. CAVE JOHNSON then moved that the
House proceed to the election of a Clerk, viva voce;
which motion was carried; whereupon,
Mr. DAVIS, of Indiana, nominated Caleb 'J.
McNulty, of Ohio; and
Mr. VANCE, of Ohio, nominated Matthew St.
Clair Clarke, of Washington city.
The SPEAKER named Messrs. Davis, of In-
dia, Vance, of Ohio, and Johnson, of Tennessee,
tellers; and the roll having been called over,
The tellers reported that the whole number of
votes given was 190; of which 96 were necessary
to a choice; that Mr. McNulty had received 134
votes, and Mr. Clarke had received 66 votes.
The SPEAKER then announced that Mr. McNul-
ty was duly elected Clerk of the House; and he ap-
peared, was qualified, and took his seat at the
The following is the vote, as given for Clerk:
For Caleb J. McNulty.
Mescrs Arrington, Atkinson, Samuel Beardslev, Benton
Birilack, James Black, James A. Black, Blaekwell. Bossier,
Bow er, B.r,viin. Boyd, Jacob BrinkerhofT, Brodhead, Aaron
V. Brown, William J. Brown, burke, Burt, Caldwell, Camp-
bell Jeremiah E. Cary, ratlin, Augustus A. Chapman, Clin-
ton, Lulib, Cullom, Dana. Daniel, Richard D. Davis, John W.
Davis, Dawson, Dean, Biliingham, Douglass, Dromgoole,
Duncan, Dunlap. Ellis, Farlee, Fioklm, Foster, French, Gil-
mer, Hale. Hamlin, Haralson, Hays, Henley, Herrick,
Holmes, Hoge, Hopkins. Houston, Hul arc!, Hubbell, Hughes,
Hungeribrd James B Hunt. Charles J. Ingersoli, Jameson,
cave Johnson, Andrew Johnson, John W.Jones, George
\y. Jones, Kennedy, Preston King, Kirkpatrick, Labranche,
Leonard, Lewis, 'Lucas, Lumpkin, McClellan. McCler-
nan-l, McConnell, McDowell, .McKay, Mathews, Moore,
Murphv, Morris, Owen, Parmenter, Payne, Pettit, Rmery
D, Potter, Pratt, Purdv, Rathbun, Almon H. Bead, David S.
Reid, Reding, Relfe,"Ritter, Robinson, Russell, St John,
Saunders, Thomas H Seymour, David L. Seymour, Simons,
Simpson, Slidell, John T. Smith, Thomas Smith, Robert
Smith, Steenrod, Stetson, John Stewart, Stiles, Stone,
stronf Sykes, Taylor, Thompson. Tibbatts, Wcller, Went-
wortt? Wheaton, Williams. Wilkins, Woodward, Joseph A.
Wright, and Yost—321,
for Maitiieic St. Cloii Clarke.
Messrs. John Q. Adams, Ashe, Barringer, Barnard, Millon
Brown, Jeremiah Brown. Bulfiugton, Carroll, Chappell,
Chilton, Clingman, Col iarr r. Cranston, Cross, Garrett
Davis, Deberry, Dellet, Dickey, Dickinson, Fish, Florence,
Foot, Friok. Gidaings, "Willis Green, Grinneil, Grider,
Hardin, Harper, Hudson. Washington Hunt, Joseph R.
Ingersoli, Irvin, Jenks, Perley B. Johnson, Daniel P. Kin^,
Here’s what’s next.
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.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/41/: accessed October 19, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.