Page images
PDF
EPUB

their fellow-members in the House, they will be heard with more distinctness than by turning their faces toward the Chair. The seat of the Chairman has been advanced beyond where it was yesterday, and I think now there will be no difficulty in hearing the Chair during the whole day. If, however, it should be found that it requires a sounding-board at the rear of the Chair, that will be constructed after it shall be ascertained that the present arrangements are insufficient.

STANDING COMMITTEES.

The PRESIDENT. I have worked on the committees, and have not been able to quite finish them. I have only been able to take the list of Deputies as printed. If in any delegation there are gentlemen mentioned on the committees who will not be here in the early part of the session, or not at all, the delegation will be so good as to inform the Chair, and let a change be made in the committee. The Secretary read the list.

The PRESIDENT. There are two committees not yet filled. I worked up to the last hour with the assistance of a friend, and this is all that I could accomplish. There are some one or two mistakes I see in this list, by which a few persons are on two committees. I will try and correct that with the Secretary.

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. Imove that the Secretary be instructed to have 500 copies of the list of members and standing committees of this body printed for the use of the members. It is unnecessary to discuss this motion. It is the usual course adopted for the convenience of members.

The PRESIDENT. That is a very proper thing, and I will receive the motion, unless there be petitions and memorials to be offered to the House. If there are no petitions or memorials, we pass to motions and resolutions.

Rev. Dr. CHASE, of Illinois. I have a memorial or paper in the nature of a memorial. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will receive it. BISHOPS-ELECT.

The Rev. Dr. CHASE, of Illinois, presented the testimonials of the Rev. George F. Seymour, D.D., as Bishop-elect of the Diocese of Illinois, which were referred to the Committee on the Consecration of Bishops.

The Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin, presented the testimonials of the Rev. Dr. Edward R. Welles, D.D., as Bishop-elect of the Diocese of Wisconsin, which were referred to the Committee on the Consecration of Bishops.

MEMORIALS.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin, presented a memorial adopted at a Council of the Diocese of Wisconsin, asking the General Convention to take measures toward securing for use in divine worship an English Version of the Nicene Creed, as conformable as may be to the original text, which was read and referred to the Committee on the PrayerBook.

The Rev. Mr. EASTON, of California, presented a memorial of the Diocese of California for the establishment of two missionary jurisdictions in that diocese; which the Secretary proceeded to read, but was interrupted by--

The Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I rise to a point of order. Is it necessary that all memorials be read? It seems to me we are establishing a precedent if we go on reading them. We may have memorials presented which it would not be desirable to have read.

The PRESIDENT. The reading will be a matter of course, if those who offer memorials desire to

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

have them read, unless the House rules to the contrary.

The Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I withdraw my motion.

The PRESIDENT. The reading will proceed. The Secretary resumed the reading of the memorial, and having proceeded for some time was interrupted by--

Mr. CUYLER, of Western New York. I hope the reading will be dispensed with, and the memorial referred to the proper committee, and printed in the Journal, where it will meet the notice of the House. I suggest that memorials of this kind be referred by the Chair to the appropriate committee without debate.

The PRESIDENT. That cannot be done without an order of the House.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Committee on Canons is the proper committee to which it should be referred.

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to refer the memorial to the Committee on Canons.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wish to say a word about the reading of this memorial. I desire that the Convention should not refer these memorials to the Committee without their being read. They go to that Committee as memorials and never come before this Convention again. As memorials they are reported upon, and you take the judgment of the Committee. But this case of California and one or two others are cases peculiar. They come here for a special law and special action which has never been had heretofore. Their reasons rest upon the grounds stated in the memorial, and they are peculiar. I hold in my hand a memorial which I desire this House to hear, exactly in accord with the one now being heard. Therefore, I hope the reading of the memorial of California will be finished, and that then the memorial of Texas will be read, and that any other memorials that come here asking special action upon special grounds will be heard by the House. You are the ultimate body to act, and you should know our reasons, and not take them second-hand from a committee.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. The memorial must be read if any member demands it.

The PRESIDENT, pro tempore. (Rev. Dr. Williams, of Georgia, in the chair.) That is the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. Would it not accomplish the purpose infinitely better to have the memorial referred and printed? I assure the Deputy from Texas that gentlemen hear with so much difficulty in different parts of the House that we do not catch what is desired in reading a memorial. We cannot understand it sufficiently to base any intelligent action upon it. It seems to me we should save a vast deal of time by referring all these memorials to the appropriate committees, and, if they be of sufficient importance, letting them be printed and placed in our hands in printed form. Not one-tenth of the members of this House know anything intelligently about the memorial from California that has been partly read. I move, therefore, a general resolution that all memorials be received, read by their titles, and referred to the appropriate committees, and, where they are deemed of sufficient importance to justify it, printed and distributed through the House.

The Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I should be glad to expedite business, but I would like that the matters contained in these memorials should come to the knowledge of this House. I am very fearful that they never will be printed, and if printed never read as they should be.

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. That is the very point I am anxious about, to get to our knowledge the contents of these memorials. I have had no intelligent

knowledge of the California memorial so far as it has been read, and I think that is true of everybody around me.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Chair will rule that it must be read.

Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. It can very readily come to the knowledge of the House after the report of the committee.

The Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I call the gentleman to order. Has not the President decided the point?

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I rise to a question of order. I believe we have at twelve o'clock a special order, which takes precedence of everything.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. It does.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I ask that the rule be enforced, and that we proceed to the consideration of the special order, the hour of twelve having now arrived.

Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I move that the special order be suspended for a moment for the purpose of passing certain resolutions of courtesy.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on suspending the rules to permit the introduction of resolutions of courtesy.

The motion was agreed to.

BISHOP OF LICHFIELD AND OTHER VISITORS.

Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I offer the following resolutions:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That a joint committee, consisting of four on the part of this House, be appointed to wait upon the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, and convey to him the expression of their very great satisfaction at his presence again in our midst, and of their deep obligation for his able and most admirable sermon preached at the opening of this General Convention.

"Resolved, That the Lord Bishop be requested to furnish a copy of the same for publication by the Convention."

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, I cannot vote for that first resolution, inasmuch as I did not hear the sermon, and I believe a great many persons in this church did not hear it. I can vote for a resolution requesting a copy of the sermon, without any qualification, to be published; but now I am called upon to vote that it was an admirable sermon. Not having heard it, I cannot pronounce upon it; nor do I think this House is required to do that. I think the compliment should be in asking for the sermon to be published. We pronounce no opinion on our own Bishops when they preach sermons to us; but we merely order their sermons to be published. All we need do in this case is to ask for a copy of this sermon to be published; but it is not consistent to express an opinion on it when I have not heard it, and many of you have not heard it. If you strike out all that is matter of opinion, I will go for the resolutions with all my heart; but I cannot vote to admire anything that I do not understand and have not heard.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolutions of the Deputy from Central Pennsylvania. The resolutions were agreed to; and Rev. Dr. Breck, of Central Pennsylvania; Rev. Dr. Vinton, of Massachusetts; Mr. Waite, of Ohio; and Mr. Race, of Louisiana, were appointed the committee.

Rev. Dr. SHELTON, of Western New York. The resolutions just adopted left out something, which I beg leave to add by offering this:

66

Resolved, That this House expresses its great gratification at the attendance of the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, the Metropolitan of Canada, the Lord Bishop of Quebec, the Lord

[ocr errors]

Bishop of Kingston, and of the Venerable the Archdeacon of Niagara, Dr. Fuller, the Venerable Archdeacon Balch of Huron, the Rev. Dr. Geddes of Ontario, the Rev. Dr. Ketchum, Honorary Canon of Fredericton, the Rev. Edward J. Edwards, Vicar of Trentham, England, and other English and Colonial clergy present; and that a committee be appointed to invite the Bishops and the other clergy named to attend the sessions of this body, and that they also arrange the time and manner of their first reception by this House.”

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move to amend' that resolution by adding, "and any priests or other clergymen of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church.'

The PRESIDENT. The resolution had better be read by the Secretary, so that it may be seen whether the amendment is appropriate.

The resolution was read.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The amendment is simply that, after the general invitation to the bishops and clergy of our own Communion, the Anglican Communion, we add then "and any priests or other clergy of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church." That prevents any separate resolution to that end. But the Secretary thinks it would be better to let this drop for a moment and bring it in afterwards.

The PRESIDENT. I think so myself.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I withdraw the amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolution of the Deputy from Western New York.

The resolution was agreed to, and the President appointed Rev. Dr. Shelton, of Western New York; Rev. Dr. Cady, of New York; Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, of Virginia, and Mr. Churchill, of Kentucky, as the committee.

ADMISSIONS TO THE FLOOR.

The Rev. Dr. BERKLEY, of Missouri. Mr. President, there is another complimentary resolution that we are accustomed to pass, which will come very properly in the present stage of the proceedings, if it is admissible:

Resolved, That clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, of the churches of England and Ireland, and the British Colonial Church, and of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, who may be sojourning in this city, members of the Board of Missions of the Protestant Episcopal Church, trustees, professors, and students of the General Theological Seminary; other students of theology who may be candidates for Holy Orders in this Church, former members of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and members of the Vestry of Trinity Church, and also the rector and assistant ministers of the same, be admitted to the sittings of this house."

The resolution was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move now the following resolution :

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That any priests or other clergy of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church be invited to take seats in this Convention."

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. That is a very important matter, and we want to hear something about it.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. It is merely a resolution of courtesy. There is a great body of Christian people, constituting one of the three great bodies of the Holy Catholic Church throughout the world, which to-day are not in visible communion, although they are in the unity of the Spirit, and hope for a more clearly defined bond of peace. Hitherto it has only been possible for these various bodies, or at least two of them-that is to say, the Anglican Church and the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church-to meet each other in courtesy. Now,

arrangements have been made through the Archbishop of Canterbury by which the dead of our Communion from England or this country can be buried by the Orthodox clergy, and other offices of courtesy and kindness can be performed. The Archbishop of Syra, representing the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church, lately visited the Church of England, and was there received with the greatest honor. Prelates of our own Church and clergy of lower degree have likewise been received by the Eastern clergy. There are, in this city, with the approbation of the Bishop of the Diocese, clergy of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Communion. It is believed, in fact it is known, that they are present now in this House, and, as a member of the Russo-Greek Committee, it was suggested to me that, in the general recognition of the clerical rank and character which these resolutions imply, these brethren should be likewise recognized. It touches not at all the doctrines of their Church; it touches not at all their attitude toward us; it simply recognizes that they are clergy of a Church toward which we hope that, in the providence of God, we may be drawn in love, without any sacrifice of our own principles.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I have no motion to make, but simply rise to suggest to the mover of this resolution whether it would not be well, out of courtesy, to add, "and any bishops or priests or clergy of the Roman Catholic Church!" [Laughter.]

The Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama.

Consider

ing that the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church is holding out her hands to us, and we have asked the clergy of that Communion to bury our dead, promising to bury theirs; and considering that this Church has appointed a committee to correspond with that Church, which committee, composed of Bishops, has fulfilled its duty; considering that for many Conventions past this Church has claimed it as one of her glories that she stands for the unity of Christ's Catholic Church so far as that can be without sacrificing our Protestant and Episcopal position; considering that this Church lies under the anathema of the Church of Rome, I decline to accept the amendment of the Deputy from Kentucky. ["Good.” "Good."]

The resolution was agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

[blocks in formation]

The order of the day was called for.

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is the subject of the rules of order. The Secretary will read the rules proposed for adoption.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I wish to offer an amendment.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. To facilitate business I propose that we take the rules in order and act first on the first one. Let the Secretary read the first rule.

The PRESIDENT. That course will be pursued. The Secretary read the first rule as follows: "1. The Morning Service of the Church shall be performed every day during the session of the Convention."

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move the adoption of that rule of order.

The motion was agreed to.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: "2. When the President takes the chair, no member shall continue standing, or shall afterwards stand up, except to address the Chair."

The rule was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: "3. When the President shall have taken the chair, the Roll of Members shall be called, and the Minutes of the preceding day read; but the same may be dispensed with by a majority of the House." The rule was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows:

"4. At the opening of the Session, the President shall appoint the following Standing Committees, to wit:

I. On the State of the Church, to consist of one member from each Diocese; and,

II.

III.

On the General Theological Seminary.
On the Domestic and Foreign Missionary So-
ciety.

IV. On the Admission of New Dioceses.
V. On the Consecration of Bishops.
VI. On Canons.

VII. On Expenses.

VIII. On Unfinished Business.
IX. On Elections.

X. On the Prayer-Book.

XI. On Christian Education; and,
XII. On Memorials of Deceased Members.
Each to consist of thirteen members."

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I move to amend by inserting before the words "On Canons" the words "On the Constitution."

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Would it not be better to say "On Amendments to the Constitution"?

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. Very well, I will put it in that form.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. No. 3 of the rules of order of the House of Bishops provides for a Committee on Amendments to the Constitution just before their Committee on Canons. I understand Judge Comstock to move that we have a similar committee, and that it be inserted before No. 6 of our Committees, that "On Canons."

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. So that the Sixth Committee will be "On Amendments to the Constitution."

The PRESIDENT. It is proposed that No. 6 of the enumeration of committees be "On Amendments to the Constitution"; of course, changing the subsequent numbers to the end. The question is on that amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move the adoption of the fourth rule as amended.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. I was going to call attention to another committee-the Committee on the Prayer-Book. I thought we were voting simply on the amendment to introduce the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. If the whole rule has not been adopted, I will ask to say a word or two upon the Committee on the PrayerBook.

The PRESIDENT. We have adopted the whole rule, but it can be reconsidered at the request of the gentleman with the consent of the House.

I cannot

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. say that I voted for it, because I thought I voted only for the amendment. But I will not press a motion to reconsider at the present time; I will take another opportunity to do so.

The Secretary read the next proposed rule, as follows:

"5. The Daily Order of Business shall be as follows:

I. Reading the Minutes.

II. Communications from the President.

III. Reports from Standing Committees, in the

following order:

1. On Elections.

2. On the Admission of New Dioceses.

[ocr errors]

3. On the Consecration of Bishops.

4. On Canons.

5. On the General Theological Seminary. 6. On the State of the Church.

7. On Expenses.

8. On the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.

9. On the Prayer-Book.

10. On Christian Education.

11. On Unfinished Business.

12. On Memorials of Deceased Members; and 13. Special Committees in the order of appointment.

IV. Petitions and Memorials.

V. Motions and Resolutions. VI. Business on the Calendar."

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. I move to make this rule correspond with the amendment to the fourth rule by inserting before "On Canons" the words "On Amendments to the Constitution," and to change the numbers to correspond.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that the fifth rule as amended be adopted.

The motion was agreed to.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: "6. The Secretary shall keep a Calendar of Business, on which reports from committees, resolutions which lie over, and other matters undisposed of, shall be placed, in the order in which they are presented."

The rule was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows:

"7. At 12 o'clock, unless there be an Order of the Day, or as soon thereafter as the Order of the Day shall be disposed of, the business on the Calendar shall be taken up and disposed of, in the order in which it stands thereon; and a vote of two-thirds of the members present shall be required to take up any matter out of its order on the Calendar." The rule was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: "8. The House shall proceed to the Order of the Day at 12 o'clock precisely, unless dispensed with by a vote of two-thirds of all the members present." The rule was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows:

"9. All resolutions shall be reduced to writing, presented to the Secretary, and by him read to the House; and no motion shall be considered before the House unless seconded."

[blocks in formation]

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: "11. When a question is under consideration, no motion shall be received, unless to lay it upon the table, to postpone it to a certain time, to postpone it indefinitely, to commit it, or to amend it; and motions for any of these purposes shall have precedence in the order herein named. If a motion to lay on the table an amendment be carried, the matter before the House shall be proceeded with as if no such amendment had been offered. The motions to lay upon the table and to adjourn shall be decided without debate. The motion to adjourn shall always be in order."

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I have a few amendments to offer to this section of rules of order. First. After the words in the second line, "to lay it upon the table," insert the words "previous question"; Secondly. Strike out the whole of the sentence beginning with the words "if a motion to lay

on the table," etc., so that the section as amended will read :

"When a question is under consideration no motion shall be received, unless to lay it upon the table, the previous question, to postpone it to a certain time, to postpone it indefinitely, to commit it, or to amend it; and motions for any of these purposes shall have precedence in the order herein named. Motions to lay upon the table and to adjourn shall be decided without debate. The motion to adjourn shall always be in order."

It will be perceived that I propose a striking out of the second sentence, and the insertion of the words "the previous question" in the first sentence. I am perfectly well aware that in this House heretofore the previous question, which has for its object the stoppage of debate and the bringing of the main question at once to a vote, has been regarded with disfavor; and why? For the simple reason, as I have understood it, that you did not desire to cut off debate; that, after a subject has been discussed until it is threadbare, no portion of this house shall say, "We order now the previous question, having heard sufficient debate upon the subject." Now, is there any consistency between that position and this rule of order as it stands before you? You will find in the rule of order, as it is proposed to adopt it, that not only you cut off debate, but you may cut it off before it has commenced, if you will. The previous question is never ordered until debate is exhausted; but here you propose to cut off debate in its incipiency. You provide that "the motions to lay upon the table and to adjourn shall be decided without debate." Therefore the very moment that a Deputy moves an amendment, however important that amendment, and before any discussion shall have been had, another Deputy may move, in his seat, to lay that amendment on the table, and the vote has to be taken without debate.

I say, therefore, there is no consistency between the position that you will never call the previous question (which is a great aid to legislation), and yet will retain a motion to lay upon the table to be decided without debate. You propose, in the sentence that I desire to strike out, not only to lay upon the table any amendment without debate, but that the fate of that amendment shall not interrupt the rest of the question before the House, which is unparliamentary, according to all precedents that I know anything about.

What is the office of a motion to lay on the table? It is when the House is not in a condition, from any cause whatever, to consider the question then pending; they desire to lay it over until a more convenient season, whether it be indefinitely or to a period fixed; not that you will never entertain it. The object of the motion to lay on the table is not to take the subject from before the House, but to postpone the consideration of that subject until a more convenient season. That is the law according to all parliamentary authorities. Now you propose to substitute that motion for another which all parliamentary authors introduce to get rid of a subject; that is, indefinite postponement. When you want to kill a question, to never consider it any more, to take it from before the House, the proper motion is indefinite postponement, not to lay on the table, because to lay it upon the table is to pass it over temporarily to be called up again; but an indefinite postponement reaches to the extent of killing the proposition, of taking it from before the House as if it never had been before the House.

In order to sustain these positions allow me to refer to a standard authority, Mr. Cushing's Manual, which, I believe, is now in use in all deliberative bodies. Mr. Cushing says, in Section 67:

"In order to suppress a question altogether, without coming to a direct vote upon it, in such a man

ner that it cannot be renewed, the proper motion is for indefinite postponement;"

Not to lay upon the table. -"that is, a postponement or adjournment of the question, without fixing any day for resuming it. The effect of this motion, if decided in the affirmative, is to quash the proposition entirely; as an indefinite adjournment is equivalent to a dissolution, or the continuance of a suit without day is a discontinuance of it. A negative decision has no effect whatever."

Thus you perceive that Mr. Cushing says the proper mode of taking a subject from before the House is by an indefinite postponement. Now let us see what he says on the subject of laying on the table, Sections 68, 69, and 71:

"If the Assembly is willing to entertain and consider a question, but not at the time when it is moved, the proper course is either to postpone the subject to another day, or to order it to lie on the table.

"When the members individually want more information than they possess at the time a question is moved, or desire further time for reflection and examination, the proper motion is to postpone the subject to such other day as will answer the views of the Assembly.

"If the Assembly has something else before it which claims its present attention, and is, therefore, desirous to postpone a particular proposition until that subject is disposed of, such postponement may be effected by means of a motion that the matter in question lie on the table. If this motion prevails, the subject so disposed of may be taken up at any time afterwards and considered when it may suit the convenience of the Assembly."

So, you perceive, that laying on the table is simply disposing of a matter temporarily, and it is liable to be called up at any future time when the Assembly desires to do so. He says in Section 171 : "This motion is usually resorted to when the Assembly has something else before it which claims its present attention, and, therefore, desires to lay aside a proposition for a short but indefinite time, reserving to itself the power to take it up when convenient. This motion takes precedence of and supersedes all the other subsidiary motions.

"

By "subsidiary motions," he means motions which have for their object to dispose of the main question, whether temporarily or permanently. It seems to me, then, Mr. President, that there is no valid objection to the first amendment proposed by me inserting the previous question. It simply gives to the House the right, when in its discretion it will exercise it, to bring a vote upon the main question, which main question will be the then pending amendment not already adopted. There can be no objection to this in principle, inasmuch as you propose now and have in the past rules of this House conferred the right to dispose of any amendment by a motion to lay it on the table without debate.

The second amendment which I propose is to strike out the provision that, where a motion to lay upon the table an amendment is carried, the House will proceed with the subject-matter under discussion the same as if that motion had not prevailed, taking with it the amendment. That is a bad rule for legislation. There is no object in that sort of procedure. If you desire to reject an amendment vote "nay," do not move to lay it on the table. It is disrespectful to start with, and it is bad legislation in any point of view. The object of laying on the table, you perceive, is simply to postpone the consideration of a matter to a future period, and, therefore, it is done without debate. But when you propose to lay on the table as a means of killing a matter, and to say that that shall be done without debate, it is not correct.

You take the idea, which is a correct idea, of deciding the motion to lay on the table without debate, because it is simply postponing the consideration of the question; but you incorporate it here so as to cut off debate upon that proposition now and for ever. That is not parliamentary; but that is what you propose to do. You have heretofore refused to allow the previous question upon the ground that you will not cut off debate, and yet you take the subject-matter from before the House without debate upon a motion to lay on the table. You have got to strike out that clause, I think, whatever standpoint you take. If you reject the insertion of the previous question, on the ground that you are not willing to cut off debate, you certainly must sustain my second amendment to strike out the sentence which cuts off debate, by a motion to lay on the table new matter which never has been discussed.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President, I presume that this question will be divided before we take a vote upon it. The gentleman presents two separate and independent propositions. One is that we adopt as a rule of order the previous question. That is a matter for very grave consideration, and I hope that this House will pause and deliberate before we agree to put upon our rules of order that rule which has been so often designated as the "gaglaw." The whole sum and substance of the previous question is that a majority of the House can at any moment by a vote stop all debate, and prevent that discussion which I think in free governments and in a free church ought always to prevail. We have been practising under what may be considered the rule of the Senate of the United States. The Senate and the House of Representatives differ with regard to the previous question. The House of Representatives have the previous question as one of their rules, and any of us who have read the debates of Congress have seen how often the exercise of that rule has been complained of by the minority. Anything can be forced through the House without a moment of notice, without its being known that the debate is about to be stopped, when many members wish to be heard and when many members ought to be heard. The Senate has never adopted such a rule, but the way that they have practised in regard to this question, as I understand it, is to appoint a time when a vote shall be taken. Then all have notice that the vote will be taken at such a time, and can act accordingly. That has been the practice of this House heretofore. We all recollect, who were members of the last General Convention, how frequently that rule was put into force. After discussion had been carried on for a certain length of time, when it was the feeling of the House that the matter had been worn threadbare, or that at all events it was time to take a vote, we did not adopt this peremptory rule of closing the debate instanter, but we fixed a time, say "to-morrow at 10 o'clock" or "this afternoon at 4 o'clock," when debate should close upon the question and the vote be taken. It strikes me that that is more in accordance with that principle of the Constitution of this Convention which prescribes that there shall be freedom of debate. How can there be freedom of debate if a majority of this House can, at any moment and without any warning, close debate, and shut the mouth of every member of the House who wishes to discuss the question?

I ask, sir, that this question be divided: that we first take the vote on the adoption of the motion of the gentleman from Louisiana, proposing that the previous question be inserted as one of the rules of the House. I think it is a right which we have under parliamentary law, to call for a division of a question containing distinct propositions.

« PreviousContinue »