Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Mr. MEREDITH said, the previous question always operated with great harshness, on all those, who desired to amend, or discuss any proposition; but if it was moved and seconded, and the main question was not ordered to be put, it always put the subject from before the House, for that day. He held in his hand, the journal of the House of Representatives, of 1827-8, and in it he found, in the case of a petition being presented from Indiana county, on the subject of kidnapping, when a debate arose on its reference, the previous question was moved and seconded, but the vote being taken, on ordering the main question, it was decided in the negative. Yeas, 37-Nays, 47. It appeared, that the subject was put from before the House, for that day, and other gentlemen went on presenting petitions, and memorials. That decision, he apprehended, was binding upon us, as a precedent. The operation of this rule, in this instance, only showed the folly of adopting such a rule, in a body of this kind. As he conceived that we should have to proceed to some other business, he moved, that the Committee rise.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, hoped the committee would not rise. He could not agree with the gentleman from the city, as to the effect, which the decision was to have. He did not apprehend, that it had been the decision of Legislative bodies, that a subject was put from before the House, where amendments were pending, and if it had been, he hoped it would not be the decision now. We have here, by some means or other, got a rule, by which the previous question can be called, in committee of the whole, and he ventured to say, such a thing was never heard of, in any other deliberative body, upon earth. We must, then, accommodate ourselves, to the state we are in. What was the decision just had ? Why, putting a common sense construction upon it, it was nothing more, than that the committee had decided, that they would not cut off the amend ments, which we have made, to the report of the committee. The decision of the committee was nothing more, than that they would not cut off all amendments, and that the main question should not now be put; so that, we might go on making amendments, and perfecting the report of the committee, as though no vote had been taken. We must adapt ourselves to the state we are in. We have had the previous question called, in the committee of the whole, and if the result of it was to be, that the committee should rise, and we go on with another article, it would be impossible to tell, when we would get back to this article. He was certain, this never was the intention of the gentleman, who moved the previous question. He had no doubt, the only object the gentleman had in view, was to cut off debate, but the committee had decided, that it should not be cut off, and we must put such a construction upon this new rule, as will not destroy the object of introducing it here. In the House of Representatives, there might be some reason for passing to another subject, but there was no such reason existing here. We are in a situation, without precedent, and we must adopt our rules, to meet our condition. He hoped, that the committee would not rise, but that we would proceed with our amendments.

Mr. MEREDITH agreed with the gentleman that we were in a situation without precedent, and in one which he hoped not to see repeated here. He never was more surprised than to hear the previous question called for in

the word "election", the words "except idiots, convicts in prisons, and persons under guardianship", and by striking out of the third line the words" county or", so as to make the report read as follows:

"SECT. 1. In elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who has resided in the State one year immediately preceding such election, except idiots, convicts in prisons, and persons under guardianship, shall be entitled to vote in the district in which he shall reside".

The CHAIR said this same amendment had been decided to be out of order the other day.

Mr. READ remarked that this was an entirely different amendment.The amendment decided to be out of order, was an amendment to an amendment of the gentleman from Chester, and in different words altogether from the present amendment.

The CHAIR remarked that the committee having agreed to the amendment, it was not competent for the gentleman to strike out that which had been inserted. It would be in order now, to move to add any thing at the end, but not to strike out and insert. The question now was on agreeing to the amendment as amended; and if that should be negatived, then the gentleman could amend the report of the committee.

Mr. READ: Then I will wait until the time comes when I shall have the opportunity of moving this amendment.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, said it appeared to him, that we were going to travel over the same ground which we have already gone over in amending this section. He therefore demanded the previous question, which was seconded by eighteen gentlemen rising in their places.

Mr. Cox enquired what could be the effect of the previous question, if it was sustained.

The CHAIR said it would cut off all amendment, and bring the committee to a vote upon the report of the committee as it stands.

Mr. HIESTER said as this was an important question he would call for the yeas and nays upon ordering the main question, which being ordered the question was decided in the negative-yeas, 40: nays, 70-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Bigelow, Brown, Clarke, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gilmore, Granell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Houpt, Hyde, Keim, Krebs, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, White-40.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayers, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown. of Northampton, Butler, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Coates. Cochran. Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum,Crain, Cunningham, Dar. lington, Denny, Dickey, Dillinger, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Forward, Fry, Gamble, Gear. hart, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long Lyons, Maclay, Mann, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Scheetz, Sill, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Young, Sergeant, President-70.

So the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. CHAMBERS enquired if the effect of the vote just taken, did not postpone the whole subject, for one day. If so, it showed the improprieiy of the rule, allowing any number less than a majority to second the

Mr. MEREDITH said, the previous question always operated with great harshness, on all those, who desired to amend, or discuss any proposition; but if it was moved and seconded, and the main question was not ordered to be put, it always put the subject from before the House, for that day. He held in his hand, the journal of the House of Representatives, of 1827-8, and in it he found, in the case of a petition being presented from Indiana county, on the subject of kidnapping, when a debate arose on its reference, the previous question was moved and seconded, but the vote being taken, on ordering the main question, it was decided in the negative, Yeas, 37-Nays, 47. It appeared, that the subject was put from before the House, for that day, and other gentlemen went on presenting petitions, and memorials. That decision, he apprehended, was binding upon us, as a precedent. The operation of this rule, in this instance, only showed the folly of adopting such a rule, in a body of this kind. As he conceived that we should have to proceed to some other business, he moved, that the Committee rise.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, hoped the committee would not rise. He could not agree with the gentleman from the city, as to the effect, which the decision was to have. He did not apprehend, that it had been the decision of Legislative bodies, that a subject was put from before the House, where amendments were pending, and if it had been, he hoped it would not be the decision now. We have here, by some means or other, got a rule, by which the previous question can be called, in committee of the whole, and he ventured to say, such a thing was never heard of, in any other deliberative body, upon earth. We must, then, accommodate ourselves, to the state we are in. What was the decision just had? Why, putting a common sense construction upon it, it was nothing more, than that the committee had decided, that they would not cut off the amendments, which we have made, to the report of the committee. The decision of the committee was nothing more, than that they would not cut off all amendments, and that the main question should not now be put; so that, we might go on making amendments, and perfecting the report of the committee, as though no vote had been taken. We must adapt ourselves to the state we are in. We have had the previous question called, in the committee of the whole, and if the result of it was to be, that the committee should rise, and we go on with another article, it would be impossible to tell, when we would get back to this article. He was certain, this never was the intention of the gentleman, who moved the previous question. He had no doubt, the only object the gentleman had in view, was to cut off debate, but the committee had decided, that it should not be cut off, and we must put such a construction upon this new rule, as will not destroy the object of introducing it here. In the House of Representatives, there might be some reason for passing to another subject, but there was no such reason existing here. We are in a situation, without precedent, and we must adopt our rules, to meet our condition. He hoped, that the committee would not rise, but that we would proceed with our amendments.

Mr. MEREDITH agreed with the gentleman that we were in a situation without precedent, and in one which he hoped not to see repeated here. He never was more surprised than to hear the previous question called for in

have any regard for the duties of that committee. The very purpose for which we go into committee is free and full discussion and amendment. But if this rule was to be operative, the moment we get into committee eighteen gentlemen may rise and demand the previous question, and if there can be found a majority of one to order it, we will be compelled to rise and go into Convention, and report that we have had under consideration the matter in committee, when in fact we have not considered it at all. Again, as to this matter of the committee rising, it can rise at any time. When the previous question is moved, what is to prevent the committee from rising, and preventing the vote from being taken. Thus the object of the previous question may be defeated whenever it may be thought to trammel the committee; and there were various other ways of defeating the object of the previous question. As to the decision which we were to come to on this question he cared very little about it, whether the committee now rose or not, but he did not see how we were to get over it in any other way. He did not think, however, that we should attempt to modify the rule for the previous question, so as to use it in committee of the whole, to make it an easy method of gagging members, and cutting off debate on matters of such vital importance, and requiring such calm and deliberate consideration. He would let it be seen how entirely opposed to every rule of order this rule for the previous question was, and he hoped when we got back into Convention, it would be rescinded, so that we would be at liberty to amend and discuss every proposition which came up in committee, without being trammelled and gagged in this way. As to the matter of putting this subject from before the committee for today, he should like to hear the opinion of the CHAIR upon the subject, and if it was his opinion that it would not have this effect, he would not say a word against it. His own opinion, however, was that the subject would be put from before the committee, and he was sustained by the precedent he had refered to a few minutes ago. He would state to the committee, that that decision of Speaker MIDDLESWARTH, who was a person of great legislative experience, was made upon full reflection, he having had notice that the previous question would be moved. This case then so far as a precedent went, must be binding upon us.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, agreed perfectly with the gentleman from the city, as to the correctness of the decision of Speaker MIDDLESWARTH, because then there was no question but the main question pending. Now it was different, and there certainly was a distinction between the two cases. The vote just taken was on the question whether the main question shall be now put, which was decided in the negative; but that decision only goes to say that the main question shall not now be put, and does not go to say that the question shall be put from before the House for to-day, or that the question shall not be taken on the amendments which are pending or may be submited. In the case alluded to by the gentleman from the city, there was no amendment pending, and the question was upon the single isolated question of reference; and, in that oase, it being decided that the main question should not then be put, of course put it from before the House because there was nothing else to take a question upon, except the main question. That was not the case at present. We have an amendment pending upon which no question has been taken, and

out infringing on the rule, or interfering with the decision we have just made, because that decision was nothing more nor less than that the main question should not be put now. It seemed to him, that common sense if nothing else, would bring us to this conclusion. He hoped, therefore, that the committee might not now rise, but that we would proceed to the consideration of the amendments to this section.

Mr. STERIGERE, would only say, that if this doctrine which it was attempted to have established here was adopted, it would be the first time it ever had been adopted in any deliberative body. It is the doctrine of Jefferson, in his manual, that when the previous question is moved and not sustained, the subject is put from before the House, and this doctrine had been affirmed by the repeated decisions of the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States. The consequence of the previous question is that it not only precludes debate, but it precludes amendments, and if you cannot go on and propose amendments, it removes all proceedings from before the House for the day. This then has shown the Convention the folly of adopting a rule permiting any less number than a majority to order the previous question. He had proposed an amendment at the commencement of the session when the rules were under consideration, that not less than a majority of the members present should second the previous question, but the Convention determined that eighteen were sufficient. It was now seen, however, that the rule was useless. The previous question had been moved and secon e', and the main question not being ordered, all the consequences attendant upon such a state of things in any deliberative body must be felt here; and whatever the consequences would be in Convention, must be in Committee. The first section then must be removed from before the Committee, but because that was the case, there is no necessity for the Committee to rise, because we have two other sections in the third article undisposed of, and we can proceed to the consideration of these sections. The operation of the previous question was only applied to the first section, and could not remove the whole article from before the Committee. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would proceed to the consideration of the second section, and not rise and pass over the whole article. It would, perhaps, consume the remainder of the day on the two sections yet remaining, and to-morrow we can take up and dispose of the first section.

Mr. BELL hoped the Committee would now rise, it being nearly the usual hour for rising, and this question could be discussed and determined upon this afternoon.

Mr. EARLE hoped we would not discuss this question of the Committee rising all morning, but trusted that it might be withdrawn, or voted down, so that the Chairman would have an opportunity of deciding the question, and if that decision was, that it did put the subject from before the House, and this was the deliberate opinion of the Convention that it was to be put from before the House by the rules, he had no doubt but two-thirds could be found to dispense with this rule, so that we might go on with our business in the afternoon, without any more consumption of time.

The Committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again this afternoon.

« ZurückWeiter »