the question might appear to be very plain, but he was surprised to hear the gentleman from Susquehanna say, that in relation to any opinion expressed in opposition to his, that it was senseless.

Mr. READ spoke, he said, of the distinction that had been taken, and not of any gentleman's opinion.

Mr. SERGEANT continued: He would not say that of any one's opinion. He would not characterize the opinion of any gentleman in that way, because it might deter persons from uttering their opinion; at least, it might have that effect when it came from a gentleman of so much weight and experience as the gentleman from Susquehanna. He differed, entirely, from that gentleman, on this question, but we were here for free debate, and he should give his opinion with perfect respect. The decision of the CHAIR was this-that what a majority decided was decided, and could not be touched again. What then has the committee decided? Why, that the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, on his right, (Mr. DARLINGTON) should stand in the place of that of the other gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL,) and as a substitute for the report of the committee. What was proposed now? To alter the amendment of the gentleman, (Mr. DARLINGTON) and to say that what had been adopted should be varied. Such a proposition was not in order. All the authorities were uniform on the subject: none were contrary to it: no deliberative body could get along in any other way. It was argued that the decision would cut off amendments; but, did not the previous question cut off all amendments in esse and in posse?-And could any one complain, that after a question was decided, it could not be called up and determined, again and again.

Mr. READ did not expect, he said, in this matter, to encounter the formidable opposition of the President of the Convention, and he was sorry he did not explain himself, at first, in such a manner as not to be misunderstood. There was no rule against him, and, on the contrary, it was clearly in his favor. The question was on the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) as modified by the committee, and that modified amendment was still an open question. The rule was this: "when it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, or part of one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as they can by amendments, before the question is put for inserting it". The rule applied in this case with all its force, for the question was on amending the report of the committee by inserting the proposition of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL). The friends of that proposition had a right to make it as perfect as possible, prior to its insertion in the report of the committee. The rule was distinctly and directly in his favor. We had nothing to do with the amendment of the other gentleman from Chester, (Mr. DARLINGTON). The question was on inserting the prior amendment as modified by the committee, and the rule gave him the privilege of making it as perfect by amendment as possible. Gentlemen say, that in this way, we may go on ad infinitum. Very well-there is but one way to cut off amendments, if offered in time-namely, by the previous question. Gentlemen may call the previous question now, and that would cut off his amendment and that of the gentleman from Chester (Mr. BELL). That was the only way to cut off amendments; but to be cut off from the opportunity to offer amendments by the decision of the CHAIR, was a thing

of the gentleman from Chester (Mr. DARLINGTON). If it had been before us now in that form, and no vote had been taken, would it not have been as much in order to strike out, as to add to it?

Mr. DENNY said there would be no end to the action of the committee, if we went on in this way. Each member would ask us to adopt his proposition, and when we had adopted one hundred and thirty-two propositions, we should be called upon to begin the work over again.— The gentleman from Susquehanna knew that if the proposition of the gentleman from Chester was adopted, his own would not be in order. Had not the majority rights here, and was not the object of offering amendments to make propositions more acceptable to the majority? this case, the committee had distinctly expressed its opinion against the motion of the gentleman from Susquehanna, by adopting that of the gentleman from Chester. There would be no end to amendments, if the course proposed by the gentleman was adopted. He would not reach his object by striking out what had been adopted.

Mr. BIDDLE said the question was neither difficult nor complicated. All amendments consisted either of single propositions, or of several; and all agreed that the same matter could not be twice brought before the committee. Here the committee had decided upon a part of an amendment. The question, therefore, was not, whether amendments could be offered, but whether the committee could be compelled to pass again and again on what had been decided.

Mr. Cox maintained that the decision of the CHAIR was correct. An amendment had been adopted on an entire new and distinct proposition, taking the place of the report of the committee; no portion of the original proposition had been retained, and there was nothing to be amended. Additions, not clashing with its provisions, could be made; but no part of what had been agreed to could be stricken out. He would cheerfully vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna, whenever it could be offered.

Mr. DICKEY argued that the question was still open, because the amendment was offered to the report of the committee, and contended that the CHAIR had no right to decide that the amendment could not be received. He had heretofore supposed, he said, that there was no way to suppress discussion except by the previous question, but this mode would be quite as effectual.

Mr. AGNEW could not agree with his colleague on this question. A motion to strike out what had been decided upon could not be entertained, else the same question might be presented again and again for decision. The only way to reach it would be by a motion to reconsider.

Mr. SERGEANT hoped, he said, that when the question was taken, it would be taken by yeas and nays, for the reason that every decision made by the House or the committee, became binding upon us as a rule.

The rules of the House of Representatives direct that all the decisions shall be printed in the Journal, as a part of the laws of the House. These laws we cannot depart from without forming a rule, and, therefore, when we proceed contrary to them, in order to answer a present purpose, we create a source of disorder and confusion for the future. It was a matter of importance that the decisions should be made considerately, and in

the question might appear to be very plain, but he was surprised the gentleman from Susquehanna say, that in relation to any expressed in opposition to his, that it was senseless.

Mr. READ spoke, he said, of the distinction that had been tal not of any gentleman's opinion.

Mr. SERGEANT continued: He would not say that of an opinion. He would not characterize the opinion of any gentle that way, because it might deter persons from uttering their o at least, it might have that effect when it came from a ge of so much weight and experience as the gentleman from hanna. He differed, entirely, from that gentleman, on this quest we were here for free debate, and he should give his opinion with respect. The decision of the CHAIR was this-that what a decided was decided, and could not be touched again. What then committee decided? Why, that the amendment of the gentlem Chester, on his right, (Mr. DARLINGTON) should stand in the place of the other gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL,) and as a subst the report of the committee. What was proposed now? To a amendment of the gentleman, (Mr. DARLINGTON) and to say th had been adopted should be varied. Such a proposition was not in All the authorities were uniform on the subject: none were con it: : no deliberative body could get along in any other way. It was that the decision would cut off amendments; but, did not the p question cut off all amendments in esse and in posse?-And co one complain, that after a question was decided, it could not be ca and determined, again and again.

Mr. READ did not expect, he said, in this matter, to encounter midable opposition of the President of the Convention, and he wa he did not explain himself, at first, in such a manner as not to be derstood. There was no rule against him, and, on the contrary clearly in his favor. The question was on the amendment of the man from Chester, (Mr. BELL) as modified by the committee, a modified amendment was still an open question. The rule wa "when it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, or part the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as they can by ments, before the question is put for inserting it". The rule app this case with all its force, for the question was on amending the re the committee by inserting the proposition of the gentleman from C (Mr. BELL). The friends of that proposition had a right to mak perfect as possible, prior to its insertion in the report of the com The rule was distinctly and directly in his favor. We had nothin with the amendment of the other gentleman from Chester, (Mr. DA TON). The question was on inserting the prior amendment as m by the committee, and the rule gave him the privilege of makin perfect by amendment as possible. Gentlemen say, that in this w may go on ad infinitum. Very well-there is but one way to amendments, if offered in time-namely, by the previous question. tlemen may call the previous question now, and that would cut amendment and that of the gentleman from Chester (Mr. BELL). was the only way to cut off amendments; but to be cut off from portunity to offer amendments by the decision of the CHAIR, was

to which he could not submit, and, therefore, he had appealed from the decision.

Mr. CHAMBERS said the question was of some importance, as furnishing a rule for our direction in other cases; and, from the best reflection that he could give to it, he was disposed to sustain the decision of the CHAIR. We yesterday adopted an amendment to the report of the committee, and now the gentleman from Susquehanna proposes to strike out a great part of that amendment. Was not this, in effect, a reconsideration of the vote of the committee? and to reverse the decision of the committee, in its material parts? This would be subversive of the rules of order.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said his opinion was, that the motion of the gentleman from Susquehanna was in order, and that the CHAIR was in error in rejecting it. The error consisted in a misapprehension of the state of the question. Without pretending to argue the matter critically, by refering to JEFFERSON's Manual, and drawing nice distinctions between the meaning of words and terms, he thought a common sense view of the matter must show its monstrosity. If this decision is to be sustained, two men get the floor and get their amendments before the committee, aud one hundred and thirty-one are entirely cut off from all opportunity of getting their views before the committee. If this decision stands it will leave a noble field for tacticians. One gentleman very expert in getting upon his legs, offers some absurd proposition, and a second gentleman, who may have an understanding with the first about the matter, introduces a proposition which he desires to have passed in the precise form in which he offers it. Then the question is to be taken between these two amendments and the committee will adopt the last in preference to the first. The game is then blocked, and you can go no further. No gentleman can have the opportunity of amending this amendment because, forsooth, the vote has been taken upon it. The gentleman from Chester, on his left, (Mr. BELL) offered an amendment to the report of the committee: JEFFERSON's Manual says the friends of that measure have the right to perfect it before it is agreed to. The gentleman from Chester on his right (Mr. DARLINGTON) moved to strike out that amendment and insert another amendment, and by all parliamentary rules, no amendment could be offered to this, and hence the body was brought to the necessity of deciding between these two amendments. This latter amendment then being adopted takes the place of the former, and who will say that it is not open to be perfected and amended until the vote is taken on agreeing to the amendment, as amended. Other gentlemen may have propositions to offer which will meet the views of the committee and suit the mem bers better than the amendment which has been adopted. If so, they have never had the opportunity to offer them, and if the decision of the CHAIR is sustained they never will have the opportunity. The authority which gentlemen refered to, he imagined, was applied to the wrong question, and here is where the whole mistake lies. It is very good authority, but they apply it to the amendment to the amendment instead of to the main question. The vote has not yet been taken on the main question, therefore it is open to be made as perfect as we can. The whole mistake of those gentlemen who had argued on this subject, was, that they did not apply their rule to the

question and that was, doubtless, the question to which Mr. JEFFERSON intended it to apply. Was it possible we were going to have a rule forced upon us which will give to two gentlemen the privilege of preventing all the other members of the body from offering their views, or their propositions? The argument of gentlemen was, that if the decision of the CHAIR was not sustained, we would be pestered with amendments forever. Well, if we are pestered with amendments gentlemen can listen to them until they get tired, and then move the previous question, which would close the door upon these amendments. But he had understood the President of the Convention as saying that the previous question would cut off this amendment. This was not the case in his view of the matter, because the vote had been taken on this and the previous question only cut off those amendments on which no vote had been taken. Gentlemen have said if we have any propositions which we desire to bring forward, we have the liberty to read them in our places. We can do this to be sure, but they must recollect after having read these propositions we are not at liberty to go into an explanation of them, much less can other gentlemen give their views upon them. A proposition may contain sound principles, yet at first sight they may not present themselves to the views of gentlemen. A little discussion might satisfy every one, that the proposition was the best that could be offered, but there would be no opportunity afforded to discuss it. This, then was no cure for the evil. There must be some time and some place where gentlemen can have the opportunity of offering amendments; and that time, in his opinion, was the present, because they could not be offered when the amendment to the amendment was pending, and they certainly cannot be offered after the final vote is taken This he conceived to be the proper time for amendment because the question was precisely in the same situation as it was after the gentleman from Chester (Mr. BELL) first submited his amendment, and it was now open ⚫ for amendment in the same manner as that question was open for amendment. Gentlemen have told us, there is no way of reaching our object but by reconsidering the vote on the amendment. It is true those who voted for the amendment may move to reconsider it, but perhaps, they were of the same opinion now, as they were when they gave their votes; and, if so, it could not be reconsidered. Their being of that opinion now, however, was no evidence that they might not be better pleased with some other proposition which some gentleman might desire to present if he had the opportunity to do so, and express his views on the subject. If the decision of the CHAIR was sustained, and he had any proposition hereafter which he had very much at heart, he would get some gentleman to aid him, and they would first offer some unimportant amendment, and then move the one he desired to have passed as an amendment to it, and if the House prefered the latter to the former of the amendments, gentlemen would be cut off from amending it, and it would be safe. This was a mode of carrying a proposition which he had never dreamed of before. As he had before said, the whole error in this matter was in applying the rule from JEFFERSON's Manual in the wrong place. After the vote was taken on the main question, then he admited the rule applied with full force; then we cannot strike any thing out of the amendment, but at present the question was certainly open to amendment either by striking out or inserting.