Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

appointment. Now, he had known such officers set themselves in opposition to their duty, and refuse to record the proceedings of the court at the time he was directed. What a predicament that was to be placed in, and that, too, without having the power to remove the clerk from his office! As he (Mr. D.) had already remarked, the officer was entirely independent of the court-as independent as though he had been appointed by the Governor himself. These clerks, at present, if inattentive to their duties, or not conducting themselves with propriety, could be removed by the Governor, and others appointed by him to fill their places. And, that was, perhaps, one reason why they conducted themselves as well as they did. There was a controlling power over them, and if they misbehaved themselves the Governor would certainly remove them. With regard to the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, it seemed we were to be compelled to take it; for, according to the decisions of the CHAIR We had no right to change it in any shape or form. When the yeas and nays were called, there appeared a great majority in favor of giving the election of the county officers to the people, and notwithstanding this, we were obliged to go for an amendment which we did not like. He really thought that the question should be reconsidered by the Convention. His opinion was that the gentleman from Adams had no right to move to strike out the report of the committee, and to insert his proposition. On the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. STERIGERE) the report was stricken out, and his own proposition inserted in lieu of it, which covered the whole ground assumed by that report. But, here was an amendment to an amendment, the object of which was not to modify, or arrange, or change the amendment which was before the committee, but to strike out the report of the committee, and insert an amendment to an amendment. He (Mr. DUNLOP) would ask, if such was the Parliamentary usage, and if we should not be placed in the most awkward position imaginable?

The CHAIR here called the gentleman to order on the ground that he was taking too wide a range.

Mr. DUNLOP: The reason I have said what I have

Mr. STEVENS explained what his motion was.

The CHAIR: It was acquiesced in by the committee.

Mr. DUNLOP would ask the CHAIR whether the gentleman from Adams had a right to move to strike out the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery in order to insert his own? He would ask, if such a motion could be entertained, and if so whether he could not appeal from the decision of the CHAIR?

The CHAIR said that it was not now in order to present such a question. The time had gone by for raising a question of order. It should have been raised when the gentleman from Adams made his motion to amend. The committee having already acceded to the decision of the CHAIR, NO appeal could now be taken,

Mr. DUNLOP said that he would take an appeal from the decision of the CHAIR on the ground that it was not now too late to raise the question of order. It had been decided by the CHAIR once, and the committee twice, that a motion to strike out an entire amendment with a view to insert one in its place, was not in order. The Parliamentary rule was that an amend

mery, (Mr. STERIGERE,) had not added very considerably to his amend ment, and if so, we should know what it was. He was about to say, that it must strike every one, that if the committee were going to vote for giving the election of county officers to the people, we were compelled by the course of proceeding pursued by the CHAIR and the committee, to adopt any proposition that a gentleman may choose to offer, whether we liked it, or not. We must either adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, or that of the gentleman from Montgomery, or put upon the record that we were opposed to the election of county officers by the people. This was just the condition in which we were placed. He confessed that he did not like the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, nor would he vote for it if he could get any thing better. He desired that the people should have the election of their county officers, and yet we were obliged to take this nauseous dose, or appear before the people as hostile to the principle of giving to them the election of these officers.He was at a loss to ascertain why we should not give to the courts the power of appointing their clerks, as well as to the Supreme court the right to appoint their Prothonotary. The gentleman from Adams, however, did not like to do that. He (Mr. D.) was not at all averse to the courts appointing their own officers. But what he objected to was the appointment of them for three years. If appointed by the courts, they ought to hold their offices at the pleasure of the courts. For, when a clerk was appointed for three years, he was perfectly independent of the appointing power. Why, then, should he not hold his office during the pleasure of the court? Did not gentlemen know that in a court in Philadelphia, a clerk had held his office for seven years, and during the whole time was never once in his office? He transacted the business by a clerk. There were some prothonotaries who could not spell scire facias to save their souls from perdition. One prothonotary he had heard of, who spelt scire facias, scurry furry. The gentleman from Northampton (Mr. PORTER,) said he had known a clerk in that county, who spelt "writ" rit, and "write" rite.

[Mr. PORTER said: Not in Nothampton, but in]

Oh! not in the county of Northampton. The gentleman from the county near him (Mr. EARLE) then remarked, that it made no difference, as every one knew that rit must be "writ," and rite “right.” But he would like to know how that gentleman would construe scurry furry.What sort of a writ was that? How was it possible to designate such words? He had known the orthography of a document to be so bad that the court could not make it out, and the paper was sent back to be put into good English. It was evident that the mode of appointment by the Governor had not met the expectation of the framers of the Constitution.— Incompetent men were appointed on account of their political services. Political partizans, accustomed to wrangling, lying, cheating, and swearing, and who were totally unfit to discharge the duties of their office. He knew of several instances of men who could scarcely write their own names. He would maintain, then, that a court should have the power of appointing its own clerk. He was an officer of it, and was learned to record the decisions and decrees of the court, and in the manner in which they should direct. He (Mr. DUNLOP) had mentioned an instance of an

appointment. Now, he had known such officers set themselves in opposition to their duty, and refuse to record the proceedings of the court at the time he was directed. What a predicament that was to be placed in, and that, too, without having the power to remove the clerk from his office! As he (Mr. D.) had already remarked, the officer was entirely independent of the court-as independent as though he had been appointed by the Governor himself. These clerks, at present, if inattentive to their duties, or not conducting themselves with propriety, could be removed by the Governor, and others appointed by him to fill their places. And, that was, perhaps, one reason why they conducted themselves as well as they did. There was a controlling power over them, and if they misbehaved themselves the Governor would certainly remove them. With regard to the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, it seemed we were to be compelled to take it; for, according to the decisions of the CHAIR We had no right to change it in any shape or form. When the yeas and nays were called, there appeared a great majority in favor of giving the election of the county officers to the people, and notwithstanding this, we were obliged to go for an amendment which we did not like. He really thought that the question should be reconsidered by the Convention. His opinion was that the gentleman from Adams had no right to move to strike out the report of the committee, and to insert his proposition. On the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. STERIGERE) the report was stricken out, and his own proposition inserted in lieu of it, which covered the whole ground assumed by that report. But, here was an amendment to an amendment, the object of which was not to modify, or arrange, or change the amendment which was before the committee, but to strike out the report of the committee, and insert an amendment to an amendment. He (Mr. DUNLOP) would ask, if such was the Parliamentary usage, and if we should not be placed in the most awkward position imaginable?

The CHAIR here called the gentleman to order on the ground that he was taking too wide a range.

Mr. DUNLOP: The reason I have said what I have

Mr. STEVENS explained what his motion was.

The CHAIR: It was acquiesced in by the committee.

Mr. DUNLOP would ask the CHAIR whether the gentleman from Adams had a right to move to strike out the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery in order to insert his own? He would ask, if such a motion could be entertained, and if so whether he could not appeal from the decision of the CHAIR?

The CHAIR said that it was not now in order to present such a question. The time had gone by for raising a question of order. It should have been raised when the gentleman from Adams made his motion to amend. The committee having already acceded to the decision of the CHAIR, NO appeal could now be taken,

Mr. DUNLOP said that he would take an appeal from the decision of the CHAIR on the ground that it was not now too late to raise the question of order. It had been decided by the CHAIR once, and the committee twice, that a motion to strike out an entire amendment with a view to insert one in its place, was not in order. The Parliamentary rule was that an amend

would be no end to alterations: they might be proposed ad infinitum.But, the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, was not an amendment to an amendment; and so the committee had decided. They ought not, then, to persist in their present decision, but should correct the error into which they had fallen. He had no hesitation in taking the appeal, and he hoped it would be sustained, in order that the matter should be set right. He was glad to hear the gentleman from Susquehanna (MI. READ) and others take the view they had on the subject, for we had most certainly violated a solemn decision of the committee made on a former occasion.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, hoped that the gentleman from Franklin would withdraw his appeal. The question of order was not as to the rule itself, but as to what was the real state of business before the CHAIR.

Mr. DUNLOP remarked, that the only way in which the question could be reached, was, by the committee deciding that the CHAIR was wrong in its decision.

Mr. BROWN, said he most fully and heartily coincided with the gentleman from Franklin and others, as to the arbitrary and unjust operation of the rule. We had all seen its operation in regard to the two propositions of the gentleman from Chester, which were obliged to be voted down. He (Mr. B.) then made a motion such as the gentleman from Chester had brought in. The gentleman from Adams (Mr. STEVENS) pursued the same course as the gentleman from Chester had done, and contended that no other amendment could be offered. He (Mr. BROWN) then withdrew his amendment and offered it to his (Mr. STEVENS). Now, that was a trick which no gentleman liked to resort to, but it was the only chance he had of getting a vote on it. When an amendment to an amendment was offered, the question should be on that amendment. It ought not to be allowed to be stricken out in order that another might be introduced.

The CHAIR (interrupted). The question of order lay within very narrow limits-it was whether the appeal was made in time? Whether it should not have been made immediately after the decision of the CHAIR was announced.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, thought with the gentleman from Adams, that the rules were simple and easily understood, and no difficulty could occur, if they were strictly adhered to. But, the principles which governed them not having been observed, hence the dilemma into which the committee were now thrown. He maintained that the decision of the Chair was correct, and therefore, he would vote to sustain it.

Mr. READ would, with deference, say, that the decision of the Chair was clearly and palpably erroneous. The motion of the gentleman from Adams was to strike out, not only the amendment, but also what was now before the committee, the report of the standing committee. It was clearly an error, and an important one; for, the consequence of it was to confine us to the propositions of these two gentlemen, cutting off all others. The Chair did say, that, if the amendment of the gentleman from Adams was adopted, it would not be in order to strike out one word of it. If this course was followed out, members would be prevented from bringing for

stage of our proceedings. He knew of no rule which prohibits an appeal at any time. In no book was there any such rule, and the Chair had no right to manufacture one.

Mr. MEREDITH contended, that it was too late to receive the appeal.Those who objected to a single word of the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, could vote against it, and, if it was negatived, the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. STERIGERE) would be

before us.

Mr. DUNLOP: Suppose it is not negatived: can it be amended then? Mr. MEREDITH: Why, then, the majority of the committee will have decided to retain every line and letter of it.

Mr. EARLE rose to correct an error into which he had fallen. There was not a single word left of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery.

Mr. MEREDITH: The Chair, as a matter of form, always retains a word.

Mr. EARLE said that, as it stood, the amendment struck out the whole. He could not see the logic of the argument of the gentleman from Montgomery. If a thing was not strictly in order, he could not see how it could be in order.

Mr. SERGEANT said, the question of order here was a common one, though important. The question was, whether a decision of the House might be brought into dispute. When the Chair decides that a motion is in order, if the House does not object to it, it is tacitly received. If any member thinks it ought not to be received, that is the time for him to make his objection. If it is received by the House, then there is an end of the question of order. If the objection be not made to the Chair, how can it be made to the House? Can this question be turned out of the House after the committee has received it, and after it has been defeated? Gentlemen may say that this is a very strict rule, but they cannot complain of it, though it may be regreted. Every thing would be thrown into confusion, if we did not follow the rules. Mr. S. went on to illustrate his position by a reference to former cases and decisions, and contended, that the decision of the Chair was correct. Liberty, he continued, was a thing of great value; it was inestimable, and he was not sorry to see a man make a struggle for it. It was in the order of God's providence, that it should be maintained by constant struggles; but, there was always a danger that man would want too much liberty, and that his demands would go beyond the line of justice towards his fellows. It was, therefore, that laws were made, and therefore, rules of order were made.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, only rose to correct an impression which might go abroad. It had been said this morning, by a gentleman, that he had no desire to clean his own skirts. Nor have I, (said Mr. C.) The chairman of the committee of the whole on the first article, had decided, and correctly too, that the question was on the report of the committee.— The gentleman from Montgomery put the question. The Chair decided that both were under consideration, and might be amended. We had got into a difficulty before we were aware. But it did not begin with him, (Mr. C.) He did not wish it to go abroad as originating with him. He had only followed in the track. He would say to the gentleman behind, he knew of no rule to prevent an appeal from being made. When he dis

« ZurückWeiter »