Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

It is in these words: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question, shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal."

Sir, is not an election a proceeding which is, and ought to be entered, on the journal? If so, any question arising in the course of that proceeding may be so entered, or there is no virtue in the rule. There is no provision of the constitution more practised under by this House, none so well calculated to keep the people informed of the proceedings of Congress, and the motives of its members; why then should they not have the full benefit of it in elections as in other cases? It does appear to me to be utterly impossible to escape from the obligatory form of this provision in this or any other case. The proposition here is that a majority of this House, by passing the resolution under discussion, may compel all the members voting upon a question of election to have their votes entered on the journal. The constitutional rule is, that one fifth of those present may do so, and yet gentlemen say this resolution ought not to pass.

[JAN. 24, 1865.

And is this essential provision of the constitution to be entirely disregarded--nay, violated--because it has been neglected heretofore?

It may be, sir, that I am mistaken on this subject; I am willing, however, to abide the consequences of that mistake, and record my vote in favor of this proposition.

Mr. HARDIN designed, he said, to make only a few remarks on this resolution. Without saying on which election it was intended to bear, he was willing to believe that it was intended to bear upon all; upon the preachers, as the gentleman from Illinois said, as well as the printers, to the House. But the gentleman from Illinois was too good a lawyer not to know that the change of the mode prescribed in the joint resolution for electing a printer would relieve him from his bond and from his other obligations and penalties prescribed by law. The joint resolution of 1819 grew out of a general complaint of the extravagant charges made for printing. A committee was appointed to examine the subject, and make a report to Congress, and the following resolution was adopted. [Mr. H. here read the resolution of March, 1819; which will be found in the United States edition of the laws.]

Now, sir, said Mr. H., this law fixes the price of printing, and the mode of its execution; directs that the printers shall give bonds, and that if they fail to perform the contract, another person may be employed to execute the work at their expense; and the same law says that the printers shall be elected by ballot. If the contract is not made according to the terms of the law, the printers may charge what they please for the work, and execute it in what time and manner they please, without forfeiting their bonds.

[Mr. VANDERPOEL here rose to a question of order. There was no proposition before the House to go into the election of a printer, and he submitted whether the discussion of that subject was in order.

Mr. HARDIN said he had an amendment to offer, which would meet this argument.

The CHAIR determined that the gentleman from Kentucky was in order.]

Why was this provision inserted in the constitution? Was it not to enable the people to see who sustained and who opposed any particular measure? This, sir, is the living principle of this Government; without it the liberties of the country could not be preserved. We see efforts making daily, on the part of the Representative, to shake off all responsibility; and to put at defiance the popular will. Let it now be established, by the vote of this House, that we are not bound to record our votes, in the election of officers, or on any other question, and the boldest step towards irresponsible power ever yet taken in this Government will have been, so far, established. Is there any exception to the rule laid down in the constitution? If elections of officers, the election, or appointment of printers, or any other act or thing to be done by this House, is excepted, let the exception be shown. There is just as much danger from the exercise of irresponsible power in the election of officers of the two Houses of Congress, as in innumerable other cases, occurring daily, in which the yeas and nays are required. Your Clerk disburses annually more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars-has the custody of the papers and journals of the House. The Speaker presides over the deliberations of this House--appoints the committees-examines and corrects the journal-fied the rule in some other particulars. But the House preserves order and decorum--decides questions of order; and, in virtue of his office, may be President of the United States; and have the people no interest in the appointment of these officers? It is strange if they have not. Should a worthless individual be appointed to either of these offices, and any signal failure of duty occur, we should hear the inquiry-who voted for him? By which party was he elected? But under the existing rules of this House, these would be unavailing questions --secrets, which the people could not know, and which gentlemen say they ought not to know.

The framers of the constitution did not put it in the power of a bare majority of either House to suppress, or exclude from the journals, the vote upon any question whatever; but, to effect that object, they required that more than four fifths of those present should concur. This shows the jealous apprehensions entertained by those patriots. It shows that they foresaw that the Representatives would be disposed to conceal their proceedings and to avoid responsibility; and fearing the combinations of interested members, and the failure of public virtue, they put it in the power of one fifth of those present to coerce the remaining four fifths, andcompel them to record their votes for the information of the people.

Mr. HARDIN said all the inconvenience would be obviated by a proviso which he should offer. After contending that the proposition infringed upon the law under which the printers were elected, he argued, in reply to the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. McKINLEY,] that the law of 1819 was not, as the gentleman supposed, repealed by the joint resolution of 1829. It merely modi

had been informed, he said, that the constitution of the United States required all elections to be made viva wote. Sir, said Mr. H., I believe that, from the foundation of the Government to this day, all elections have been made by ballot in both Houses of Congress. There had been wise men here from all quarters--some from the East, whence the scriptures said they should come--and the fact had never before been discovered, that the constitution required viva voce elections of officers of the two Houses. The discovery came from the West--and, to be sure, he was glad to find that the wise men now came from the West, for he was a western man himself. He found now, what he had never known before, that his votes for printers, preachers, and messengers of the House, which he had heretofore thought very little of, were of the utmost importance to his constituents; that they were given on the highest representative responsi bility, and that they must be written in sunbeams for his constituents to read. If the House would, however, adopt the proviso he should now offer, (as they were law,) he imagined that this resolution would fall stilbound to do, unless they meant directly to violate the born. He moved to amend the resolution by adding the following:

[blocks in formation]

"Provided, That elections ordered by joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives, approved and signed by the President, shall be conducted in manner and form as directed by said resolutions."

Mr. GILMER said, if one who was in the habit of attending the proceedings of this House should now ask what is the House doing, of such consequence that every member is now seen in his place and attentive to the business, what answer would he receive? Why, sir, when we are voting away $20,000,000 of money in a single bill; when the most important national interests are under consideration, we can scarcely get a quorum to attend to business; whilst now we have calls of the House, with the yeas and nays, and every indication of roused attention. It was important (Mr. G. said) that the people should know what occasion had produced all this excitement and all this earnest attention. answer reached as deep as the foundation of this Government. Was the proposition before the House to remedy any evil? No: for what evil was complained of? The answer, he repeated, went to the very foundation of this Government. The proposition proceeded on the supposition that this was the most corrupt Government on the face of the earth. What was the difference between the two forms of voting? When it was intended that the voter should act on his own judgment, the vote was given by ballot; and when the vote was to represent the judgment of other persons, it was given viva voce.

The

What do the people of Illinois know about the officers of this House? He questioned whether there were ten men in the State of Illinois who knew or cared any thing about them. They could not, in the nature of things. It was destructive of the very principles and essence of democracy to apply this mode of voting to such a case. It was intended, in voting viva voce, that the voter should be dependent upon any other persons who were concerned in the vote. Shall we (said Mr. G.) be dependent, in a matter relating entirely to ourselves, upon other persons? The right of voting by ballot had been contended for in every free Government. When the voter ought to be dependent, it was proper to vote viva voce. Upon whom is it proposed, by the resolution before the House, to render us dependent? Not upon the people-not upon those whom we represent-for they cannot judge whether the officers we elect are fit for their stations or not; but upon the men who hold the party power of the Government. We are to be brought up, for our votes here, before the men who command the party power and patronage of the Government. This (Mr. G. said) was the object and tendency of the proposition; and, if he concealed or denied it on this occasson, he would not exercise independence of thought and speech. Was it worthy of the House to be made thus dependent upon the executive officers of the Government, in the exercise of the right of choosing their 1 own officers? The proper reward to an officer for the correct discharge of his duty was to continue him in his place. That was the only true principle in application to the officer. But the proposition before the House was to render the officer dependent on a party majority, independently of the manner in which he discharged his duties. It was important (Mr. G. said) to the comfort and convenience of the House that they should be left to the independent exercise of their own judgment in the matter. They wanted officers to perform their duty. To render the members of this House responsible to those who wielded the executive patronage, was a principle which would sap the foundation of our Government. The House ought not to permit themselves to be made dependent on any consideration in the choice of their own officers, except that of the benefit to be derived to themselves. He believed that this new principle of the dependence of the House upon the executive

[H. OF R.

officers of the Government was rapidly gaining ground: and unless, said he, in conclusion, we can carry home to the people an impression of the magnitude of this evil, we cannot much longer preserve the freedom of our institutions, as intended to be guarantied by the constitution.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania, said that, long before he had the honor of a seat in this House, his attention had been turned to the present rule under which the members vote by ballot for the officers of the House. He had always, thought it wrong. He well recollected when at home, among the people, in examining the proceedings of Congress in the papers, the general result of the election could only be seen: but the people could not ascertain, from a list of yeas and nays, how their own immediate Representative, nor how any other member, had voted. He also recollected that one of his predecessors (the late Mr. Ramsay) had, during his term, brought this subject before the House, by moving a resolution very similar to the one now under consideration, and having precisely the same object in view. He then felt astonished that it had not met with a more favorable reception, as he had always thought the proposed change so reasonable in itself, that it was only necessary to bring it to the notice of the House to ensure its adoption. He thought there was a peculiar fitness and propriety in the alteration proposed. It was due to the members themselves, and it was due to their constituents, that the change should be made. The present mode of voting is not only an undeserved imputation upon the independence of the members, but it subjects them to unjust imputations. Their political opponents may represent them as having voted for this man or for that man for Speaker or for public printer, so as to injure them in the estimation of their constituents, and there is no journal or published list of yeas and nays to put the question to rest. The Speaker of this House is one of the most important and dignified officers of the Government. He occupies a distinguished and very elevated position in the eyes of the nation. The people, therefore, have a right to know how their Representa. tives vote in his election, as well as that of public printer, and the other officers of the House.

In the State which he had the honor to represent in part, the people vote by ballot themselves. This he thought right; their votes are their own, and no one has But it is a right to inquire how they dispose of them. not so with regard to their Representatives. So tenacious and careful had the people of Pennsylvania been on this subject, that they had made it a provision in their constitution, that all votes, given in a representative capacity, should be viva voce. The Representative gives the vote of his constituents, and not his own, and consequently they have a right to know how he does give it. This, as a general rule, cannot be successfully controverted in a representative government, and certainly the case under consideration forms no exception. He was no little astonished at the opposition to the resolution by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. HARDIN.] He represents a State where the people themselves vote viva voce-an intelligent and independent people, who proclaim aloud for whom they vote. And why should he, as their Representative, wish to put in a secret ballot for any officer of this House, in preference to naming aloud the individual for whom he votes? Certainly, gentlemen who represent those States, where the people themselves vote viva voce, will be the last to resist the adoption of the resolution under consideration.

Mr. M. said he would not enter into a discussion of the abstruse legal question, as to whether the printer to this House is an officer or a mere contractor. In his opinion it had nothing to do with the question under consideration. With regard to the objection that is

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

made, that the adoption of the resolution will interfere with the joint resolution of the two Houses relative to electing a printer, he would observe that it is true that the first resolution on that subject provides that the choice shall be made by ballot, but the last resolution on the subject, passed at the session of 1828-29, provides that the members of each House shall vote for a printer, omitting the word by ballot. He had always understood that the last or subsequent law repeals the former, where there is any inconsistency or incongruity between them. He therefore thought that the members were, in this case, at perfect liberty to vote in any manner they may choose to adopt, so far as this joint resolution is concerned.

The resolution now under consideration is one (said Mr. M.) upon which much might be said by travelling into irrelevant and extraneous matters; but it is one that requires but very little argument to show the propriety of its adoption.

The question presented is nothing more nor less than simply this: shall we change the rule of this House in relation to the election of officers, so that our constituents and all others may know for whom we vote? Or shall we continue the present rule, so that neither they, nor any one else, shall know for whom their votes are given by their Representatives?

Mr. BRIGGS said he would ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. He should confine his remarks to two questions which had been presented in the course of the discussion. The first question is, has this House the power, by its own resolution, to direct the mode of appointing its printer? As the printing is to be done by contract, it is admitted, if there is an existing law which prescribes the mode of choosing a printer, the House cannot change that mode. How is the fact? It is conceded that, by the joint resolutions of 1819, passed by both branches of the Legislature, and approved by the President, the choice must be by ballot. Has that part of those resolutions, which provides that both Houses shall choose by ballot, been repealed? Those resolutions, which are to be regarded as having the force of a law in all respects, go on, and minutely to prescribe in what manner the printing of Congress shall be done, and what price shall be paid for it. The last resolution provides that, as soon as the resolutions shall be approved by the President of the United States, each House shall proceed to ballot for a printer," and "the person having the greatest number of votes shall be considered duly elected."

It does not point out at what particular time future elections shall take place. The resolution of 1829, which it is contended repeals that clause of the former resolutions which directs the appointment to be made by ballot, provides "that, within thirty days before the adjournment of every Congress, each House shall proceed to vote for a printer," and that "the person having a majority of all the votes given shall be considered duly elected;" and it further declares, that "so much of the resolutions of 1819 as is altered by this resolution is hereby rescinded." Now, what part or parts of the resolutions of 1819 are rescinded? Clearly, none except that part which leaves the time of future elections unlimited, and that which declares that the person having the plurality of votes shall be considered elected. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MILLER] says the mode of election is changed, because the last resolution declares the two Houses shall proceed to vote, and does not say how they shall vote. But the first resolutions do prescribe the mode of voting, and, as the last does not change that mode, it is but little less than absurd to say that the provision of the first resolutions is rescinded. The gentleman's rule of construction, if carried out, would prove quite too broad for his purpose.

[JAN. 24, 1835.¦

For if the mere omission to speak changes or repeals the first resolutions, as the last resolution makes no provision for the price or style of printing, the whole thing is now open, and no law exists on the subject. And if this be so, we have no power over the matter; for, as is truly remarked by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. MCKINLEY,] the House cannot make a contract of this kind unless authorized by law.

[Here Mr. McKINLEY, having asked and obtained leave to explain, remarked that the gentleman from Massachusetts had not, probably, observed that the res solutions of 1819 were, by their terms, temporary, and did not extend beyond the session when they were adopted; and, if so, they could not affect the question under debate.]

Mr. BRIGGS said he did not admit that the terms of the resolutions of 1819 were temporary; but if they were so, the present argument was not affected by it, because, by the language of the last resolution, it was the clearly expressed will of the Legislature that all the provisions of the former resolutions, except so much as were altered by the last, should remain in force. The title of the last resolution, which is a "resolution amendatory of the resolution" of 1819, plainly shows this to have been its object.

Mr. Speaker, did the Congress which passed the resolution of 1829 believe that by that resolution the mode of voting for printer was changed? If so, why did they not act in pursuance of that belief? But it is an undeniable fact, that both Houses, from that time to this, have continued to vote by ballot. The gentleman from Illinois proposes by his resolution to change the rule of this House, which provides for the choice of its officers by ballot, so that hereafter they shall be elected by a viva voce vote. Suppose his resolution should provide that hereafter the House should proceed on a given day to vote for its officers, and that of all its present rules, which are altered by this resolution, should be repealed. Will any gentleman stand up in his place and say that such a resolution would change the mode of election It seems to me, sir, that by every sound and established rule of construction, the choice of printer by ballot, 25 settled by the joint resolution of 1819, is not affected, altered, or in any way changed by the resolution of 1829, and that this House have no power to interfere with that mode.

Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat, I want to say a word upon another question, which has assumed a very grave importance in the course of this debate. It is said by gentlemen, that, by the principles of our constitu tion, and the doctrine of representative accountability, the Representative ought to give an open vote, in all elections that may take place upon this floor. These are new doctrines in this House. They are asserted with great confidence by the gentleman from Illinois, and those who espouse his side. Yes, sir, after both Houses of Congress have, for more than forty years, elected their officers by ballot, the gentleman from Illi nois has discovered that this practice is subversive of the great principles of the constitution, and dangerous to liberty. One would almost conclude, from the earnest ness with which the gentleman urges an immediate change of the ballot for a viva voce vote, that, our whole political fabric was about to be overthrown by this per nicious and wicked system of ballot voting. How amazingly stupid and obtuse must the wise men, who founded this constitution and, for years administered the Government under it, have been, not to have discover. ed this capital error. Sir, can any gentleman seriously believe that the sages who formed that instrument ever contemplated that the choice of the officers of this House, from the Speaker down to the assistant door. keeper, would be a matter in which the constituents of

[blocks in formation]

those who come here would take an interest or wish to interfere? If we do their business well, if we guard their interests, and faithfully perform those services which they have sent us here to perform, they will not trouble themselves to inquire into the mode by which we choose the various officers necessary to regulate the internal affairs of this body.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MILLER] asks, in a style equally chaste and emphatic, if the members of this House "wish to continue to sneak in their votes by ballot." Sir, by what rule of propriety does the gentle! man use such language towards those with whom he associates here, in relation to their official acts upon this floor? Let those use such epithets who know how to appreciate them, and who can participate in the low and grovelling sentiments and conduct which they describe. I do not believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania is one of those, and hope therefore he will be cautious how he lets such terms escape him. Does the gentleman remember that he holds his seat on this floor by the votes of the freemen of his district, cast in the same manner? Will he reproach those freemen of Pennsylvania who sent him here, with having sneaked in their votes for him by ballot? This a matter, however, between him and them. I will not trouble myself, therefore, to inquire how they they would relish such a compliment.

Mr. Speaker, the ballot principle is, and has been, from the earliest period of their history, considered of the highest importance by the people of the State which I in part represent. They believe that in its practical operation it gives a more fair and unbiased expression of the public will, in the exercise of the elective franchise, than would or could be given in any other mode. It places the timid, the embarrassed, and the weak, upon the same level with the rash, the wealthy, and the powerful. So inviolable and sacred do the people of Massachusetts regard this principle, that they visit with a severe penalty any public officer, presiding at an election, who shall, from curiosity or any other motive, attempt to scrutinize the vote which any freeman may choose to carry to the poll. The same great principle and practice pervade the institutions of all the New England States. They regard the ballot-box as the palladium of their political rights. I know that our brethren in many of the States of this Union, especially in the Southern portion of it, differ from us on this subject. In theory and in practice they maintain the viva voce mode of voting. They sustain their views by ingenious argument, and by strong and plausible reasoning. But, in my opinion, their reasons are not strong enough to master and control the more weighty and powerful considerations in favor of the ballot system. But gentlemen tell us there is a difference between the case of a citizen voting in his individual capacity and that of a Representative voting by virtue of a delegated power. It is not denied that the cases are different; but it by no means follows, as gentlemen would seem to infer, as a matter course, that, if the ballot principle is right in the one case, it is wrong in the other. It is asserted that the viva voce vote is the only true constitutional mode of election here, with all the distinctness and confidence that it would be if that instrument actually prescribed this mode of voting. From the ardent and in.passioned manner which the gentleman from Illinois-I beg the gentleman's pardon, for he told us, no doubt in the honesty of his heart, that he had no idea of producing any excitement on this subject-I should have said from the cool and deliberate manner by which the gentleman supported what he avows to be a constitutional principle, a stranger to our constitution would be led to believe that viva voce, viva Toce, was written upon every page and every section of that instrument.

I will pause for the gentleman to point out the place

[H. OF R.

in the constitution where those words are found, or to inform the House on what section or article he relies to sustain his asserted principle. Is the gentleman aware that that instrument contains any provision prescribing the manner that the members of this House shall vote on and election that may take place here? If so, will he be good enough to name it? He does not choose to respond. Let me say to the gentleman, then, that the first section of the second article of the constitution does prescribe, in the most clear and express terms, the manner that the Representative shall vote upon a question more interesting not only to those whom he may immediately represent, but also more deeply interesting to the people of the whole country than any other-I had almost said than every other that may be presented for his consideration and action--the election of President and Vice President of the United States. This is a case in which the Representative acts for, and in the place of, his constituents in the choice of their rulers. He is to decide whether the candidate whom their partiality would promote, or another, shall be elevated to the highest office on earth. Political interests of the greatest possible magnitude, liberty itself, may depend on a single vote. The sages who framed the constitution were not insensible to the gravity and importance of this official duty. It was their object to place the Representative where he could, in a fearless and independent manner, discharge the high trust reposed in him by those who should honor him with their confidence. They sought to guard and shield him from all the improper and corrupting influences with which he might be surrounded. To accomplish this object, the section I have named provides that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed," and if no person have a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose "by ballot" the President. In like manner, if the Vice President shall not be chosen by a majority of the electoral votes, the Senate shall choose from the candidates "by ballot" the Vice President. But, sir, the constitution carries this principle beyond the walls of this House. The same section of the constitution provides that the electors of President and Vice President, who we know are elected by the people of the several States for the specific and single purpose of voting for these officers, shall meet in their respective States, and vote "by ballot." This House will judge how far these provisions go to support the declaration, so often repeated in the course of this debate, that the principles of the constitution require that all elections which may take place in Congress, should be by a viva voce vote. If the doctrine so urgently contended for on the other side ought to prevail in any case, it would seem that a case where the Representative is called upon to give a vote at an election, in the result of which his constituents and the country are deeply concerned, would be in point. But in precisely such a case, our constitution has established the opposite principle. This principle has been followed out by the practice of half a century, both in its application to the choice of President and Vice President, and by its adop tion by both Houses of Congress in all elections for the choice of their own officers. No complaints have come up here from the people--no memorials have been sent by them demanding a change. Through all the political excitements which from time to time have agitated this Republic, no party and no individual of a party has ever dreamed of making the subject which we are now discussing a theme of party or political controversy. After this long acquiescence in a practice coeval with the

H. OF R.]

Relations with France-Viva voce Elections.

constitution itself--sanctioned by its provisions, and approved by those who formed it-to the patriotic gentleman, coming from the distant Illinois, is reserved the glory of discovering that this venerable practice is in violation of the great principles of the constitution, and dangerous to liberty. I would not withhold a tittle of the honor which belongs to him for the discovery and the annunciation of this new constitutional doctrine. But, not being satisfied of its soundness by the arguments brought to its support, I cannot go for it. I prefer to abide by the established mode of conducting elections in this House. This mode, as I have already said, has the benefit of a long and approved experience. It comes to us recommended and sanctioned by men in whose company I shall always be proud to be found. No mischiefs or inconveniences are shown to have resulted from it. It excludes, so far as any regulations can exclude, an influence from this hall which ought never to enter here. The proposed change would, in my opinion, open a broad and easy avenue for the introduction of that influence. Why should we be eager to rush into experiments, when no evils are shown to have resulted from the existing state of things? Are we to shut our eyes upon the lessons of experience, and refuse instruction from those who have preceded us? Shall neither the wisdom of our sages, nor years of successful trial, nor both combined, ever settle any question in the affairs of this Government? Mr. Speaker, I believe the resolution before you is intended by others, if not by the mover, to extend to the appointment of a printer to this House, as well as to the choice of its officers. I am clear that while the joint resolution of 1819 remains in force, this House cannot change the mode of appointment prescribed by it. I am not convinced that any principle of the constitution requires the introduction of the viva voce vote into elections which take place here. On the contrary, I have shown that the constitution has, in a most important case, established the ballot principle, thus negativing any general argument which might otherwise have been deduced from the relation of representative and constituent. I can, in no point of view, vote for the resolution.

When Mr. BRIGGS had concluded,

Mr. PEYTON took the floor, but yielded it to

Mr. LOVE, who, remarking that it was now 4 o'clock, moved an adjournment.

Mr. MANN called for the yeas and nays, but they were refused; and

The House adjourned.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PATTON asked the consent of the House to submit the following resolutions, which were read:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred that part of the message of the President which concerns our relations with France, be instructed to report the following resolutions to the House:

Resolved, That the claims of our citizens for repara

tion from France, provided for in the treaty of 4th July, 1831, rest upon the strongest ground of right and justice, and their validity and extent have been rendered incontestible as between the two Governments by that convention.

Reoslved, That the idea of acquiescing in the refusal

[JAN. 26, 1835.

of France to execute the treaty will not be entertained by any branch of this Government, and that we ought to insist, and have a right to expect, that France will not persist in the failure to comply with the engagement made in that treaty.

Resolved, That as the King of the French has, in some of the most recent communications which have passed between the ministers of the two Governments, given repeated and reiterated assurances of his sincere desire to have the treaty carried into effect, has declared his intention to present the bill for that purpose as soon as the Chambers can be assembled, and his deter mination to use every exertion in his power to obtain the appropriation, as the bill was heretofore rejected in the Chamber of Deputies by a very small majority, and as that body is now in session at an earlier period than was anticipated when Congress met, we ought at pres ent to confide in the sincerity of the professions of the French Executive, and relying still upon the honor and integrity of France, notwithstanding the unjustifiable delays which have taken place, not now abandon the hope that the obligations of good faith, and a due sense of the justice of our claims will not be, finally, disre garded and overlooked by the French Government in any of its departments.

Resolved, That it is not expedient, at this time, and under existing circumstances, to adopt any legislative measure in relation to our affairs with France.

Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, asked whether the resolu tions were reported from a committee; and, on being informed that they were offered by an individual member, objected to their introduction.

Mr. PATTON moved the suspension of the rule, to allow him to offer them; and stated that he merely wished at present to lay the resolutions on the table.

Mr. J. Y. MASON asked whether his colleague could not lay the resolutions on the table, to be offered when his State was called, in the usual order, on calling the House for motions.

The SPEAKER replied that he knew of no such practice as receiving motions upon the table in that manner. It would introduce much embarrassment and confusion.

Mr. CLAY desired the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rule, and they were ordered.

Mr. CAMBRELENG merely wished, he said, the question to be stated before it was taken, as he believ ed it was not generally understood.

The SPEAKER said that the effect of the motion to suspend the rule, if agreed to, would be to bring the

resolutions before the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS asked for the reading of the reso lutions; and they were, accordingly, again read.

Mr. PATTON stated, in order, he said, to remove any misapprehension as to his object, that it was not his purpose to ask for the consideration of the resolutions at this time. He merely wished to lay them on the

table.

lows: Yeas 103, nays 109. The question being then taken, it was decided as fol

So the House refused to suspend the rule, so as to allow of the reception of these resolutions.

VIVA VOCE ELECTIONS. The House resumed the consideration of the follow ing resolution, offered by Mr. REYNOLDS:

"Resolved, That hereafter, in all elections made by the House of Representatives, (for officers,) the votes shall be given viva voce, each member in his place naming aloud the person for whom he votes."

The question being on the following amendment, of fered by Mr. HARDIN:

"Provided, That elections ordered by joint resolt

« AnteriorContinuar »