Kitabı oku: «Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)», sayfa 97

I have often been puzzled to imagine a necessity, which could even apologize for such an assumption of power as the majority, by this new construction of the previous question, are attempting; and, until lately, I did not believe that it could possibly exist. The only case, in which there seemed to me to be an apology for resorting to it, was, the other day, when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Troup) threatened to call the previous question upon the majority themselves. I admired both his manner and the occasion on which he introduced that idea. And really there was something like a necessity. If I understood the view of that honorable gentleman, it was, that he thought there was not fighting matter to spare in the stomachs of the majority; and he threatened them with the previous question, lest, peradventure, the whole war spirit should ooze away through the mouth. In this there was both discretion and patriotism.

Mr. Brigham said, that although he was forward in life, he was but of yesterday of this House, and that the rules and orders were not familiar with him. But he exceedingly regretted that this House, in their wisdom, ever found it expedient or proper to adopt a rule to deprive a minority, or an individual member of this House, of the freedom of debate, the freedom of speech, a privilege so much boasted of in this land of liberty. He observed that he had his rights in common with the other members of the House, and that he had his duties to perform. He was not ambitious to become a public speaker, nor would he say that he supposed he could speak to the edification or satisfaction of the House. But should he, on great questions, be denied the privilege of speaking? Suppose the question of peace or war should assume the aspect of solemnity, and it should become necessary and important that this House be made acquainted with the circumstances and disposition of the citizens of the several sections of the country – and suppose a member who is not much accustomed to speaking, silently sits until those gentlemen who are in the habit, and are fond of speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in debate – shall he, in that case, be denied the right of speaking – shall he be deprived of his constitutional privileges and his constituents of the right of representation on the floor of this House?

He said that he was bound by the oath of God to support the constitution, and to promote the welfare of his country; but, if his mouth is stopped, how can he execute his trust or perform his vows? For this House by a rule to interdict the freedom of speech, is an assumption of power, and a violation of right. He hoped, that the rule under consideration would be modified, and that the proposed amendment would be adopted. He wished that each individual member might be permitted to exercise his right of speaking to any question before the House, at least once, if he chooses.

Mr. Nelson spoke in favor of the amendment. He said he had no hesitation in declaring, that whenever right and expediency shall come in competition, that he should prefer right. He remarked, that the constitution secured the freedom of speech to the citizen. And are we, he asked, to be deprived of it when we come to this House – when we enter this temple of liberty? The attempt is not to suspend merely, but to destroy this right, and because we have experienced some inconvenience from this exercise. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) that if the House would do their duty, and get the business along in the early part of the session, we should never be in the dilemma the House were in, the last session of Congress; and that an inconvenience was a very poor reason for destroying this right of offering our sentiments. He would rather recommend the turning out of doors a member who should become troublesome in speaking too long, than to suffer him to stay in the House and prevent his uttering his sentiments. Even expulsion would not be a greater infringement of his right. The right of the people is the right of their Representatives to speak, deliberate, and decide. As to the plea of necessity, he protested against it as the plea of tyrants.

Mr. Alston, of North Carolina, expressed his astonishment, that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nelson) had assumed the ground he had. He said, there were two parties in this House; and asked, is it ever known how a question will be decided, until it is taken?

Mr. Bassett said, if a stranger was present, and should hear this debate, he would suppose that the question was now for the first time brought forward for the establishment of the rule, against which so much had been said, when it is well known that it has always been the practice.

Mr. Pitkin said, the amendment now under consideration was proposed in consequence of a decision of the House, at the close of the last session, that when the previous question was decided in the affirmative, there could be no debate on the main question; the amendment, if adopted, allows a member, who has not previously spoken, to speak at least once on the main question, before he is called upon to give his vote upon it.

The principle adopted by the majority, during the last days of the last session, and now supported in the House, is this, that a majority, who may happen to be present, at any time, have it in their power, by means of a previous question, as it is called, to prevent all debate on every question before the House, however important it may be; to seal up the lips of every member, and compel him to vote upon the question without an opportunity of expressing his sentiments upon it, or explaining the reasons of his vote. This, Mr. Speaker, is a principle to which I never have, and to which I never will give my assent. What, sir, let me ask, and where is the rule under which the majority claim to exercise this enormous power – the power of imposing silence upon any member, on this floor?

The rule, under which this power is claimed, is in the following words: "The previous question shall be in this form: Shall the main question be now put?" It shall only be admitted when demanded by five members; and, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment and further debate of the main question, and that "on a previous question there shall be no debate." By a new construction, which a majority of the House thought proper to give to this rule, at the close of the last session, all debate may be prohibited on any question; for five members alone can demand the previous question, and then, of course, all debate must cease, until a decision be had on that question, and if the previous question be decided in the affirmative, by this new construction of the rule, there can be no debate or amendment of the main question. Thus, sir, unless the amendment now proposed be adopted, if a proposition for a declaration of war against Great Britain, or any other nation, should be laid upon your table to-morrow, it will be in the power of a majority of the House, and that majority may consist of less than forty members, to impose silence upon every member of this House; and we must be compelled to vote on a proposition so interesting to the prosperity, happiness, and perhaps the final destiny of this country, without the poor privilege (if we might choose so to do) of raising our voices against it. But, sir, the opponents of the amendment say, that the construction given to the rule the last session, was in conformity with the universal practice of the House, from the establishment of the Government, except in two or three instances.

I deny, sir, that this has been the practice, and I believe I may venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that no such power has ever been exercised over the members of this House, since its organization, until the last session. I have, sir, examined the journals, with some attention, and have not been able to find a solitary instance of the kind. On the contrary, many cases are to be found when the previous question has been decided in the affirmative, and that, immediately after the main question has not only been amended but has been debated. And here, sir, permit me to observe, that the rule itself, with respect to the previous question, was adopted the first session of the First Congress, and has ever since remained precisely in the same form; and no construction was ever given to it, so as to prevent debate on the main question, until the last session.

Permit me to refer the House to the Journal of the first session of the Third Congress, for the proof of what I have stated. During this session, the difficulties then subsisting between this country and Great Britain, became the subject of discussion, and a proposition for prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, in case justice was not done us, was then submitted to the House, and the previous question was called upon it, and decided in the affirmative, after which the subject was not only postponed, but, as appears by the Journal, was both amended and debated. It appears also from the Journal in 1795, that a proposition was amended after an affirmative decision of the previous question. In the year 1798, when a resolution was before the House for publishing the instructions to, and the despatches from our Ministers to the French Republic, the previous question was moved and determined in the affirmative; and it appears by the Journal that immediately after such decision, on the same day, debate was had on the main question.

But, sir, to come to our own times: on the 15th of December, 1807, a construction was given to the rule, after mature deliberation, by a large majority of the House, that the main question might be debated, after an affirmative decision of the previous question. This was done on an appeal from the decision of the Speaker, "that after the previous question is called for and determined in the affirmative, it precludes all debate on the main question." The House reversed the decision of the Chair by 103 to 14. A similar decision took place on the 2d of December, 1803, in the House – 101 to 18. And, sir, I have been unable to find a single decision of the House to the contrary, from the first organization of the Government until the close of the last session. Indeed, sir, the words of the rule itself, show that the construction, which had so long prevailed, was the only true construction which could be given to it. The words are, and until it (viz: the previous question) is decided, "shall preclude all amendment and further debate on the main question." By which it is evident, that amendment and debate of the main question is only precluded, until the previous question is decided, but that after such decision, it was not precluded.

The gentleman from New York, (Mr. Gold,) and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Nelson,) have truly stated that the previous question was taken from the rules of the British Parliament, and they have likewise stated the reason of its introduction into that body. It was, sir, to prevent debate in the House of Commons upon questions of a delicate nature with respect to high personages, &c. Yes, sir, it was introduced there to enable the Ministry to prevent the Commons from opening their lips on subjects relating to the Royal Family and the great men of the realm. But, sir, we have gone further than the Ministry and their majorities, despotic and tyrannical as they have been, have ever dared to go in Parliament. For even there members are now, and always have been, permitted to debate on the previous question; but which members on this floor are not now permitted to do. Mr. Speaker, the nature of our Government forbids that the majority should have the power to prohibit all debate on questions which may come before this House. We have not, as yet, I trust, any high personages in this country about whom it would be indelicate or improper for the members on this floor to speak; and let me ask what subject of national importance can be proposed for adoption, on which a member should be deprived of the privilege of speaking at least once before he gives his vote? Nay, sir, let me ask gentlemen whether this House has a right to compel me, or any other member, to vote on any question, without giving me an opportunity of explaining my reason for that vote. I deny, sir, that they have this right; as a member of this body, I claim the privilege of delivering my sentiments, or what I may consider the sentiments of my constituents, on any subject, before I give my vote upon it. I claim it not, sir, for myself personally, but I claim it in the capacity of a Representative of a free people, sent here, not like a member of the French Council of Five Hundred, for the purpose of voting merely, but for the purpose of deliberating on subjects of high concern to their peace, their prosperity, their happiness. For what, sir, are we assembled here under a constitution the purest in the world? Is it not for the purpose of promoting "the general welfare" of the nation which we represent? And how is this to be done, except by a free communication of our sentiments to each other, on the various plans which may be proposed for that object? The peace, the honor, and interest of this country is confided to our care, and while we are here deliberating on the best means of preserving the one or securing and promoting the other, the constitution has very wisely thrown around us a shield of complete indemnity – "for any speech or debate in this House," we are "not to be questioned in any other place." Will then the majority claim the right of depriving a member of this privilege of speech, a privilege not only thus secured to him by the constitution itself, but for the due exercise of which he is not to be questioned elsewhere? But, sir, those who oppose the amendment say that the construction is founded in necessity; that individual members have abused the privilege of speech; that they have heretofore, and probably will again, make long speeches merely for the purpose of delay, and of embarrassing the proceedings of the House; and that therefore the majority must have it in their power to stop debate, whenever they think proper, and that this power will always be exercised with a sound discretion.

I deny, sir, that any such necessity exists; it is a plea easily made, but generally difficult and in this case impossible to be supported. Why has it so happened that this necessity has never existed until the last session of Congress? Was it then for the first time, that a division of sentiment appeared on this floor? were parties never before heard of in this country? Were not parties arrayed against each other in 1796 on the subject of the British Treaty, and in 1798-'9, on the question of a war with France? Were not the disputes in this House, in those times, as long and as bitter as they have ever been since? Those were times, which have been so often quoted in this House as hard, and unconstitutional; times when the reign of terror prevailed, when corrupt majorities, as has been often said on this floor, passed alien and sedition laws. And, yet, sir, with all the political sins which have been heaped upon those majorities, the sin of having taken away the privilege of speech on this floor never has been, and as I have proved from the journals, never can be laid to their charge. This House, by the constitution, has the power to "determine the rules of its proceedings;" and in making those rules, it has the right of regulating, but not of entirely preventing debate.

It would indeed be a strange anomaly in politics, as well as in law, that under a general power of making rules of proceeding, we should make a rule to prevent all proceedings whatever. Gentlemen may as well assume the power of preventing a member from voting, as they now do that of preventing him from speaking. I am willing to agree, sir, that the privilege of debate, on this floor, may have been and will again be abused; that on particular subjects individual members have spoken much longer than was necessary, and I may add, also, with much less sense than a majority might have wished; and in some instances they may have prolonged their speeches, merely for the purposes of delay. But, sir, will you deprive a member of the right of speaking at all, because he is unable to convey his ideas in few words, or because he may have very few or no ideas to convey? Or because some may have spoken merely to delay the proceedings of the House, will you make a general rule, by which a member may be wholly deprived of the right of speaking? If indeed, sir, evils do arise in consequence of the liberty of speech in this house, if the business of the nation does not progress with as much rapidity as in countries under the control of an individual; they are evils which flow from the very nature of our Government, from that freedom which we so highly prize, and from that very constitution which we have sworn to support. So long as we are men we shall be imperfect, we shall bring with us on this floor different views, different ideas on political as well as on other subjects; and it would be strange indeed if, on the various topics of national importance brought before us for discussion, we should not at times come into strong collision with each other.

The question on the amendment was determined in the negative – yeas 36, nays 76.

Mr. Stanford moved to amend the rules by adding to the end of the paragraph relating to priority of business, the words "but no question of consideration shall be required upon an original motion;" which was also determined in the negative – yeas 30, nays 68.

On motion of Mr. Williams the said rules were amended by striking out the word "five," in the paragraph prescribing the manner in which the previous question shall be taken, and inserting the words "one-fifth of the."

The question was then taken to concur in the said rules as amended, and determined in the affirmative.¹⁹

Friday, December 27

Mr. Nelson presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the Territory of Louisiana, praying that the second grade of Territorial government may be extended to the inhabitants of said Territory.

Monday, December 30

Burning of the Richmond Theatre

Soon after the Journal was read,

Mr. Dawson rose and addressed the chair. The lowness of his voice, owing to recent indisposition prevented his being heard distinctly; but his observations were nearly as follows:

Mr. Speaker – Virginia, my parent State, has long to mourn the loss of some of her most valuable sons and estimable daughters, who on the night of the 26th of the present month, met their untimely end.²⁰

Among those who perished in the flames, in the metropolis of that State, on that sad night, were the Chief Magistrate of the State, and a gentleman²¹ well known to many of us, and who, for years, held an honorable station in this House. Some of the most valuable and prominent characters in their professions, and others who promised ere long to be ornaments to their country. With these, sir, was the rising offspring²² of one of our present most valuable members, and many other amiable and virtuous women who adorned and improved society.

These, sir, with many others, have fallen victims to that unrelenting element, notwithstanding the bold and generous efforts which were made to save them.

Their ashes are now mingled with the dust, and their spirits have ascended to Heaven.

It is to us a great national calamity.

I well know, that on such occasions grief, although keen, is unavailing – that the decrees of fate are irrevocable and ought to be submitted to with humility. In order, however, to testify the respect and sorrow which this nation feels for the deceased, and to prove that we sympathize with the afflicted, without further comment on this painful subject, I beg leave to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the members of this House will wear crape on the left arm for one month, in testimony of the respect and sorrow which they feel for those unfortunate persons who perished in the fire in the city of Richmond, in Virginia, on the night of the 26th of the present month.

This resolution was unanimously adopted.