« FöregåendeFortsätt »
house "No new proposition shall be admitted, under the colour of an amendment, as a substitute for the motion or proposition under debate," and on an appeal the opinion of the chair was sustained.
Jan. 18, 1810. The house proceeded to consider the amendment reported by the committee of the whole, to the bill respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States, Great Britain, and France, and for other purposes; and the same, together with the bill, being again read at the clerk's table, it was moved and seconded, to strike out the fifth section of the bill, which the speaker decided to be out of order, until after the consideration of the amendments reported by the committee of the whole house. From this decision, Mr. Livermore took an appeal, and on the question "Is the decision of the chair correct?" it was determined in the negative.
Feb. 27, 1810. Mr. Gardenier of N. Y. was addressing the chair and was called to order by Mr. Eppes, a member from the state of Virginia. The speaker decided, that the range of argument taken by Mr. G. was irrelevant to the question before the house, and not in order. Mr. Gardenier had sat down, and being about to speak, after another member had risen and addressed the chair, the speaker decided that the member from New York had lost his prior right to the floor; and on an appeal, the decision of the chair was sustained. Yeas 77, nays 43.
April 4, 1810. The yeas and nays having been called over, on a bill before the house, it was sug
gested by a member, in his place, from Maryland, Mr. McKim, that he had committed a mistake in giving in his vote on the question last taken, and that he had intended to vote on the negative and not on the affirmative side of the said question, as the same had been recorded by the clerk; whereupon the speaker then directed the clerk to call the name of the member, Mr. McKim, again, and being so called, Mr. McKim answered in the negative. An objection was made to the right of changing the vote, by Mr. Randolph, unless by the unanimous consent of the house. The speaker determined, according to the practice of the house, the member had a right to change his vote. From which decision Mr. Randolph appealed, and the decision of the chair was sustain. ed. Yeas 76, nays 19.
Mr. Dana objected that the fourth section of a bill ought not at this time to be discussed or voted upon in the house, for that it was a motion or proposition for a tax or charge upon the people, which was not made or offered until yesterday, and had not since that day been discussed in a committee of the whole house. The speaker decided that the bill in question, having been reported by a committee of the whole house, and passed to a third reading, and having been read a third time, and the only question being " Shall the bill pass?" he conceived that at this stage of the bill the question could not lie; which decision was appealed from, and the decision of the chair sustained. Yeas 67, nays 37. April 30,1 1810.
Jan. 18, 1811. The injunction of secrecy im
posed on the secret proceedings in the house, cannot be taken off with open doors. This decision was appealed from, but sustained by a vote of 76 yeas to 38 nays.
Feb. 5, 1811. Mr. Speaker decided that the vote taken yesterday on the question "Will the house concur with the committee of the whole on the state of the Union, in the adoption of the resolution?" being a question directly on the merits of the proposed amendment, (of the constitution) and less than two-thirds of the house voting in favour of it, he considered the resolution as negatived. From this decision an appeal was made by Mr. Randolph, and being seconded, the question was taken on the decision of the chair, and it was decided to be correct. Yeas 61, nays 59. So the proposition to amend the constitution of the United States was rejected.
Feb. 27, 1811. On motion of Mr. Ringgold, the previous question was demanded by five members, (the number under an old rule,) whereupon the previous question was taken in the form prescribed, to wit: "Shall the main question be now put?" on the passage of the bill, and resolved in the affirmative. Mr. Randolph then moved to adjourn. Negatived. The main question then recurred, when Mr. Randolph moved again to adjourn. Negatived. After which, the main question was taken, that the bill do pass. Yeas 64, nays 12.
February 20, 1812.
An engrossed bill was read the third time, and
the question was stated, that the said bill do pass; and debate arising thereon,
The previous question was called for, and demanded by one-fifth of the members present, and being taken in the form prescribed by the rules and orders of the house, to wit:
"Shall the main question be Now put?" It was determined in the negative.
In consequence whereof, the speaker decided that the said bill was postponed until to-morrow.
The house proceeded to consider the amendments of the senate to the bill "laying an embargo, &c."
A motion was made by Mr. Randolph, to postpone said bill and amendments until Monday next.
A motion was also made by Mr. Emott, that the said bill and amendments be postponed for thirty days, which superseded Mr. Randolph's motion: On which,
The previous question was demanded by a majority of the members present, and being taken in the form prescribed by the rules and orders of the house, to wit:
“Shall the main question be now put ?" It passed in the affirmative.
The speaker then decided that the main question to be now put was, "Will the house concur with the senate in the amendments made to the bill?" and not upon the proposition for postpone
From which decision of the speaker, Mr. Randolph appealed to the house;
And the question was taken, "Is the decision of the chair correct?"
And passed in the affirmative.
Mr. Stanford was then about to debate the question upon concurrence with the senate in their amendments, when he was stopped by the speak. er, and informed that it was inadmissible to discuss the question, and that it must be forthwith put without debate.
From which decision of the speaker, Mr. Stanford appealed to the house.
And the question was taken, "Is the decision of the chair correct?" Passed in the affirmative.
The house resolved itself into a committee of the whole house, on the bill from the senate "to incorporate," &c. and, after some time spent therein, the chairman of the committee of the whole reported that the committee had made an amendment to the bill, by striking out the first section thereof.
The question was then taken to concur in the said amendment, and passed in the affirmative.
Upon which the speaker decided, that, as the first section of the bill, which went to the establishment of the intended corporation, was stricken out, the said bill was consequently rejected.
Mr. Randolph having rose and stated to the house that he meant to submit a proposition for consideration, proceeded to discuss, at large, the relations between this country and Great Britain, and between this country and France: When,
Mr. Calhoun interrupted him on a question of order, and submitted to the chair whether Mr. Randolph was at liberty thus to proceed without stating his proposition, and its being seconded.