Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)

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.

Tuesday, January 7, 1812

Statute of Limitations

On motion of Mr. Gholson, the House resolved itself into a committee, on a report of the Committee of Claims on the subject of excepting certain claims from the act of limitations. The report of the committee being read, which concluded with a resolve that it is inexpedient to open the act of limitations for the claims in question:

Mr. Gholson hoped the committee would not agree to this report. Information had been received from the Treasury Department, stating in a distinct and unequivocal manner, that all this description of claims (which were all liquidated claims, such as indents of interest, certificates, &c.,) might be allowed by the Government, without danger of fraud or imposition; and, said Mr. G., if justice can be extended to this description of claimants, without danger, why should it be deferred? Only one solitary reason had been offered – that the persons really entitled to these claims upon Government might not get the money. He hoped this would not be sufficient to prevent Congress from doing what was just on the occasion.

Mr. Clay (the Speaker) hoped the committee would disagree to this resolution. It appears that the officers of the Treasury are of opinion that provision may be made for this description of claims without that danger of fraud, which might possibly arise from a total repeal of the statute of limitations; that their whole amount does not exceed $300,000, and the probability is, that one-fifth will never be applied for, should they be authorized to be paid. What, said Mr. C, is this statute of limitations, which, whenever mentioned in this House, seems to make everybody tremble? It is a general rule prescribed by the Government for the direction of its accounting officers in order to exclude unjust claims. What are statutes of limitation as applicable to individual cases? A rule under which individuals claim protection whenever they choose to do so, and when, from the lapse of time, or loss of evidence, they would be injured, were they not to take this advantage. But in these statutes of limitation there are always exceptions in favor of cases of disability, infancy, coverture, insanity, absence beyond sea, &c. But what is the course which an individual would take who found himself protected by a statute of limitation? He would examine the justice of the claim brought against him; if the claim were just, if he had been deprived of no evidence by the delay, if as able to pay it as if it had been presented at an earlier day, he will not hesitate to discharge the claim, and scorn to take advantage of the statute. And, said Mr. O., shall the Government be less willing to discharge its just debts than an honest individual? Shall we turn a deaf ear to the claims of individuals upon Government because of this statute? He trusted not. The Committee of Claims ought to examine the merit of every claim which comes before it, and if it be just, decide in its favor. But what, said Mr. C, has been the history of claims for four or five years past? When a solitary claim was presented the House would say, we cannot legislate upon individual cases. They occupy too much of our time. The claim is put aside. The same individual some time after, appears in company with others. We then say there are too many of these claims – their amount is too large, and the Treasury too poor – that there are a great many other claims equally well founded – that justice cannot be done to them all. Sometimes there is a division between the two Houses. This House passes a bill in favor of some particular claim – the other tells you they will not legislate for particular cases; that if they act, they wish to take up the subject generally. Mr. C. said it was his wish, both in his public and private character, as far as possible, to do justice; he therefore hoped the course proposed by the Chairman of the Committee of Claims would be agreed to.

The resolution recommended by the report was negatived, 54 to 31: and a resolution offered by Mr. Gold, recommending a provision by law for these claims, after some objections from Mr. Alston, was agreed to, 39 to 36.

Wednesday, January 8

Battle of Tippecanoe

Mr. McKee, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the Message of the President, transmitting two letters from Governor Harrison, reporting the particulars and issue of the expedition under his command against the hostile Indians on the Wabash River, and the memorials of the Legislature of the Indiana Territory, and the officers and soldiers who served in the said expedition, presented the twenty-fourth ultimo, made a report thereon; which was read and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. The report is as follows:

The committee to whom was referred the Message of the President of the United States, transmitting two letters from Governor Harrison, of the Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars and the issue of the expedition under his command against the hostile Indians on the Wabash, and to whom was also referred the memorial of the General Assembly of the Indiana Territory, and the memorial of the officers and soldiers of the militia of Knox county, in the Indiana Territory, who served in the late campaign under the command of Governor Harrison, report:

That they have had the several matters to them referred under their consideration, and have given to them that attention which their importance seems to merit.

It appears to the committee, that the troops under the command of Governor Harrison may very properly be termed raw troops: very few of the officers, and almost none of the men, had ever been in actual service; and a considerable portion of them had been only a few weeks withdrawn from the pursuits of civil life. The attack made on this quickly-assembled army by the hostile Indians on the Wabash, when viewed, either as it relates to the nature of the enemy, the time, or the violence with which the attack was made, cannot but be considered of such a character as would have severely tested the collected firmness of the most able and experienced troops. This attack, violent and unexpected as it seems to have been, was repelled by the troops under the command of Governor Harrison, with a gallantry and good conduct worthy of future imitation. The whole transaction, in the opinion of the committee, presents to the American people a new proof that the dauntless spirit of our ancestors, by whom the war of the Revolution was so ably and successfully maintained, has not been diminished by more than thirty years of almost uninterrupted peace, but that it has been handed down, unimpaired, to their posterity.

In estimating the claims of the army on the Government of the United States, it is worthy of remark, that the nature of the country, as well as of the enemy to be encountered, subjected the army to many extreme hardships, and equal dangers, where every thing was hazarded, and but little could be gained, except the regard of their country.

The volunteers and militia (to whose claims the memorials referred to the committee particularly relate) were in actual service but a short time, for which alone they are entitled to pay by law; the compensation, therefore, to which they are entitled, is not at all commensurate to the services rendered, and the dangers incurred. Besides, many of the officers and men who fell, or were wounded, in the battle of the 7th November, 1811, were purchasers of the public lands, for which they were indebted to the United States; which debt falls due in a short time, and the penalty of forfeiture will be incurred if the debt is not paid. It would be unjust to inflict a penalty so severe on the disconsolate widows and orphans of those officers and soldiers of the volunteers and militia, who, in common with their brother officers and soldiers of the regular troops, fell in their country's cause, in a manner so distinguished, that nothing was wanting but a great occasion, interesting to the feelings of the American people, to have crowned their names with unfading laurels.

As an evidence, therefore, of the regard due to the bravery and ability displayed by the troops under the command of Governor Harrison, in the battle of the 7th November, 1811, as well as to relieve the representatives of those who were killed in the action, from the pecuniary losses incurred in consequence thereof, the committee respectfully submit the following resolutions: