The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 30
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
m
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
House on that day—not the slightest notice being
taken of anything in his resolution beyond that part
which appeared on the journal. It was not stated
in th® journal that he offered any protest whatever,
arid therefore there was nothing to refer to, to make
the journal-intelligible; and what he insisted upon,
was simply this: that when a member in his seat
presents a resolution to the House, when that reso-
lution was received by this body, when it was en-
tertained and discussed, and voted upon, it was the
right of the minority to call for its record on the
journal; and it was the first time in the legislative
nistory of the country that it had been refused.
If he (Mr. Barnard) were to offer a resolution to
this body, drawn up in his own way, upon any sub-
ject whatever—upon the tariff, the currency, inter-
nal improvement, or any thing else—and that
resolution should be received by the House, discuss-
ed and voted upon, would it ever enter into the
head of any man to suppose that the journal of the
House would bear true testimony of the transaction,
by stating the substance of the resolution, instead of
the resolution itself? He would venture to say, that
an example was not to be found in the records of
legislation, where a written resolution had betn
offered, received, and voted upon by a legislative
body, and entered upon the journal by a mere
statement of its contents, instead of being placed there
at length. Yet this'was what the House now pro-
posed to do; and this he objected to, as being a most
dangerous precedent, and as being a violation of the
Constitution itself; inasmuch as it was provided by
the Constitution that one-fifth of the members of the
House should have the power of demanding a rec-
ord of the yeas and nays upon aiiy question.
But he had not the slightest disposition to press
this matter; if the House was prepared to dis-
pose of the question upon the motion of the gentle-
man from Virginia, he was perfectly content.
But as to the question of the reception of a paper,
he would ask what was meant by reception in its
ordinary application? If a member of the House
should rise in his place and offer a paper that was
offensive, it would be very proper that the House
should refuse to receive it; or if a member of that
body should rise in his place and present a resolu-
tion for the consideration of the House, which, on
hearing it read, members might think objectionable,
as being likely to throw the House into confusion,
it would be very proper to meet such a resolution
with a question as to its reception. But here was
a simple proposition to amend the journals of the
House—a proposition, ho contended,in no way dis-
respectful to the House; and this proposition was
met by a question of reception. He repeated, if a
majority of the House were ready to dispose of the
matter upon a question of reception, he was perfect-
ly content. He did not mean to press the matter,
as he had said before. If the House were now to
admit the resolution, he did not desire to say one
word more about it; he wanted merely to give the
House one more opportunity to accord to the mi-
nority their constitutional rights. That was his ob-
ject, and his sole object; and in calling for the read-
ing of the journal as he had done, he desired
to exhibit to the House its mutilated condition.
Mr. DROMGOOLE said, in order that gentle-
men who seemed so desirous of recording the yeas
and nays might have an opportunity of doing so,
he would call for the yeas and nays upon this very
motion. He had made this question, because he
did regard it as disrespectful to the House, for any
member to attempt to put upon the records of the
House a paper, while it had been decided by the
House, over and over again, that it was improper
for it to go there. He repeated, it was disrespectful to
the House; but he acquitted the mc. cr of any inten-
tion to offer a disrespect. The ger tlenian now dis-
claimed all intention to press the matter, though for
more than a week past, he had been most perseve-
ring in his attempts to force the paper upon the jour-
nals of the House.
He had voted yesterday, and lie would con-
tinue so to vote until doomsday, notwithstand-
ing the clamor which gentlemen were making;
and to protest against the doctrine that the
minority should go\ern, and that the House
had no right to instruct their Clerk in the perform-
ance of his duty. The Clerk was but the agent
of the House m making up the journal which the
House was bound to keep.
But there was another ground upon which he
rested an objection: he objected not only because it
was disrespectful to the House, but because it was
p violation of the Constitution, ^'hich the gentle- j
man professed so much to venerate. It had been
decided, both in that House and in the Senate, that
no member or set of members have the right to
spread a paper upon the journals contrary to the
will of the majority—a decision which had at first
struck him as being improper, but reflection had
convinced him that it was salutary and proper.
They had heard a great deal about the framers
of the Constitution knowing what they were
about. He believed they did know very well
the full effect and meaning of that instrument; but
from what he had heard from gentlemen in that
House, he was very much inclined to doubt whether
those who succeeded the framers of the Constitution
knew what their meaning and intention was. He
^collected being at the other end of the Capitol
when a debate was going on upon a motion to ex-
punge; and a Senator (one who was held in very
great veneration by the gentleman from New York,
and to whom the term "godlike" was sometimes ap-
plied,) stated in his place that he desired to read a
paper for the information of the Senate, in regard to
the sentiments of himself and his colleagues upon
a certain question, inasmuch as he could not
obtain permission to place it upon the journals;
and no further attempt was made by "the godlike" to
force the paper upon the journal. This was the
course which he would recommend to the gentle-
man from New York, who was so persevering in
his efforts to accomplish his darling ob ject of placing
upon the journal of the House a protest, signed by
himself and forty-nine other members.
He had no sort of objection that the protest
should be put upon the journal, in the newspapers,
or anywhere else. If he had exerted all the little
powers of ingenuity which he possessed to catch
his adversaries in an unfavorable position before the
public, he could never have devised a better than the
gentlemen had themselves chalked out. What
had they done? They had come there and at-
tempted, under the pretext of amending the
journal, to spread upon it a protest, contrary
to the decision of both branches of Congress. And
they had, moreover, taken upon themselves to de-
cide, beforehand, upon a case which must come be-
fore that body for adjudication. That House would
be called to decide upon the constitutionality of con-
flicting enactments. The House must, of necessi-
ty, dccide the question, whether an act, of the last
Congress, which received the sanction of both
branches, and was approved in a most extraordina-
ry manner by the Executive, be constitutional or
otherwise; presenting the strange position of one
House being colled 011 to be the judges as to wheth-
er an act of Congress is constitutional.
There was, in his opinion, no sort of injustice in
preventing these gentlemen from spreading their
protest before the public, through the journals of
that House. There was no injustice; there was 110
fear of doing these gentlemen injustice. There was
no necessity to accede to their request, through fear
of doing them injustice. The report, when made
by the committee upon this subject, would probably
be met by a minority report. ' When the question
came before the House, gentlemen might come for
ward with their arguments, and record their votes
upon the journal. The very provision of the Con-
stitution about which they were making such a
clamor furnished, in fact, a substitute for the re-
cording of protests upon the journal. It was fore-
seen, he had 110 doubt, by the framers of the Con-
stitution, that to give the right of inserting a protest
upon the journal, would be giving to an individual
member the right to spread his arguments upon the
journal. To avoid this difficulty, the power was
given to one-fifth of the members to demand the
yeas and nays; and that was the only protest which
was nov/ known to the Constitution of the United
States. In view of the constitutional question and
of the fact that this House had already decided that
the paper should not go upon the journal, he hoped
the House would at once nip the project in the bud.
He asked for the yeas and nays upon his mo-
tion.
Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL said he was very rrlnc
tant to say a word upon the subject, feeling alto-
gether indifferent whether the protest were entered
upon the journal of the House or not. So much had
been said, however, that he felt disposed to add a
few very brief remarks. That House, at some time
or other, would be called upon to adjudicate this
question, which it was now proposed in some decree
to prejudicare. The Constitution had given to^the
House power and authority to judge of the election,
returns, and qualifications of its own members. Jt
would be therefore not only the right, but the spe-
cial duty of that House to consider the matter when
brought before it in its judicial capacity. The judi-
cial functions of that House consisted not only in
the application of existing law to particular cases,
but, overstepping, the bounds assigned to a mere ex-
pounder of the laws upon the statute-book, they
supplied all deficiencies by creating rules to suit all
emergencies. By an act of that House, relief was
granted to particular individuals. Why? Because
there was no general law applying to those indi-
viduals.
Mr. OWEN said: I confess my surprise at the
course that has been taken, and the denunciations
that have been made by the minority during the de-
bate on the present question. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. J. R. Ingersoll] claims for
his party that they have said no hard things of us.
1 must differ from him. They bring against us ac-
cusations of no ordinary character. They declare
that we, in that wantonness of power (in which I admit
that successful majorities are too prone to indulge)
have tyrannized over the minority. They say, that
not content to with voting down the proposals of the
minority, we are not even willing the country should
be informed through the journals what it is they pro-
pose, what it is we vote down. They go further
yet. They add that, by our arbitrary acts, we tear
up the Constitution by the roots; piling, as we pro-
ceed, one act of nullification on another.
These are grave charges. The right of the minor-
ity is a holy thing; the Constitution is a sacred one.
If, in very deed, either directly or indirectly, by any
act or implication, we violate the one, or trample 011
the other, no terms of reprehension are too strong to
stigmatize our conduct. If, in support of such a
charge, substantial proof could be brought against
the majority, wholly unworthy would that majority
be of its place and its power on thisHoor.
I will not stop here to inquire whether, even then—
if we did press unscrupulously on the rights of the
minority—whether, in that case, the denunciation
would come with a good grace from the minority
who complain of us. I will not remind these gen-
tlemen how they—a minority now, a majority
once—acted towards Us. I will not call up the
memory of the instruments of parliamentary tor-
ture once employed by them, and, but a few days
since, on the motion of the gentleman before me,
from Virginia, [Mr. Wisf.,] broken up and thrown
from us, even as men penetrated to the dungeons ot
that atrocious tribunal, the inquisition, (when civil-
ization was sweeping it away,) and broke up and scat-
tered to the winds of heaven its horrible instruments,
constructed to torture the body-—not, like those we
destroyed, the mind. From such retort as that, I will
abstain. I will not even say to that minority—yet
might I not, sir, most aptly use the words?—"He that
is without blame among ye, let him cast the first
stone"' I take other ground than.that. The errors
of others are no apology for our own. That they,
when the power was with them, unfairly treated us,
is 110 justification of our course, should we, imita-
ting a bad example, unfairly treat them. We pro-
pose to ourselves—may I not in this speak in the
name of the majority?—a higher standard of politi-
cal morality than theirs. If we do wrong, (it mat-
ters not after what example,) as wrong-doers let us
be judged; as wrong-doers let us be condemned.
But, sir, I deny that we have done wrong. I
deny that wc have ridden ever a single minority
right; that we have violated one parliamentui y law—
usage even—in pursuit of a sinister object. I utter-
ly deny that we have refused to the minority any
right of record to which, either by parliamentary
practice or by the dictates of natural justice and com-
mon sense, they are entitled.
In support of this position, permit me to review
—very briefly it shall be; I know the House 19
wearied out on this subject—briefly allow me to
place in review before the House the facts connected
with this much \e.\ed question.
The gentleman from New York, [Mr. Barnard,]
on the first day of the session, offers to read to the
House, not yet organized, a certain paper. The
House, on motion, refuses to hear that paper read.
The journal, on the gentleman's own motion, amend-
ed by the gentleman from Virginia on my left, [Mr.
Gilmer,] is made to show these facts. This has
been done almost by common consent. The jour-
nal sets forth, that a certain paper was offered by
the gentleman to be read, and was refused. But
now, the gentleman from New York complaining,
moves next morning an amendment, to the effect
that he [Mr. Barnard] asked leave to read the
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/54/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.