4 mitted to the committee whether it will be taken up or not; and a majority of the committee have the expressly-granted power to determine, without debate, whether they will then act on it, or lay it aside for other business; and so on to the second, and so to the third, and to the fourth, and to the one hundred and fiftieth, if you please ? Was it not perfectly competent for a majority of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, when the Kansas bill was in committee, to pass over other bills, and take up that bill when they wished to do so ? This they did. Each bill was laid aside as it was reached. They had a right to do it. They violated no rule in doing it. The number of bills laid aside to reach it was only eighteen, I think. But if the number had beendegion—if there had been one hundred, or five hundred, or a thousand, it would have made no difference. Sir, the rule in this case is as clear as it could be made; and the action of the committee on that occasion was strictly in order. This I maintain, and defy an answer or reply to it. Now, then, sir, as to the 119th rule. When the committee on that occasion had laid aside the first bill, and the second bill, and the third bill, and so on, until they had come to the Kansas bill, the eighteenth in order—which they had a right to do—they took it up for consideration; and after it had been discussed for two weeks in committee, which was as long as was thought proper by the House, the 119th rule was resorted i to, to stop debate in committee and bring the subject before the House for a vote. That rule is as ; follows: “A motion to strike out the enacting words of a bill shall । have precedence of a motion to amend; and, if carried, shall be equivalent to its rejection.” Under this rule, a motion was made by myself in committee to strike out.the enacting words of the Kansas bill—a motion which took precedence of all motions to amend, as the rule says. The motion was properly put; and it was carried by a vote of one hundred and three for it, to but twenty-two against it, as I have said. Where, then, was there any violation of the rules in this? But the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Campbell,] who says he wishes to reply to what I say, insisted the day before yesterday that this 119th rule never was intended to apply in committee. The rule, in its language, was too clear, too overwhelming, too unanswerable; but to avoid its conclusiveness against him, he said it was made to apply to the House, and not to the Committee of the Whole, fyc. Well, sir, let us see how this subterfuge will avail the gentleman. The history of this rule, as given in our Manual, is as follows: “ In 1814, a Committee of the Whole struck out the first and only section of a bill, and so reported to the House. Mr. Speaker Cheves refused to receive the report, on the ‘ground that it was tantamount to a rejection of the bill, which the committee had not power to do.” Just as the gentleman now says. .“After this, that the merit of questions might be tested in Committee of the Whole, rule 119 was adopted.” This history clearly shows that it was expressly adopted for the Committee of the Whole, 8pc. I have produced this additional authority to show that there ^as no violation of the rule on the Mr. STEPHENS. Will the gentleman state what two instances? Mr. WASHBURN. In thefirstplace, by deciding that under the 119th rule you might strike out the enacting clause of the bill. In the second place, by rising and reporting the bill to the House when there was no quorum voting, as every body knows. Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman from Maine is totally mistaken when he says there was no quorum. Mr. STEPHENS. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will let me proceed. The gentleman from Maine is mistaken in both his instances. The record shows that the tellers, Mr. Clingman and Mr. Sapp, reported 103 in favor of the motion, and 22 against it. That is more than a quorum— one hundred and eighteen was a quorum—one hundred and twenty-five voted. Though a great many present refused to vote, more than a quorum, however, did vote on the motion to strike out. It does not require a quorum to vote on a motion to rise, as every one knows. And as far as the violation of the 119th rule is concerned, I have this to. say to the gentleman—as I said the day before yesterday—that nothing can be clearer than that everything done in the committee on the passage of the Kansas bill under the 119th rule, was legitimate and proper; and that no rule of this House was violated or overrode on that occasion. This I intend to show beyond cavil or doubt. The charge that there was no quorum voting is answered by the record, as I have stated; then as to the two other charges—for besides the * charge relating to the 119th rule now made, the gentleman from Mai ne, [Mr. AV a shb urn, ] or some other gentleman, said, two days ago, that there was another rule violated. What one I do not know—for no one was mentioned—but the statement was, that the committee had violated the rules of the House by setting aside other bills having priority in the order of business on the Calendar to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. That w-as one statement; and I think it -was also said that upwards of a hundred bills were thus set aside to reach this one. Now, Mr. Speaker, I Have the ! rules of the House before me, and ask the attention of tlie House to the 135th rule:. “In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union the bills shall be taken up and disposed of in their order on the Calendar; but when objection is made to the consideratjon of a bill a majority of the corpmittee shall decide, without debate, whether it shall be taken up and disposed of,'or laid aside; provided, that general appropriation bills, and, in ime of war, bills for raising men or money, and bills concerning a treaty of peace, shall be preferred to all other bills at the discretion of the committee- and when demanded by any member the question shall first be put inregard to them.” Even in times of war, appropriation bills, and bills relating to treaties of peace, have no other preference, except that the question of taking them up first shall be first put. A majority may .ay even them aside. Sir, could a rule be written more plainly? Can language be more clear or more distinct than this —that when the Hou^e goes into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and when the first bill in order is read by the Clerk, and a gentleman objects to taking it up, it is then sub
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=