Слике страница
PDF
ePub

MR. WELLER. Then I object to your discussing it. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on reflection, thinks that the motion, if agreed to, would not have a further effect than to bring up the question of granting leave.

MR. BRIGHT. I desire to understand the Chair. I do not wish to insist on anything that is not right, or that is not within the rules. That I insist upon having. The honorable Senator from Louisiana is right in his conclusions as to his motion, provided he had a right to make the motion; but I doubt whether he had a right to make that motion while the motion of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire was pending. I do not wish, however, to consume the time of the Senate. the effect of the decision of the Chair is to bring us back to the question as to whether we shall receive the bill or not, I will yield the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it.

MR. BRIGHT. Very well.

MR. SUMNER. Before the vote is taken, allow me to read a few words from the Rules and Orders, and from Jefferson's Manual.

"One day's notice, at least, shall be given of an intended. motion for leave to bring in a bill.”

That is the 25th rule of the Senate; and then to that rule, in the publication which I now hold in my hand, is appended, from Jefferson's Manual, the following decisive language:

[ocr errors]

"When a member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, he states to the House, in general terms, the causes for doing it, and concludes by moving for leave to bring in a bill entitled, &c. Leave being given, on the question, a committee is appointed to prepare and bring in the bill."

Now I would simply observe, that my purpose was merely to make a statement

MR. BENJAMIN. I call to order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had presented his bill, and was debating it afterwards. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table, and on that the yeas and nays. have been ordered.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted, 10, as follows:

yeas 35, nays

YEAS, Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and Weller, 35.

NAYS, - Messrs. Chase, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gillette, Rockwell, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker, — 10.

So the appeal was ordered to lie on the table.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on granting leave to introduce the bill.

MR. SUMNER. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.

MR. STUART. I rise to a question of order; and I think, if the Chair will consider it for the moment, he will, or at least I hope he will, agree with me. The parliamentary law is the law under which the Senate act. Whenever there is a motion made to lay on the table a subject connected with the main subject, and it prevails, it carries the whole question with it. It is different entirely from the rules in the House of Representatives. The rules in the House vary the parliamentary law, and you may there move to lay a matter on the table, because that is the final vote, and is equivalent to

rejecting it, and a motion to take it up from the table is not in order. But now the Presiding Officer will see, that, if this course be pursued, the Senate may grant leave to introduce this bill, they may go on and pass it, and yet next week it will be in order for the Senator from Massachusetts to move to take up the appeal which the Senate has just laid on the table; whereas the whole subject on which his appeal rested might have been passed and sent to the other House. That surely cannot be so. The ruling of the Chair in this respect, therefore, I suggest is wrong, and the motion to lay on the table carries the whole subject with it. It is important to have the matter settled for the future practice of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the first mooting of the proposition, the Chair was of that opinion; but he is perfectly satisfied now that it did not carry the whole question with it. The question was on the motion to lay the appeal on the table, and that motion was exhausted when it did lay the appeal on the table. It did not reach back to affect the question of granting leave. That is now the question before the Senate. On that the yeas and nays have been asked for by the Senator from Massachusetts.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

MR. STUART. I will not take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, but I only wish to say, that, as I am satisfied I am right, I do not wish, by acquiescing in the decision of the Chair, to embarrass us when such occasions may arise again.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays upon granting leave to introduce the bill, resulted, yeas 10, nays 35, as follows:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

450 STRUGGLE FOR REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

YEAS, Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Foot, Gillette, Rockwell, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker, 10. NAYS, Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and Weller, - 35.

So the Senate refused to grant leave to introduce the bill.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

SPEECH BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION AT WORCESTER, SEPTEMBER 7, 1854.

THE Free-Soil party, having assumed the name of Republican party, held its Annual Convention at Worcester, September 7, 1854. It was organized by the following officers: Hon. Robert Rantoul, of Beverly, the venerable father of the late Mr. Rantoul, as President; George R. Russell, of West Roxbury, B. W. Gage, of Charlestown, Samuel Hopkins, of Northampton, Charles Shute, of Hingham, Albert Currier, of Newburyport, Warren Lovering, of Medway, Adam Harrington, of Shrewsbury, Francis Watkins, of Hinsdale, Robert Sturtevant, of Savoy, Asaph Churchill, of Dorchester, Richard P. Waters, of Beverly, William Washburn, of Boston, Charles Beck, of Cambridge, Benjamin B. Sisson, of Westport, Joel Shed, of Bridgewater, Augustus Morse, of Leominster, Foster Hooper, of Fall River, Levi Reed, of Abington, John A. Andrew, of Hingham, Vice-Presidents; Joseph Denny, of Worcester, William H. Harris, of Worcester, E. W. Stacy, of Milford, Charles R. Ladd, of Chicopee, William H. DeCosta, of Charlestown, Secretaries. At the same Convention Hon. Henry Wilson was nominated for Governor, and Hon. Increase Sumner for Lieutenant-Governor. John A. Andrew, Esq., was made Chairman of the State Committee.

Mr. Sumner's reception in the Convention was quickened by recent events in which he had borne part. It is thus described in a report of the Convention.

66

At this point the Hon. Charles Sumner entered the hall. His reception was such as is rarely accorded to a public man. The whole vast audience rose as one. man to welcome him, and the most deafening cheers of welcome resounded for several minutes. We have never seen a more

hearty and enthusiastic demonstration in honor of any man. It was the spontaneous homage of true men to the man who had upheld the Freedom standard and carried it into the thickest of the fight, to the man who had upheld the honor of Massachusetts in the Senate, vindicated her opinions,

[ocr errors]
« ПретходнаНастави »