Mr. PUSH. Let me conclude my sentence.
We have no opportunity now, or at any
time, except we violate our first impression.
Our first impression was that there were sub-
jects about which we would not debate; that
we, as a majority of this house, would sim-
ply express our convictions, about which
there was no necessity to have any argument
whatever. We wished simply to put our-
selves down immediately, the very moment the
thing was suggested; the very instant we had
the resolution drawn up; right then, without
any discussion whatever. We wished to say
so and so, and we determined so to say,
without any debate. That was the deliberate
determination of the majority of this body.
We were here, all of ua who voted, so to vote,
If gentlemen of the minority were not here
at that time, that was their fault. And I ob-
ject to their now coming forward and putting
themselves and their arguments upon record
in this way, if they were not here to vote.
And the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Cham-
bers) will bear me out in the statement that
a great many of the gentlemen who have
signed this protest were not here at the time
the vote wag taken.
Mr. CHAMBEBS. Several; not a great many.
Mr. CLARKE. I have but a few remarks to
make upon this subject. Gentlemen seem to
speak as if this was the first time they had
ever beard of such a paper as this. In all
legislative bodies the distinction is marked,
between the simple recording of votes "aye"
and "no," and the expression of the opinion
of the minority of a body in the form of a
protest. The one is recognized as the right
of every one, whenever the yeas and nays are
demanded. The other rises into a higher
privilege, a privilege recognized by all the
parliamentary rules of bodies, a privilege con-
ceded in all cases which in the opinion of the
minority demand something more than the
mere expression of a vote "aye" and "no,"
upon the journal.
Now what are the facts in reference to those
resolutions? They were brought into this
house; they were read; and then, as has
been stated and not denied, the previous ques-
tion was at once called upon them.
Mr. STIRLING. I distinctly deny that.
Mr. CI.ABKE. That the previous question
was not called ?
Mr. STIRLING. I deny the fact stated by
the gentleman, as he has stated it.
Mr. CLARKE. I stated that the previous
question was at once called without debate.
Mr. STIRLING. And that I deny. Every
resolution must lay over one day, so that the
previous question could not have been called
at once. And when my colleague (Mr. Bar-
ren) did call the previous question, he did
so without any consultation with any mem-
ber upon this floor.
Mr. CLARKE. Of course I did not mean,
and nobody understood me to mean, that |
when the resolutions were read the first time,
and laid over under the rule, the previous
question was called out of order. But as
soon as the resolutions came up so that the
previous question could be called upon them,
the previous question was called. That is of
course what my original statement amounted
to. 1 did not think it necessary to state to this
house that the President did not permit the
previous question to be called, or that no
member attempted to call the previous ques-
tion upon the first reading of the resolutions,
when it was not in order. But so soon as the
previous question could be called, it wag
railed, and no debate was permitted. And
the gentleman from Cecil (Mr.Pugh) further
says that it was the desire of the majority of
this house to prevent debate and act upon the
resolutions at once.
Mr. PUGH. 1 may not have made myself
sufficiently clear. What I meant to aay was
that it seemed to me to be the desire of the
majority to do so. But so far as there having
been any understanding excepts spontaneous
understanding that that was a subject upon
which it was not necessary to discuss at all,
I did not know anything about it. It was
one of those matters of settled conviction in
the minds of all who looked upon this subject
in a certain way,
Mr. CLARKE. That is, a majority of this
house having so spontaneously embraced these
resolutions as an expression of constitutional
law, right and justice, thought the resolu-
tions should stand upon their own merits;
that they needed no word of explanation or
argument, they were so true, so sound, so
just, so equitable, that it would be almost
sacrilege to utter one word ill their defence;
that the sense of justice of the majority spon-
taneously embraced them, and they were so
right that they needed no word of explana-
tion upon the part of the majority to sustain
them; and following consequently therefrom,
they were so indisputable that no argument
which the minority of this house could ad-
duce could shake them from their firm foun-
dation, That was the feeling which put these
resolutions upon our journal.
Now what could we do under those circum-
stances? We were not even permitted to
question the indisputable correctness of the
principles therein announced. We had no
opportunity of saying one word upon them.
We were permitted only to record our votes
in the negative upon them. And then what?
Cut off in this way from debating these propo-
sitions, going forth, as gentlemen have stated
upon this floor they wanted them to go forth,
as indisputable propositions, we now simply
ask that privilege, the only privilege which
parliamentary rules concede to us, of denying
the fact that they embody immutable princi-
ples which the human soul and heart em-
brace spontaneously, and of saying, in the
form of a solemn protest, coached in dignified |
