gentleman from Kent that our constituents
may have some interest in this matter of long
or short debate. All their material interest
is on the side of short debate; because we may
have speeches that will cost $700 or $800 and
our constituents must pay for them. A three
hour speech costs the round sum of $800, and
I will guaranty that not one of the 800 peo-
ple I represent will even read such a speech.
If we were engaged upon very abstruse sub-
jects, and they did not mind the labor imposed
upon them to get at the thing contained
in the speech they might do so; but big
practical common sense people, and wanting
their representatives to do what they have to
do in the shortest practical time, I think they
will prefer home speeches. If some rule can
be suggested by which each county shall pay
for the speeches of its own members, the
question of physical endurance being out of
the way, I should not care so much.
Mr. CHAMBERS, As to the enormous ex-
pense, in order to reduce it as much as possi-
ble, I will contract with the gentleman from
Howard that he and I shall each forbear to
write out one word of our remarks. The
reporter understands condensing. That is
his trade. If gentlemen will forbear to write
out additional notes, it will not cost $800 for
a speech.
Mr. SANDS. I have heard of a gentle-
man who went to a debating society and de-
clared he came there perfectly unprepared to
say anything upon the momentous topic un-
der consideration, and then pulled out of his
pocket thirty or fifty sheets of manuscript. If
that example is to be followed here, it will
not be by me; for I never did write out but
one speech. That was a speech before a de-
bating society upon the question whether
the British were justified in imprisoning
Napoleon Bonaparte at St. Helena. That
was thirty odd pages long; and I delivered
it to a very large and respectable audience,
composed of five boys and myself. I thought
it was glory to get into the prints in a short
time, that a new Demosthenes was born on
the 7th of April 1829; but the world has
not found it out up to this time. I never
wrote out a speech again. So I am ready to
agree to the contract proposed by the gentle-
man from Kent (Mr. Chambers.)
Mr. CLARKE. As I had the honor of mak-
ing the remarks referred to, as a speech of
three hours, I wish to say that the length of
time taken up yesterday was to a great ex-
tent owing to interruptions and questions put
by gentlemen upon subjects brought up, not
embraced within the views I had prepared.
If I had followed simply the remarks as writ-
ten out, I could have got through, I am sure,
in one half the time. As to the remarks of
the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands)
with reference to that speech costing $7 or
$8, I think the gentleman must be widely
mistaken. I had no idea that they cost any |
thing like that. But I will venture to say,
going over the debates from the time we came
here down to the present time, that it has
cost more to report the remarks of the gen-
tleman from Howard than myself, or any
other member of this body.
Mr. SANDS. I should like to have that cal-
culation made.
Mr. NEGLEY. If the gentleman from Bal-
timore city (Mr. Stockbridge) does not know
to which party he belongs, I think he is in a
very awkward predicament, and I think his
constituents will be very apt to call him to
account. I have yet to learn that there is
any ambiguity in the mind of any man as to
what party he belongs to, as to the two dom-
inant parties. There are two caucuses here.
The gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers)
came here and told us he belonged to no
party; and the very next day or two I saw
him heading a column entering into the Sen-
ate Chamber, I believe on a caucus. I think
the gentleman from Baltimore city was among
the first to come into this hall to attend
another caucus. I do not think there are
any gentlemen in this House who do not be-
long either to the majority or to the minority.
I think the status of every man here is fully
fixed in his own mind, and in the mind of
every other member.
I think it is perfectly fair and legitimate
that the speeches should have an end, and
that whenever a speech from the minority is
delivered, one of the majority should follow,
until the majority are exhausted, and then
the minority will go on just as long as the
majority chooses to let them. I have no idea
that the majority ought to be put at the mercy
of the minority, because they are more ex-
pert debaters, or have more confidence in
themselves, or happen to catch the eye of the
presiding officer more frequently, so as to
give them five or six speeches before we have
had one opportunity on this side of the
House to make even one.
Mr. PUGH. Mr. President.
Mr. MILLER. I rise to a question of order,
whether in parliamentary law this Conven-
tion knows anything about the majority or
minority.
Mr. PUGH. I rose to take the same view.
At the same time I wished to ask the gentle-
man from Washington (Mr. Negley) whether,
if it should happen to be the time of one of
the minority to speak, and no one should be
prepared to speak, the rest of the majority
who had not spoken would be deprived of
the opportunity.
Mr. NEGLEY. Certainly not.
Mr. HEBB raised the question of order, that
the amendment was practically an amend-
ment of Rule 27, and hence a proposition
which must lie over one day.
Mr. ABBOTT stated that he had withdrawn
his own amendment, because he had been in-
formed that it was unparliamentary. |
