parliamentary rules, the majority of this
House has full control over what shall be
done after going into Committee of the
Whole, I simply rose to make the statement
that if this amendment is adopted, it imposes
a restriction upon this House which I have
never known imposed upon any legislative
body before, and certainly not upon any Con-
vention called to remodel the organic law.
Mr. STIRLING. I am not very particular
about the amendment, but I will state the
reason why I offer it. I am perfectly aware
that the rule reported by the Committee
makes no change in the rule of the House of
Delegates. But I was not aware that that was
the ordinary parliamentary rule. If the
gentleman's information is correct, I confess
myself ignorant upon that subject. It cer-
tainly is not the rule in the House of Repre-
sentatives. It requires a majority to take
the House into Committee of the Whole.
And it always did seem to me, when I was a
member of the House of Delegates, that this
rule had no practical good effect, but only
had a practical evil effect. It enables any nine
men, for the purpose of consuming the time
and preventing action, to demand that the
House go into Committee of the Whole.
Somebody moves that the committee rise.
As soon as the committee rises, nine men
again require that the House go into Com-
mittee of the Whole; and again a motion is
made that the committee rise, and the major-
ity vote for it, and the committee rises. The
rule enables nine men to force the majority to
keep rising as long as they choose to keep it
tip: nine men can take the Convention into
Committee of the Whole; but they have no
power to keep them there. It seems to me that
if you allow the majority to say when they
will go into Committee of the Whole, it will
put the power where it belongs, and where it
will not beabused.
Mr. SANDS. It seems-to me that this rule
embodies one or the other of two things. The
majority of the House are to be put into the
power of nine, or nine are to be put into the
power of the majority of the House. Which
is the most reasonable? I think that the
power is most safely to be lodged with the
majority, and shall vote accordingly.
Mr. CLARKE. I rise simply to correct the
statement of the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Stirling) with reference to the rule
of Congress. The rule is this :
" Rule 129, It shall be a standing order
of the day, throughout the session, for the
House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole House on the State of the Union."
"For more than forty years it was held
and practiced, under this rule, that the House
could resolve itself into a Committee on the
Whole on the State of the Union at any time.
Recently, however, a different practice pre-
vailed, it being held that several of the rules
prescribing the order of business, as well as
7 |
special orders, interposed to prevent, it; in
consequence of which, the House on the 1st
June, 1840, amended the 136th rule so as to
go into the Committee of the Whole on the
State of the Union at any time, in other words,
reiterated the ancient practice under the 124th
rule," [Note to Rules of House of Represen-
tatives.]
Mr STIRLING. The rule does not allow any
seven or nine men to require the House to go
into Committee of the Whole at any time;
but it is only a provision that they shall go
into Committee of the Whole at a certain
hour every day, as a standing order.
Mr. CLARKE. It does not require a vote of
the majority to say whether they shall go in
or not; but the privilege exists to go into
Committee of the Whole under the standing
rule of the House without a vote of the
majority, whenever it is in order, any mem-
ber can call for the enforcement of the stand-
ing rule and take the House into Committee
of the Whole as the regular standing business,
without even a vote upon the proposition.
Mr. SANDS. Perhaps the question may
turn upon the third word in this order, the
word "shall." Ought it not to read that
the Convention may be resolved into Com-
mittee of the Whole if nine members require
it, and the majority think it proper to do so;
so as to allow seven or nine members to call
for it, and then to give to the majority the
right to decide upon it?
Mr. CLARKE. By the rule of Congress,
after going into the Committee on the Whole,
the majority can vote to go out; and that is
the protection the majority have; and it is
the same protection we should have under the
rule as reported by the committee.
Mr. SANDS. If it is made the rule that
upon going into the Committee on the Whole,
if the majority decides that the committee
rise, the call is not to be renewed that day,
I will agree to it; but if it is to be succeeded
bycall upon call, I cannot,
Mr. CLARKE. No, sir' it is not. Instead
of providing a standing rule that the House
shall resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole thus placing the House every day
regularly under that standing rule, this is that
seven or nine members may demand it. When
the House has gone into Committee of the
Whole, the majority can determine whether
lo remain in Committee of the Whole or to
rise at once and report. This of course gives
the majority full control over the proceeding.
Mr. PUGH. The gentleman has not yet ex-
plained why it might not happen that either
seven or nine members might control the
whole action of the House. I ask this explana-
tion because my knowledge of parliamentary
matters is limited. I cannot see why it might
not happen that seven or nine members could
bring the whole business of the Convention
to a dead lock. They call upon the Convention
to go into Committee of the Whole, |
