The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fifth Congress, [Second Session] Page: 1,287

                                
1287                          HISTORY OF CONGRESS.                          1288
H. opR.]
order to have it ascertained whether the Speaker
had acted properly or otherwise.
Mr. Brooks saw no reason why the commit-
tee should rise. The gentleman from Virginia
said the subject was important; if so. it ought
now to be decided upon.
Mr. Nicholas thought what he had said might
have satisfied the gentleman from New Jersey as
to his intentions. As he did not bring forward
the motion, he could not be justly charged with
any design in the business. It must be evident to
every one that the gentleman himself connected
this question with a late decision. He wished it
was not so connected. He thought the regulation
proposed absolutely necessary, in order to secure
a just and fair report of their proceedings. He
should have no objection to take up the business
to-morrow; but if the question for the committee
to rise was lost, he should then make some obser-
vations upon the subject.
Mr. McDowell hoped the committee would
rise. It was of importance that the debates should
be taken accurately and fully, and he wished it to
be ascertained whether a member had a right to
introduce a person on the floor of the House, or
whether the Speaker only could do it.
Mr. Harper was in favor of the committee's
rising, not because he thought the question import-
ant, but because he thought it unimportant; and if
the committee rose, he should move to postpone the
further consideration of it to a distant day; for
however unimportant he thought it, he perceived
other gentlemen thought differently, and he sup-
posed intended to produce a long debate upon it,
and this he wished to avoid, in order to proceed
with the business of the public.
The question for rising was then put and car-
ried—44 to 36.
The committee rose accordingly, and, on leave
being asked for the committee to sit again,
Mr. Harper hoped leave would not be granted,
as he wished a postponement of the considera-
tion to take place.
Mr. Otis hoped leave would not be given to sit
again upon this subject. He did not know that
any inconvenience had been pointed out as aris-
ing from the present mode of managing the busi-
ness. All those who wished to come on to the
floor of the House to take the debates had been
permitted, except in some special cases. If this
was the general practice, where could be the ne-
cessity for this rule ? If any particular case of
complaint existed, they ought to consider if by it-
self, and not adopt a general rule which might
never again apply, in order to provide for it.
There was no way of avoiding personality in this
matter. It would always be a question between
the individual who had been rejected and the
House; for if the House adopted a general rule,
and persons admitted behaved amiss, it would still
be a question whether the Speaker had not the
power to order them away. This determination,
therefore, would produce no effect, except gentle-
men wished to bring up every subject which could
irritate the minds of members, and thereby pre-
vent the public business from being done.
ig- Rules.                                             [March, 1798.
Mr. Nicholas said he believed it was impossi-
ble for the gentleman from Massachusetts to make
a speech without some insinuations as to the mo-
tives of others.   If it had ever been possible1 for him      i
to have done so, he might have done it on the pre-     ,
sent occasion, when it had been wished to defer     j
the consideration in order to avoid irritation.   He      <
would tell the gentleman what he wished to Be      <
done. It was not to ascertain whether the Speaker     :
had done his duty heretofore, but whether the
power of discharging short-hand writers from the
House should be vested in the Speaker.   With     .
respect to the reports which were given of their
debates, he supposed gentlemen were not alwayfe
satisfied with them, but they were nevertheless
valuable information to the public ; and if it was     ]
important that this information should  be pub-     ;
lished, it was to be considered whether the per-      j
sons who attended the House to take notes should
depend on the will of the Speaker, or upon a ma-     ;
jority of  the House, for the privilege.   [The
Speaker did not think this   discussion proper
while he was in the Chair.]   Mr. N. said he did     ;
not wish to enter into the discussion.   If it was     i
the desire of the gentleman from South Carolina     1
to postpone the consideration for a few weeks', he      i,
should  agree  to it;   but  he hoped the subject     *
would not be got rid of without discussion in a
Committee of the Whole, when the Speaker, who      :
felt himself interested in it, might have an oppor-      :
tunity of speaking on the subject.                                 [
Mr. Rutledge said, if anything had taken     :
place which, in the opinion of the gentleman from     <
Virginia, made it necessary to act upon the sub-
ject of stenographers, it would be well for him to
lay a resolution upon the table upon which the      :
House might act.    If there were nothing which
made it necessary, it would be unwise to act upon      j
it.    The gentleman spoke as if there was no ste-
nographer in the House.    When the people saw
this they would naturally ask, to whom then "are      ;
we indebted for the debates which we daily read?     ; ,
Why, said Mr. R., is this subject introduced 1   It      : ,
was generally believed that this resolution had
reference to a particular act, which occurred a few     ; ;
days previous to its being brought forward.   But     ' '
the mover declares that he had not that transac-
tion in view.    If this was the case; if there was       ,
no complaint against the conduct of the Speaker,
and every day's debate appears faithfully reported      ;
in the pape/s, what necessity was there, he asked,      4
for this provision"?    If the gentleman from Vir-      j
ginia missed a favorite stenographer, and wished      |
to see him reinstated, it would be well to bring     |
forward a resolution to that effect.    But, said he,      I
while I see a stenographer taking down the words     *
I am now speaking, and when I find our proceed-     '
ings regularly laid before the public, I can see no     J
necessity for any general regulation on the sub-
ject.    But it was said that it was necessary to be
determined whether the Speaker should havtthe
power of driving stenographers from the House.
If there be any circumstance which renders this
determination  necessary, let it be  brought' for-
ward ;  then  the House will know upon what    „
ground they acted.   If this was a true state of the    i