decided that Mr. Alexander had a right to change his vote; and Mr. Alexander's vote being changed, the question stood yeas 80, nays 80. And an equal division of the house being thereby produced, the speaker voted with the yeas, and pronounced the vote on the previous question to be passed in the affirmative. And thereupon Mr. Sutherland made a question of order whether the speaker possessed the power to permit a member to change his vote after the number of votes on each side of the question had been announced from the chair.

The speaker decided that it was the right of a member to change his vote at any stage of the proceeding before the decision of the house thereon should have been finally and conclusively pronounced from the chair.

From this decision Mr. Basset appealed to the house-when the speaker's decision was affirmed: yeas 122, nays 49.

March 3, 1829.

A report of the committee on the library was under consideration; and after further debate thereon, the hour allotted by the rule for the consideration of morning business expired, and the discussion was suspended.

Mr. Allen of Massachusetts then moved a resolution for a vote of thanks to the speaker.

The resolution being read, a question of order was raised whether it could be received and acted upon without a motion having been made and the question thereon carried in the affirmative, to suspend the 17th rule of the house, which is as follows:

"The petitions having been presented and disposed of, reports, first from standing and then from select committees, shall be called for and disposed of. And not more than one hour in each day shall be devoted to the subject of reports from committees and resolutions; after which the speaker shall dispose of all bills, messages and communications on the table, and then proceed to call the orders of the day."

The speaker (Mr. P. P. Barbour in the chair, acting in the room of Mr. speaker Stevenson, who was absent,) decided that according to the usual practice in cases of resolutions of similar character and import, it was competent in the house to receive and entertain the resolution, and the resolution was accordingly received.

From this decision Mr. Brent appealed to the house.

And upon the question the speaker's decision was sustained: yeas 95, nays 41.

DIVISION OF A QUESTION-WHEN AND HOW IT MAY BE MADE.

January 18, 1830.

Mr. Hunt's resolution being under discussion, in the following words, viz.

Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of appropriating the nett annual proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several States and Territories, for the purposes of education and internal improvement, in proportion to the representation of each in the house of representatives, and that

the said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

After debate and several motions made, the previous question, to wit, "Shall the main question be now put?" was put and carried in the affirmative, by yeas 127, nays 59. Before the main question was put, Mr. Hammons called for a division, so that the first member of the resolution so divided, should stop at the word "territories," and the speaker decided that the resolution was susceptible of such division.

From this decision Mr. Barringer appealed; and on the question "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house?" being put, it passed in the affirmative.

On divisions of questions, first being agreed to, the second member may be laid on the table or amended. March 1, 1830.

A motion having been made to commit a memorial to the committee of the whole house on the state of the Union, and to print it, Mr. Sterigere called for a division of the question; and the question on commitment having been agreed to, Mr. S. moved to lay that part of the motion relative to printing on the table; which motion was lost. Thereupon Mr. Bell moved to amend the last member of said motion by adding thereto the following words: "and all other memorials on the subject." Whereupon Mr. Bates inquired if that motion was order. Mr. speaker decided it to be in order, and cited Jefferson's Manual, 118.

Motion to strike out "enacting words" of a bill is paramount to a question on concurring in amend

ments.

The bill for the relief of Susan Decatur and others, was reported from the committee of the whole, with sundry amendments.

Mr. Tucker moved to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

The speaker said it was paramount to the question of concurring: cited the 32d rule, showing this motion to have precedence of a motion to amend; of course the question of concurring is subject to the same rule.

What is the "main question" where the committee of the whole house reports an amendment to strike out the enacting words of a bill?

The committee of the whole house reported a bill to remit to G. & W. Bangs certain duties," &c., so amended as to strike out the enacting words. The question was stated, "Will the house concur with the committee in their amendment?" Whereupon the previous question was called for and demanded.

Mr. speaker decided the "main question" to be "Shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading?" which being decided in the negative, the said bill was rejected.

RIGHT TO THE FLOOR.

May 20, 1830.

The bill reducing the duty on salt being under consideration, and a motion having been made to commit the bill, Mr. Ingersoll moved to

add instructions, and sent them to the clerk's desk. While the clerk was reading them, Mr. Ingersoll took his seat. After they were read, MrTucker rose and addressed the chair. Mr. I. claimed his right to the floor; and Mr. speaker decided that he was entitled to proceed in speaking to his motion.

DIVISION OF QUESTION.

May 28, 1830.

The following resolution being under consideration-"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the 16th joint rule of the two houses be suspended for the purpose of enabling the House of Representatives to send, this day, to the senate for their concurrence, bills of the titles contained in the shedule hereunto annexed, which passed the house yesterday too late to be sent to the senate for concurrence before the adjournment of that body. [Here follows a schedule of the titles of eight bills, among them "A bill to reduce the duty on salt."] A division of the question to agree to the said resolution was called for by Mr. Taylor, so as that the question be put separately on so much of the schedule as includes the following words: "An act to reduce the duty on salt." The speaker decided that the question proposed to be divided was not divisible. Mr. Taylor appealed from this decision. And on the question, Shall the decision of the speaker stand as the judgment of the house? it passed in the affirmative. Yeas 97, nays 71.