EFFECT OF DECIDING A PREVIOUS QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE.

March 27, 1830.

When the previous question, viz. "Shall the main question be now put," is decided in the negative, the effect is that the subject matter under consideration is postponed for one day. (See Journal 468.) The same decision took place on May 25th, 1830. (See Journal, p. 722.)

The previous question having been seconded cannot be withdrawn except by a vote of the ma. jority. (See page 282, Journal.)

March 2, 1831.

Mr. Richardson from the joint committee for enrolled bills, reported the following resolution:

Resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the United States, that the 17th joint rule of the two houses, which declares that " no bill or resolution that shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate, shall be presented to the president of the United States for his approbation on the last day of the session," be suspended.

The said resolution being read,

The speaker decided, that under the 17th rule of the house, it was not in order for the committee for enrolled bills to make report at this period of the day of any matter, except the examination and presentation of bills.

Mr. Sutherland appealed from the decision of the chair, on the ground that, by the 105th rule

of the house, it is declared that "it shall be in order for the committee for enrolled bills to report at any time."

And on the question, Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house? It passed in the affirmative.

May 11, 1832.

Samuel Houston's case under consideration.Mr. Huntington moved the following:

Resolved, that Samuel Houston be excluded from the exercise of the privileges conferred by the 13th standing rule of the house.

Mr. Davis of South Carolina inquired whether the said resolution was in order under the rules of the house.

The speaker decided that under the 13th and 105th rules of the house, said resolution was not in order without one day's previous notice, as required by said 105th rule. From which decision Mr. Mercer appealed. And on the question, Shall the decision of the speaker stand as the judgment of the house? It was decided in the negative, yeas 89, nays 106.

June 23, 1832.

The tariff bill under consideration.

A motion was made that the subject matter before the house do lie on the table; when the reading of a certain paper was called for, and objected to.

The chair decided that it was not in order, pending a question on a motion to lie on the table,

to call for the reading of any paper not previously in the possession of the house.

From this decision an appeal was taken to the house; and the decision of the chair was affirmed, (Mr. Polk officiating.)

June 27, 1832.

The tariff bill under consideration.

A motion was made that the house do again reconsider the vote on a motion to strike out the 10th section of the bill. This motion was objected to as not being in order, the 41st rule of the house declaring that "when a motion has been once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, it shall be in order for any member of the majority to move for the reconsideration thereof on the same or succeeding day," &c.

(A motion to reconsider this vote had been once made, and acted upon.)

The speaker decided that the motion was clearly in order.

From which decision Mr. John Quincey Adams appealed, and the decision of the chair was affirmed yeas 99, nays 84.

So it was decided that a motion to reconsider I was in order more than once.

July 5, 1832.

The subject of humiliation, fasting and prayer, under consideration.

A member having referred in debate to a letter from the president of the United States, which had been read by another member in a previous debate on the subject, and which had been pub

lished in the newspapers, he was called to order for such reference by a member.

The speaker decided that the reference to the said letter was in order.

From which decision Mr. John Quincey Adams appealed, and before the question on the appeal was put, the house adjourned. On the 9th of July the house resumed the consideration of the subject, and the question recurred on Mr. Adams' appeal, when Mr. Adams withdrew the appeal.

July 10, 1832.

Mr. Bates, of Maine, moved the following: Resolved, That the words used in debate yesterday morning by the hon. William Stanbery, a member from Ohio, charging the presiding officer of this house with shaping his course in the chair with a view to the obtainment of office from the president of the United States, was an indignity both to the speaker and the house, and merits the decided censure of the house.

Mr. Mercer excepted to the resolution as out of order, for the words of the member from Ohio were not taken down at the time they were spoken, nor at the close of the speech of the member; because other business has occurred since the imputed insinuations were made; and because a day has elapsed since those words were used, without any action or proceeding of the house in relation thereto.

The chair (Mr. C. C. Clay, officiating) decided that it was in order to receive the resolution.

From which decision Mr. Mercer appealed; when the house proceeded to the orders of the day.

July 11, 1832.

The house resumed the consideration of the resolution moved by Mr. Bates.

The question recurred on the appeal of Mr. Mercer, when

The orders of the day were moved.

The speaker, (Mr. C. C. Clay, officiating,) decided that the matter before the house had precedence of a motion to proceed to the orders of the day.

From this decision Mr. Taylor appealed to the house.

And pending the appeal Mr. Stanbery was addressing the house, when he was called to order for using improper words, which were taken down by a member as follows: "I will make a motion that is in order; I make a motion that you leave that chair."

The words, as reduced to writing were read, when

Mr. Polk moved the following resolution :

Resolved, That the words spoken in this house this morning by William Stanbery, a member from Ohio, and which words were taken down by the clerk of the house, and his conduct in the face of the house, were disorderly, and deserve the censure of the house.

After debate Mr. Polk withdrew the resolution. And the question was put, viz. Shall the decision of the speaker made yesterday, that it was in order to receive the resolution moved by Mr. Bates, of Maine, stand as the judgment of the house?