that Mr. Woods was entitled to it. Mr. Hamilton inquired if he had a right to appeal. The speaker said he had. Mr. Hamilton then appealed from the decision of the chair; which was affirmed by the house, ayes 98, noes 54.

Same day. Mr. Woods, of Ohio, called for the previous question. When the speaker put the question to ascertain whether the call was seconded by a majority of the house, Mr. Forsyth demanded that the question be taken by ayes and noes. The speaker decided that the motion of Mr. Forsyth was not in order; from which Mr. Forsyth appealed, but subsequently withdrew his appeal, and the decision of the chair was acquiesced in by the house.

Feb. 7, 1827. The "bill for the alteration of the acts imposing duties on imports," was reported to the house. In the 2d section, "All manufactured wool now chargeable with a duty of thirty per cent. ad valorem, shall, from and after the first day of June, 1828, be charged with a duty of 35 per cent.; and from and after the 1st day of June, 1829, 40 per cent."-Mr. Ashley moved to strike out 1st June 1828 and insert 1st August 1827, and strike out 1st June 1829, and insert 1st August 1828.

The speaker decided the motion not to be in order, as it went to increase a duty at an earlier period than had been proposed, and voted in committee of the whole. From this decision Mr. Hoffman appealed; and on the question "shall

the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house? it was decided in the affirmative.

Feb. 8, 1827. The question on engrossment of the "bill for the alteration of the acts imposing duties on imports," being under discussion, Mr. Hoffman moved to recommit the bill with certain instructions. Mr. Wright called for the previous question: which call was seconded by a majority of the members present. Mr. Hamilton moved there be now a call of the house. The speaker decided that the motion was not in order. From this decision Mr. Hamilton appealed; and on the question, Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house? it was decided in the affirmative by ayes and noes-ayes 113, noes 90.

March 3d, 1827.

Mr. Mercer, from the select committee to which had been referred the memorial of the Coloniza. tion Society, made a report, the reading of which was dispensed with by a vote of the house, and it was laid on the table. A motion was made that the said report be printed, whereupon, Mr. Hamilton demanded the reading of the report; which being objected to, the speaker decided that the question on reading must be determined by a vote of the house, Mr. Hamilton insisting he had a right to have the report read, appealed from the decision of the chair; and the question having been put, "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house?" after debate thereon, Mr. Hamilton withdrew the appeal, and the house acquiesced in the decision of the chair.

AMENDMENT AS A SUBSTITUTE.

Mr. Mallory, from the committee on manufactures, reported the following resolution :

Resolved, That the committee on manufactures be vested with power and authority to send for persons and papers.

After debate thereon,

Mr. Stewart offered as an amendment, to strike out all after Resolved, and insert the following"that it is expedient to amend the present tariff, by increasing the duties on the following importations, 1st. raw wool and woollens, 2d. bar iron, &c. &c.

The speaker decided that the amendment was not in order, inasmuch as the proposition was upon a subject different from that under consideration, and consequently inadmissible, under colour of amendment, by the rules and practice of the house.

Whereupon the house acquiesced in the deci sion of the chair.

LATITUDE IN DEBATE.

January 28th, 1828.

Mr. Chilton's resolution being under discussion, Mr. Vance was addressing the house on the subject, when Mr. McDuffie called him to order, because he was going into an inquiry in relation to the organization of some of the standing committees of the house, which he considered as wholly inapplicable to the subject under discussion.

The speaker decided that at this stage of the

debate, he did not consider the remarks of the member from Ohio as clearly out of order, and that, under the circumstances, he should permit him to proceed.

Mr. McDuffie appealed, and the house adjourned.

29th. The question was put, "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house?" and passed in the affirmative-yeas 91, nays 62.

TWO RESOLUTIONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT.

Feb. 28, 1828.

Mr. Gilmer's resolution under discussionResolved, That the committee on military affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so regulating, by law, the number of cadets to be educated at the West Point Military Academy, as to make that number correspond as nearly as may be, with the vacancies which may occur in the army of the United States."

Mr. Taylor moved to amend the said resolution, by striking out all after the word "expediency," and inserting in lieu thereof the following words, "of reducing the number of cadets at the Military Academy at West Point."

After further discussion,

Mr. Wickliffe inquired whether the resolution of Mr. Gilmer was in order, inasmuch as a resolution of the same import had been laid on the table by Mr. Chilton in the following words, viz,

Resolved, That the committee on military affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of

passing a law “for the gradual and annual reduction of the number of cadets admitted into and educated at the Military Academy at West point.

The speaker decided that these propositions were not so closely analagous, as to render the present resolution out of order; and the house acquiesced in the decision.

CONSTRUCTION OF RULE 43.
March 3, 1828.

The hour for the consideration of morning business having expired, the speaker announced the orders of the day, the first of which was the unfinished business of yesterday, to wit: the question on the amendments to the "bill making appropriations for internal improvements." Whereupon Mr. Mallory moved that the house now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house on the state of the union.

Mr. Martin rose to a point of order, to wit: whether the above motion could be entertained in contravention as he supposed of the 43d rule of the house, without two-thirds of the house agreeing to suspend that rule.

The speaker decided the motion to be in order, inasmuch as the rule which required two-thirds to suspend was only applicable to such rules as were unqualified on their face. The 43d rule alluded to, contained an express limitation, which enabled a majority of the house to suspend its operationthe motion was consequently in order. The decision of the chair was acquiesced in by the house.