INSTITUTION OF THE HOUR RULE IN DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES: ITS ATTEMPT, AND REPULSE IN THE SENATE.
This session is remarkable for the institution of the hour rule
in the House of Representatives--the largest limitation upon the
freedom of debate which any deliberative assembly ever imposed upon
itself, and presents an eminent instance of permanent injury done
to free institutions in order to get rid of a temporary annoyance.
It was done at a time when the party, called whig, was in full
predominance in both Houses of Congress, and in the impatience
of delay in the enactment of their measures. It was essentially
a whig measure--though with exceptions each way--the body of the
whigs going for it; the body of the democracy against it--several
eminent whigs voting with them: Mr. John Quincy Adams, William C.
Dawson, James A. Pearce, Kenneth Rayner, Edward Stanly, Alexander
H. H. Stuart, Edward D. White and others. Mr. Lott Warren moved the
rule as an amendment to the body of the rules; and, in the same
moment, moved the previous question: which was carried. The vote was
immediately taken, and the rule established by a good majority--only
seventy-five members voting against it. They were:
Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Archibald H. Arrington, Charles
G. Atherton, Linn Banks, Daniel D. Barnard, John M. Botts,
Samuel S. Bowne, Linn Boyd, David P. Brewster, Aaron V. Brown,
Edmund Burke, Barker Burnell, Green W. Caldwell, John Campbell,
Robert L. Caruthers, George B. Cary, Reuben Chapman, James G.
Clinton, Walter Coles, John R. J. Daniel, Wm. C. Dawson, Ezra
Dean, Andrew W. Doig, Ira A. Eastman, Horace Everett, Charles
G. Ferris, John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, William O. Goode,
Samuel Gordon, Samuel L. Hays, George W. Hopkins, Jacob Houck,
jr., Edmund W. Hubard, Charles Hudson, Hiram P. Hunt, William
W. Irwin, William Jack, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, George
M. Keim, Andrew Kennedy, Thomas Butler King, Dixon H. Lewis,
Nathaniel S. Littlefield, Joshua A. Lowell, Abraham McClellan,
Robert McClellan, James J. McKay, Francis Mallory, Alfred
Marshall, Samson Mason, John Thompson Mason, John Miller, Peter
Newhard, William Parmenter, William W. Payne, James A. Pearce,
Francis W. Pickens, Kenneth Rayner, John R. Reding, Lewis Riggs,
Romulus M. Saunders, William Slade, John Snyder, Augustus
R. Sollers, James C. Sprigg, Edward Stanly, Lewis Steenrod,
Alexander H. H. Stuart, Hopkins L. Turney, Aaron Ward, John
Westbrook, Edward D. White, Joseph L. Williams.
The Roman republic had existed four hundred and fifty years, and
was verging towards its fall under the first triumvirate--(Cæsar,
Pompey, and Crassus)--before pleadings were limited to two hours
before the JUDICES SELECTI. In the Senate the speeches of senators
were never limited at all; but even the partial limitation then
placed upon judicial pleadings, but which were, in fact, popular
orations, drew from Cicero an affecting deprecation of its effect
upon the cause of freedom, as well as upon the field of eloquence.
The reader of the admired treatise on oratory, and notices of
celebrated orators, will remember his lamentation--as wise in its
foresight of evil consequences to free institutions, as mournful
and affecting in its lamentation over the decline of oratory.
Little could he have supposed that a popular assembly should ever
exist, and in a country where his writings were read, which would
voluntarily impose upon itself a far more rigorous limitation
than the one over which he grieved. Certain it is, that with our
incessant use of the previous question, which cuts off all debate,
and the hour rule which limits a speech to sixty minutes (constantly
reduced by interruptions); and the habit of fixing an hour at which
the question shall be taken, usually brief, and the intermediate
little time not secure for that question: with all these limitations
upon the freedom of debate in the House, certain it is that such an
anomaly was never seen in a deliberative assembly, and the business
of a people never transacted in the midst of such ignorance of what
they are about by those who are doing it.
No doubt the license of debate has been greatly abused in our
halls of Congress--as in those of the British parliament: but this
suppression of debate is not the correction of the abuse, but the
destruction of the liberty of speech: and that, not as a personal
privilege, but as a representative right, essential to the welfare
of the people. For fifty years of our government there was no such
suppression: in no other country is there the parallel to it.
Yet in all popular assemblies there is an abuse in the liberty of
speech, inherent in the right of speech, which gives to faction and
folly the same latitude as to wisdom and patriotism. The English
have found the best corrective: it is in the House itself--its
irregular power: its refusal to hear a member further when they are
tired of him. A significant scraping and coughing warns the annoying
speaker when he should cease: if the warning is not taken, a tempest
drowns his voice: when he appeals to the chair, the chair recommends
him to yield to the temper of the House. A few examples reduce the
practice to a rule--insures its observance; and works the correction
of the abuse without the destruction of debate. No man speaking to
the subject, and giving information to the House, was ever scraped
and coughed down, in the British House of Commons. No matter how
plain his language, how awkward his manner, how confused his
delivery, so long as he gives information he is heard attentively;
while the practice falls with just, and relentless effect upon
the loquacious members, who mistake volubility for eloquence, who
delight themselves while annoying the House--who are insensible to
the proprieties of time and place, take the subject for a point to
stand on: and then speak off from it in all directions, and equally
without continuity of ideas or disconnection of words. The practice
of the British House of Commons puts an end to all such annoyance,
while saving every thing profitable that any member can utter.
The first instance of enforcing this new rule stands thus recorded
in the Register of Debates:
"Mr. PICKENS proceeded, in the next place to point out the
items of expenditure which might, without the least injury
to the interests of the government or to the public service,
suffer retrenchment. He quoted the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury of December 9, 1840; from it he took the several
items, and then stated how much, in his opinion, each might be
reduced. The result of the first branch of this reduction of
particulars was a sum to be retrenched amounting to $852,000.
He next went into the items of pensions, the Florida war, and
the expenditures of Congress; on these, with a few minor ones
in addition, he estimated that there might, without injury, be
a saving of four millions. Mr. P. had gotten thus far in his
subject, and was just about to enter into a comparison of the
relative advantages of a loan and of Treasury notes, when
"The Chair here reminded Mr. Pickens that his hour had expired.
"Mr. PICKENS. The hour out?
"The CHAIR. Yes, sir.
"Mr. PICKENS. [Looking at his watch.] Bless my soul! Have I run
my race?
"Mr. HOLMES asked whether his colleague had not taken ten
minutes for explanations?
"Mr. Warren desired that the rule be enforced.
"Mr. PICKENS denied that the House had any constitutional right
to pass such a rule.
"The CHAIR again reminded Mr. Pickens that he had spoken an hour.
"Mr. PICKENS would, then, conclude by saying it was the most
infamous rule ever passed by any legislative body.
"Mr. J. G. FLOYD of New York, said the gentleman had been
frequently interrupted, and had, therefore, a right to continue
his remarks.
"The CHAIR delivered a contrary opinion.
"Mr. FLOYD appealed from his decision.
"The CHAIR then rose to put the question, whether the decision
of the Chair should stand as the judgment of the House? when
"Mr. FLOYD withdrew his appeal.
"Mr. DAWSON suggested whether the Chair had not possibly made a
mistake with respect to the time.
"The CHAIR said there was no mistake.
"Mr. PICKENS then gave notice that he would offer an amendment.
"The CHAIR remarked that the gentleman was not in order.
"Mr. PICKENS said that if the motion to strike out the enacting
clause should prevail, he would move to amend the bill by
introducing a substitute, giving ample means to the Treasury,
but avoiding the evils of which he complained in the bill now
under consideration."
The measure having succeeded in the House which made the majority
master of the body, and enabled them to pass their bills without
resistance or exposure, Mr. Clay undertook to do the same thing
in the Senate. He was impatient to pass his bills, annoyed at
the resistance they met, and dreadfully harassed by the species
of warfare to which they were subjected; and for which he had
no turn. The democratic senators acted upon a system, and with
a thorough organization, and a perfect understanding. Being a
minority, and able to do nothing, they became assailants, and
attacked incessantly; not by formal orations against the whole body
of a measure, but by sudden, short, and pungent speeches, directed
against the vulnerable parts; and pointed by proffered amendments.
Amendments were continually offered--a great number being prepared
every night, and placed in suitable hands for use the next
day--always commendably calculated to expose an evil, and to present
a remedy. Near forty propositions of amendment were offered to the
first fiscal agent bill alone--the yeas and nays taken upon them
seven and thirty times. All the other prominent bills--distribution,
bankrupt, fiscal corporation--new tariff act, called revenue--were
served the same way. Every proposed amendment made an issue, which
fixed public attention, and would work out in our favor--end as
it might. If we carried it, which was seldom, there was a good
point gained: if we lost it, there was a bad point exposed. In
either event we had the advantage of discussion, which placed our
adversaries in the wrong; and the speaking fact of the yeas and
nays--which told how every man was upon every point. We had in our
ranks every variety of speaking talent, from plain and calm up to
fiery and brilliant--and all matter-of-fact men--their heads well
stored with knowledge. There were but twenty-two of us; but every
one a speaker, and effective. We kept their measures upon the anvil,
and hammered them continually: we impaled them against the wall,
and stabbed them incessantly. The Globe newspaper was a powerful
ally (Messrs. Blair and Rives); setting off all we did to the best
advantage in strong editorials--and carrying out our speeches,
fresh and hot, to the people: and we felt victorious in the midst
of unbroken defeats. Mr. Clay's temperament could not stand it, and
he was determined to silence the troublesome minority, and got the
acquiescence of his party, and the promise of their support: and
boldly commenced his operations--avowing his design, at the same
time, in open Senate.
It was on the 12th day of July--just four days after the new rule
had been enforced in the House, and thereby established (for up
to that day, it was doubtful whether it could be enforced)--that
Mr. Clay made his first movement towards its introduction in the
Senate; and in reply to Mr. Wright of New York--one of the last
men in the world to waste time in the Senate, or to speak without
edification to those who would listen. It was on the famous fiscal
bank bill, and on a motion of Mr. Wright to strike out the large
subscription reserved for the government, so as to keep the
government unconnected with the business of the bank. The mover made
some remarks in favor of his motion--to which Mr. Clay replied: and
then went on to say:
"He could not help regarding the opposition to this measure as
one eminently calculated to delay the public business, with
no other object that he could see than that of protracting to
the last moment the measures for which this session had been
expressly called to give to the people. This too was at a time
when the whole country was crying out in an agony of distress
for relief."
These remarks, conveying a general imputation upon the minority
senators of factious conduct in delaying the public business, and
thwarting the will of the people, justified an answer from any one
of them to whom it was applicable: and first received it from Mr.
Calhoun.
Mr. Calhoun was not surprised at the impatience of the senator
from Kentucky, though he was at his attributing to this side of
the chamber the delays and obstacles thrown in the way of his
favorite measure. How many days did the senator himself spend
in amending his own bill? The bill had been twelve days before
the Senate, and eight of those had been occupied by the friends
of the bill. That delay did not originate on this side of the
House; but now that the time which was cheerfully accorded to
him and his friends is to be reciprocated, before half of it
is over, the charge of factious delay is raised. Surely the
urgency and impatience of the senator and his friends cannot be
so very great that the minority must not be allowed to employ
as many days in amending their bill as they took themselves to
alter it. The senator from Kentucky says he is afraid, if we go
on in this way, we will not get through the measures of this
session till the last of autumn. Is not the fault in himself,
and in the nature of the measures he urges so impatiently? These
measures are such as the senators in the minority are wholly
opposed to on principle--such as they conscientiously believe
are unconstitutional--and is it not then right to resist them,
and prevent, if they can, all invasions of the constitution?
Why does he build upon such unreasonable expectations as to
calculate on carrying measures of this magnitude and importance
with a few days of hasty legislation on each? What are the
measures proposed by the senator? They comprise the whole
federal system, which it took forty years, from 1789 to 1829,
to establish--but which are now, happily for the country,
prostrate in the dust. And it is these measures, fraught with
such important results that are now sought to be hurried
through in one extra session; measures which, without consuming
one particle of useless time to discuss fully, would require,
instead of an extra session of Congress, four or five regular
sessions. The senator said the country was in agony, crying for
"action," "action." He understood whence that cry came--it came
from the holders of State stocks, the men who expected another
expansion, to relieve themselves at the expense of government.
"Action"--"action," meant nothing but "plunder," "plunder,"
"plunder;" and he assured the gentleman, that he could not be
more anxious in urging on a system of plunder than he (Mr.
Calhoun) would be in opposing it. He so understood the senator,
and he inquired of him, whether he called this an insidious
amendment?
This was a sharp reply, just in its retort, spirited in its tone,
judicious in expanding the basis of the new debate that was to come
on; and greatly irritated Mr. Clay. He immediately felt that he had
no right to impeach the motives of senators, and catching up Mr.
Calhoun on that point, and strongly contesting it, brought on a
rapid succession of contradictory asseverations: Thus:
"Mr. CLAY. I said no such thing, sir; I did not say any thing
about the _motives_ of senators.
"Mr. CALHOUN said he understood the senator's meaning to be that
the motives of the opposition were factious and frivolous.
"Mr. CLAY. I said no such thing, sir.
"Mr. CALHOUN. It was so understood.
"Mr. CLAY. No, sir; no, sir.
"Mr. CALHOUN. Yes, sir, yes; it could be understood in no other
way.
"Mr. CLAY. What I did say, was, that the _effect_ of such
amendments, and of consuming time in debating them, would be
a waste of that time from the business of the session; and,
consequently, would produce unnecessary delay and embarrassment.
I said nothing of _motives_--I only spoke of the practical
_effect_ and result.
"Mr. CALHOUN said he understood it had been repeated for the
second time that there could be no other motive or object
entertained by the senators in the opposition, in making
amendments and speeches on this bill, than to embarrass the
majority by frivolous and vexatious delay.
"Mr. CLAY insisted that he made use of no assertions as to
_motives_.
"Mr. CALHOUN. If the senator means to say that he does not
accuse this side of the House of bringing forward propositions
for the sake of delay, he wished to understand him.
"Mr. CLAY. I intended that.
"Mr. CALHOUN repeated that he understood the senator to mean
that the senators in the opposition were spinning out the time
for no other purpose but that of delaying and embarrassing the
majority.
"Mr. CLAY admitted that was his meaning, though not thus
expressed."
So ended this keen colloquy in which the pertinacity, and clear
perceptions of Mr. Calhoun brought out the admission that the
impeachment of motives was intended, but not expressed. Having got
this admission Mr. Calhoun went on to defy the accusation of faction
and frivolity, and to declare a determination in the minority to
continue in their course; and put a peremptory question to Mr. Clay.
"Mr. Calhoun observed that to attempt, by such charges of
factious and frivolous motives, to silence the opposition, was
wholly useless. He and his friends had principles to contend for
that were neither new nor frivolous, and they would here now,
and at all times, and in all places, maintain them against those
measures, in whatever way they thought most efficient. Did the
senator from Kentucky mean to apply to the Senate the gag law
passed in the other branch of Congress? If he did, it was time
he should know that he (Mr. Calhoun), and his friends were ready
to meet him on that point."
This question, and the avowed readiness to meet the gagging attempt,
were not spoken without warrant. The democratic senators having got
wind of what was to come, had consulted together and taken their
resolve to defy and to dare it--to resist its introduction, and
trample upon the rule, if voted: and in the mean time to gain an
advantage with the public by rendering odious their attempt. Mr.
Clay answered argumentatively for the rule, and that the people were
for it:
"Let those senators go into the country, and they will find
the whole body of the people complaining of the delay and
interruption of the national business, by their long speeches
in Congress; and if they will be but admonished by the people,
they will come back with a lesson to cut short their debating,
and give their attention more to action than to words. Who ever
heard that the people would be dissatisfied with the abridgment
of speeches in Congress? He had never heard the shortness of
speeches complained of. Indeed, he should not be surprised if
the people would got up remonstrances against lengthy speeches
in Congress."
With respect to the defiance, Mr. Clay returned it, and declared his
determination to bring forward the measure.
"With regard to the intimation of the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN], he understood him and his course
perfectly well, and told him and his friends that, for himself,
he knew not how his friends would act; he was ready at any
moment to bring forward and support a measure which should give
to the majority the control of the business of the Senate of
the United States. Let them denounce it as much as they pleased
in advance: unmoved by any of their denunciations and threats,
standing firm in the support of the interests which he believed
the country demands, for one, he was ready for the adoption of
a rule which would place the business of the Senate under the
control of a majority of the Senate."
Mr. Clay was now committed to bring forward the measure; and was
instantly and defyingly invited to do so.
"Mr. CALHOUN said there was no doubt of the senator's
predilection for a gag law. Let him bring on that measure as
soon as ever he pleases.
"Mr. BENTON. Come on with it."
Without waiting for any thing further from Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun
proceeded to show him, still further, how little his threat was
heeded and taunted him with wishing to revive the spirit of the
alien and sedition laws:
"Mr. CALHOUN said it must be admitted that if the senator
was not acting on the federal side, he would find it hard to
persuade the American people of the fact, by showing them his
love of gag laws, and strong disposition to silence both the
national councils and the press. Did he not remember something
about an alien and sedition law, and can he fail to perceive
the relationship with the measure he contemplates to put down
debate here? What is the difference, in principle, between his
gag law and the alien and sedition law? We are gravely told that
the speaking of the representatives of the people, which is to
convey to them full information on the subjects of legislation
in their councils, is worse than useless, and must be abated.
Who consumed the time of last Congress in long speeches,
vexatious and frivolous attempts to embarrass and thwart the
business of the country, and useless opposition, tending to
no end but that out of doors, the presidential election? Who
but the senator and his party, then in the minority? But now,
when they are in the majority, and the most important measures
ever pressed forward together in one session, he is the first
to threaten a gag law, to choke off debate, and deprive the
minority even of the poor privilege of entering their protest."
Of all the members of the Senate, one of the mildest and most
amicable--one of the gentlest language, and firmest purpose--was
Dr. Linn, of Missouri. The temper of the minority senators may be
judged by the tone and tenor of his remarks.
"He (Mr. LINN) would for his part, make a few remarks here, and
in doing so he intended to be as pointed as possible, for he had
now, he found, to contend for liberty of speech; and while any
of that liberty was left, he would give his remarks the utmost
bounds consistent with his own sense of what was due to himself,
his constituents, and the country. The whigs, during the late
administration, had brought to bear a system of assault against
the majority in power, which might justly be characterized as
frivolous and vexatious, and nothing else; yet they had always
been treated by the majority with courtesy and forbearance; and
the utmost latitude of debate had been allowed them without
interruption. In a session of six months, they consumed the
greater part of the time in speeches for electioneering
effect, so that only twenty-eight bills were passed. These
electioneering speeches, on all occasions that could be started,
whether the presentation of a petition, motion, or a resolution,
or discussion of a bill, were uniformly and studiously of the
most insulting character to the majority, whose mildest form
of designation was "collar men;" and other epithets equally
degrading. How often had it been said of the other branch of
Congress, "What could be expected from a House so constituted?"
Trace back the course of that party, step by step, to 1834,
and it may be tracked in blood. The outrages in New York in
that year are not forgotten. The fierce and fiendish spirit of
strife and usurpation which prompted the seizure of public arms,
to turn them against those who were their fellow-citizens, is
yet fresh as ever, and ready to win its way to what it aims
at. What was done then, under the influence and shadow of the
great money power, may be done again. He (Mr. LINN) had marked
them, and nothing should restrain him from doing his duty and
standing up in the front rank of opposition to keep them from
the innovations they meditated. Neither the frown nor menace of
any leader of that party--no lofty bearing, or shaking of the
mane--would deter him from the fearless and honest discharge of
those obligations which were due to his constituents and to the
country. He next adverted to the conduct of the whig party when
the sub-treasury was under discussion, and reminded the present
party in power of the forbearance with which they had been
treated, contrasting that treatment with the manifestations now
made to the minority. We are now, said Mr. Linn in conclusion,
to be checked; but I tell the senator from Kentucky, and any
other senator who chooses to tread in his steps, that he is
about to deal a double handed game at which two can play. He is
welcome to try his skill. But I would expect that some on that
side are not prepared to go quite so far; and that there is yet
among them sufficient liberality to counterbalance political
feeling, and induce them not to object to our right of spending
as much time in trying to improve their bill as they have taken
themselves to clip and pare and shape it to their own fancies."
Here this irritating point rested for the day--and for three days,
when it was revived by the reproaches and threats of Mr. Clay
against the minority.
"The House (he said) had been treading on the heels of the
Senate, and at last had got the start of it a long way in
advance of the business of this session. The reason was obvious.
The majority there is for action, and has secured it. Some
change was called for in this chamber. The truth is that the
minority here control the action of the Senate, and cause all
the delay of the public business. They obstruct the majority in
the dispatch of all business of importance to the country, and
particularly those measures which the majority is bound to give
to the country without further delay. Did not this reduce the
majority to the necessity of adopting some measure which would
place the control of the business of the session in their hands?
It was impossible to do without it: it must be resorted to."
To this Mr. Calhoun replied:
"The senator from Kentucky tells the Senate the other House has
got before it. How has the other House got before the Senate? By
a despotic exercise of the power of a majority. By destroying
the liberties of the people in gagging their representatives.
By preventing the minority from its free exercise of its right
of remonstrance. This is the way the House has got before the
Senate. And now there was too much evidence to doubt that the
Senate was to be made to keep up with the House by the same
means."
Mr. Clay, finding such undaunted opposition to the hour rule,
replied in a way to let it be seen that the threat of that rule
was given up, and that a measure of a different kind, but equally
effective, was to be proposed; and would be certainly adopted. He
said:
"If he did not adopt the same means which had proved so
beneficial in the other House, he would have something equally
efficient to offer. He had no doubt of the cheerful adoption of
such a measure when it should come before the Senate. So far
from the rule being condemned, he would venture to say that it
would be generally approved. It was the means of controlling the
business, abridging long and unnecessary speeches, and would be
every way hailed as one of the greatest improvements of the age."
This glimpse of another measure, confirmed the minority in the
belief of what they had heard--that several whig senators had
refused to go with Mr. Clay for the hour rule, and forced him to
give it up; but they had agreed to go for the previous question,
which he held to be equally effective; and was, in fact, more so--as
it cut off debate at any moment. It was just as offensive as the
other. Mr. King, of Alabama, was the first to meet the threat, under
this new form, and the Register of Debates shows this scene:
"Mr. King said the senator from Kentucky complained of three
weeks and a half having been lost in amendments to his bill. Was
not the senator aware that it was himself and his friends had
consumed most of that time? But now that the minority had to
take it up, the Senate is told there must be a gag law. Did he
understand that it was the intention of the senator to introduce
that measure?
"Mr. CLAY. I will, sir; I will!
"Mr. KING. I tell the senator, then, that he may make his
arrangements at his boarding-house for the winter.
"Mr. CLAY. Very well, sir.
"Mr. KING was truly sorry to see the honorable senator so far
forgetting what is due to the Senate, as to talk of coercing
it by any possible abridgment of its free action. The freedom
of debate had never yet been abridged in that body, since the
foundation of this government. Was it fit or becoming, after
fifty years of unrestrained liberty, to threaten it with a gag
law? He could tell the senator that, peaceable a man as he (Mr.
KING) was, whenever it was attempted to violate that sanctuary,
he, for one, would resist that attempt even unto the death."
The issue was now made up, and the determination on both sides
declared--on the part of Mr. Clay, speaking in the name of his
party, to introduce the previous question in the Senate, for the
purpose of cutting off debate and amendments; on the part of
the minority, to resist the rule--not only its establishment,
but its execution. This was a delicate step, and required
justification before the public, before a scene of resistance to the
execution--involving disorder, and possibly violence--should come
on. The scheme had been denounced, and defied; but the ample reasons
against it had not been fully stated; and it was deemed best that a
solid foundation of justification for whatever might happen, should
be laid beforehand in a reasoned and considered speech. The author
of this View, was required to make that speech; and for that purpose
followed Mr. King.
"Mr. Benton would take this opportunity to say a word on this
menace, so often thrown out, of a design to stifle debate, and
stop amendments to bills in this chamber. He should consider
such an attempt as much a violation of the constitution, and of
the privileges of the chamber, as it would be for a military
usurper to enter upon us, at the head of his soldiery, and expel
us from our seats.
"It is not in order, continued Mr. B.--it is not in order,
and would be a breach of the privilege of the House of
Representatives, to refer to any thing which may have taken
place in that House. My business is with our own chamber, and
with the threat which has so often been uttered on this floor,
during this extra session, of stifling debate, and cutting off
amendments, by the introduction of the previous question.
"With respect to debates, senators have a constitutional right
to speak; and while they speak to the subject before the House,
there is no power any where to stop them. It is a constitutional
right. When a member departs from the question, he is to be
stopped: it is the duty of the Chair--your duty, Mr. President,
to stop him--and it is the duty of the Senate to sustain you in
the discharge of this duty. We have rules for conducting the
debates, and these rules only require to be enforced in order to
make debates decent and instructive in their import, and brief
and reasonable in their duration. The government has been in
operation above fifty years, and the freedom of debate has been
sometimes abused, especially during the last twelve years, when
those out of power made the two houses of Congress the arena
of political and electioneering combat against the democratic
administration in power. The liberty of debate was abused during
this time; but the democratic majority would not impose gags
and muzzles on the mouths of the minority; they would not stop
their speeches; considering, and justly considering, that the
privilege of speech was inestimable and inattackable--that some
abuse of it was inseparable from its enjoyment--and that it
was better to endure a temporary abuse than to incur a total
extinction of this great privilege.
"But, sir, debate is one thing, and amendments another. A long
speech, wandering off from the bill, is a very different thing
from a short amendment, directed to the texture of the bill
itself, and intended to increase its beneficial, or to diminish
its prejudicial action. These amendments are the point to which
I now speak, and to the nature of which I particularly invoke
the attention of the Senate.
"By the constitution of the United States, each bill is to
receive three readings, and each reading represents a different
stage of proceeding, and a different mode of action under
it. The first reading is for information only; it is to let
the House know what the bill is for, what its contents are;
and then neither debate nor amendment is expected, and never
occurs, except in extraordinary cases. The second reading is
for amendments and debate, and this reading usually takes place
in Committee of the Whole in the House of Representatives,
and in _quasi_ committee in the Senate. The third reading,
after the bill is engrossed, is for passage; and then it
cannot be amended, and is usually voted upon with little or
no debate. Now, it is apparent that the second reading of the
bill is the important one--that it is the legislative--the
law-making--reading; the one at which the collective wisdom of
the House is concentrated upon it, to free it from defects,
and to improve it to the utmost--to illustrate its nature, and
trace its consequences. The bill is drawn up in a committee;
or it is received from a department in the form of a _projet
de loi_, and reported by a committee; or it is the work of
a single member, and introduced on leave. The bill, before
perfected by amendments, is the work of a committee, or of a
head of a department, or of a single member; and if amendments
are prevented, then the legislative power of the House is
annihilated; the edict of a secretary, of a committee, or of
a member, becomes the law; and the collected and concentrated
wisdom and experience of the House has never been brought to
bear upon it.
"The previous question cuts off amendments; and, therefore,
neither in England nor in the United States, until now, in the
House of Representatives, has that question ever been applied
to bills in Committee of the Whole, on the second reading.
This question annihilates legislation, sets at nought the
wisdom of the House, and expunges the minority. It is always
an invidious question, but seldom enforced in England, and but
little used in the earlier periods of our own government. It
has never been used in the Senate at all, never at any stage
of the bill; in the House of Representatives it has never been
used on the second reading of a bill, in Committee of the
Whole, until the present session--this session, so ominous in
its call and commencement, and which gives daily proof of its
alarming tendencies, and of its unconstitutional, dangerous, and
corrupting measures. The previous question has never yet been
applied in this chamber; and to apply it now, at this ominous
session, when all the old federal measures of fifty years ago
are to be conglomerated into one huge and frightful mass, and
rushed through by one convulsive effort; to apply it now, under
such circumstances, is to muzzle the mouths, to gag the jaws,
and tie up the tongues of those whose speeches would expose the
enormities which cannot endure the light, and present to the
people these ruinous measures in the colors in which they ought
to be seen.
"The opinion of the people is invoked--they are said to be
opposed to long speeches, and in favor of action. But, do
they want action without deliberation, without consideration,
without knowing what we are doing? Do they want bills without
amendments--without examination of details--without a knowledge
of their effect and operation when they are passed? Certainly
the people wish no such thing. They want nothing which will not
bear discussion. The people are in favor of discussion, and
never read our debates with more avidity than at this ominous
and critical extraordinary session. But I can well conceive of
those who are against those debates, and want them stifled. Old
sedition law federalism is against them: the cormorants who
are whetting their bills for the prey which the acts of this
session are to give them, are against them: and the advocates of
these acts, who cannot answer these arguments, and who shelter
weakness under _dignified_ silence, they are all weary, sick
and tired of a contest which rages on one side only, and which
exposes at once the badness of their cause and the defeat of its
defenders. Sir, this call for action! action! action! (as it was
well said yesterday), comes from those whose cry is, plunder!
plunder! plunder!
"The previous question, and the old sedition law, are measures
of the same character, and children of the same parents, and
intended for the same purposes. They are to hide light--to
enable those in power to work in darkness--to enable them to
proceed unmolested--and to permit them to establish ruinous
measures without stint, and without detection. The introduction
of this previous question into this body, I shall resist as
I would resist its conversion into a bed of justice--_Lit de
Justice_--of the old French monarchy, for the registration of
royal edicts. In these beds of justice--the Parliament formed
into a bed of justice--the kings before the revolution, caused
their edicts to be registered without debate, and without
amendment. The king ordered it, and it was done--his word became
law. On one occasion, when the Parliament was refractory, Louis
XIV. entered the chamber, booted and spurred--a whip in his
hand--a horsewhip in his hand--and stood on his feet until the
edict was registered. This is what has been done in the way
of passing bills without debate or amendment, in France. But,
in extenuation of this conduct of Louis the XIV., it must be
remembered that he was a very young man when he committed this
indiscretion, more derogatory to himself than to the Parliament
which was the subject of the indignity. He never repeated it in
his riper age, for he was a gentleman as well as a king, and in
a fifty years' reign never repeated that indiscretion of his
youth. True, no whips may be brought into our legislative halls
to enforce the gag and the muzzle, but I go against the things
themselves--against the infringement of the right of speech--and
against the annihilation of our legislative faculties by
annihilating the right of making amendments. I go against these;
and say that we shall be nothing but a bed of justice for the
registration of presidential, or partisan, or civil chieftain
edicts, when debates and amendments are suppressed in this body.
"Sir, when the previous question shall be brought into this
chamber--when it shall be applied to our bills in our _quasi_
committee--I am ready to see my legislative life terminated. I
want no seat here when that shall be the case. As the Romans
held their natural lives, so do I hold my political existence.
The Roman carried his life on the point of his sword; and when
that life ceased to be honorable to himself, or useful to his
country, he fell upon his sword, and died. This made of that
people the most warlike and heroic nation of the earth. What
they did with their natural lives, I am willing to do with my
legislative and political existence: I am willing to terminate
it, either when it shall cease to be honorable to myself, or
useful to my country; and that I feel would be the case when
this chamber, stripped of its constitutional freedom, shall
receive the gag and muzzle of the previous question."
Mr. Clay again took the floor. He spoke mildly, and
coaxingly--reminded the minority of their own course when in
power--gave a hint about going into executive business--but still
felt it his duty to give the majority the control of the public
business, notwithstanding the threatened resistance of the minority.
"He (Mr. CLAY) would, however, say that after all, he thought
the gentlemen on the other side would find it was better to go
on with the public business harmoniously and good humoredly
together, and all would get along better. He would remind the
gentlemen of their own course when in power, and the frequent
occasions on which the minority then acted with courtesy in
allowing their treasury note bills to pass, and on various other
occasions. He thought it was understood that they were to go
into executive session, and afterwards take up the loan bill. He
should feel it his duty to take measures to give the majority
the control of the business, maugre all the menaces that had
been made."
Here was a great change of tone, and the hint about going into
executive business was a sign of hesitation, faintly counterbalanced
by the reiteration of his purpose under a sense of duty. It was
still the morning hour--the hour for motions, before the calendar
was called: the hour for the motion he had been expected to make.
That motion was evidently deferred. The intimation of going into
executive business, was a surprise. Such business was regularly
gone into towards the close of the day's session--after the day's
legislative work was done; and this course was never departed from
except in emergent cases--cases which would consume a whole day, or
could not wait till evening: and no such cases were known to exist
at present. This was a pause, and losing a day in the carrying along
of those very measures, for hastening which the new rule was wanted.
Mr. Calhoun, to take advantage of the hesitation which he perceived,
and to increase it, by daring the threatened measure, instantly
rose. He was saluted with cries that "the morning hour was out:"
"not yet!" said he: "it lacks one minute of it; and I avail myself
of that minute:" and then went on for several minutes.
"He thought this business closely analogous to the alien and
sedition laws. Here was a palpable attempt to infringe the right
of speech. He would tell the senator that the minority had
rights under the constitution which they meant to exercise, and
let the senator try when he pleased to abridge those rights,
he would find it no easy job. When had that (our) side of the
Senate ever sought to protract discussion unnecessarily? [Cries
of 'never! never!'] Where was there a body that had less abused
its privileges? If the gag-law was attempted to be put in force,
he would resist it to the last. As judgment had been pronounced,
he supposed submission was expected. The unrestrained liberty
of speech, and freedom of debate, had been preserved in the
Senate for fifty years. But now the warning was given that the
yoke was to be put on it which had already been placed on the
other branch of Congress. There never had been a body in this
or any other country, in which, for such a length of time, so
much dignity and decorum of debate had been maintained. It
was remarkable for the fact, the range of discussion was less
discursive than in any other similar body known. Speeches were
uniformly confined to the subject under debate. There could be
no pretext for interference. There was none but that of all
despotisms. He would give the senator from Kentucky notice to
bring on his gag measure as soon as he pleased. He would find it
no such easy matter as he seemed to think."
Mr. Linn, of Missouri, rose the instant Mr. Calhoun stopped, and
inquired of the Chair if the morning hour was out. The president
_pro tempore_ answered that it was. Mr. Linn said, he desired to
say a few words. The chair referred him to the Senate, in whose
discretion it was, to depart from the rule. Mr. Linn appealed to the
Senate: it gave him leave: and he stood up and said:
"It was an old Scottish proverb, that threatened people live
longest. He hoped the liberties of the Senate would yet outlive
the threats of the senator from Kentucky. But, if the lash was
to be applied, he would rather it was applied at once, than
to be always threatened with it. There is great complaint of
delay; but who was causing the delay now growing out of this
threat? Had it not been made, there would be no necessity for
repelling it. He knew of no disposition on the part of his
friends to consume the time that ought to be given to the public
business. He had never known his friends, while in the majority,
to complain of discussion. He knew very well, and could make
allowances, that the senator from Kentucky was placed in a very
trying situation. He knew, also, that his political friends felt
themselves to be in a very critical condition. If he brought
forward measures that were questionable, he had to encounter
resistance. But he was in the predicament that he had pledged
himself to carry those measures, and, if he did not, it would
be his political ruin. He had every thing on the issue, hence
his impatience to pronounce judgment against the right of the
minority to discuss his measures."
Mr. Clay interrupted Mr. Linn, to say that he had not offered to
pronounce judgment. Mr. Linn gave his words "that if the Senate was
disposed to do as he thought it ought to do, they would adopt the
same rule as the other House." Mr. Clay admitted the words; and Mr.
Linn claimed their meaning as pronouncing judgment on the duty of
the Senate, and said:
"Very well; if the senator was in such a critical condition as
to be obliged to say he cannot get his measures through without
cutting off debates, why does he not accept the proposition
of taking the vote on his bank bill on Monday? If he brings
forward measures that have been battled against successfully
for a quarter of a century, is it any wonder that they should
be opposed, and time should be demanded to discuss them? The
senator is aware that whiggery is dying off in the country, and
that there is no time to be lost: unless he and his friends pass
these measures they are ruined. All he should say to him was,
pass them if he could. If, in order to do it, he is obliged
to come on with his gag law, he (Mr. LINN) would say to his
friends, let them meet him like men. He was not for threatening,
but if he was obliged to meet the crisis, he would do it as
became him."
Mr. Berrien, apparently acting on the hint of Mr. Clay, moved to go
into the consideration of executive business. A question of order
was raised upon that motion by Mr. Calhoun. The Chair decided in its
favor. Mr. Calhoun demanded what was the necessity for going into
executive business? Mr. Berrien did not think it proper to discuss
that point: so the executive session was gone into: and when it was
over, the Senate adjourned for the day.
Here, then, was a day lost for such pressing business--the bill,
which was so urgent, and the motion, which was intended to expedite
it. Neither of them touched: and the omission entirely the fault
of the majority. There was evidently a balk. This was the 15th of
July. The 16th came, and was occupied with the quiet transaction of
business: not a word said about the new rules. The 17th came, and
as soon as the Senate met, Mr. Calhoun took the floor; and after
presenting some resolutions from a public meeting in Virginia,
condemning the call of the extra session, and all its measures,
he passed on to correct an erroneous idea that had got into the
newspapers, that he himself, in 1812, at the declaration of war
against Great Britain, being acting chairman of the committee of
foreign relations, who had reported the war bill, had stifled
discussion--had hurried the bill through, and virtually gagged the
House. He gave a detail of circumstances, which showed the error
of this report--that all the causes of war had been discussed
before--that there was nothing new to be said, nor desire to speak:
and that, for one hour before the vote was taken, there was a pause
in the House, waiting for a paper from the department; and no one
choosing to occupy any part of it with a speech, for or against the
war, or on any subject. He then gave a history of the introduction
of the previous question into the House of Representatives.
"It had been never used before the 11th Congress (1810-12). It
was then adopted, as he always understood, in consequence of
the abuse of the right of debate by Mr. Gardinier of New York,
remarkable for his capacity for making long speeches. He could
keep the floor for days. The abuse was considered so great,
that the previous question was introduced to prevent it; but so
little was it in favor with those who felt themselves forced to
adopt it, that he would venture to say without having looked at
the journals, that it was not used half a dozen times during
the whole war, with a powerful and unscrupulous opposition, and
that in a body nearly two-thirds the size of the present House.
He believed he might go farther, and assert that it was never
used but twice during that eventful period. And now, a measure
introduced under such pressing circumstances, and so sparingly
used, is to be made the pretext for introducing the gag-law into
the Senate, a body so much smaller, and so distinguished for
the closeness of its debate and the brevity of its discussion.
He would add that from the first introduction of the previous
question into the House of Representatives, his impression was
that it was not used but four times in seventeen years, that
is from 1811 to 1828, the last occasion on the passage of the
tariff bill. He now trusted that he had repelled effectually the
attempt to prepare the country for the effort to gag the Senate,
by a reference to the early history of the previous question in
the other House."
Mr. Calhoun then referred to a decision made by Mr. Clay when
Speaker of the House, and the benefit of which he claimed
argumentatively. Mr. Clay disputed his recollection: Mr. Calhoun
reiterated. The senators became heated, Mr. Clay calling out from
his seat--"No, sir, No!"--and Mr. Calhoun answering back as he
stood--"Yes, sir, yes:" and each giving his own version of the
circumstance without convincing the other. He then returned to the
point of irritation--the threatened gag;--and said:
"The senator from Kentucky had endeavored to draw a distinction
between the gag law and the old sedition law. He (Mr. Calhoun)
admitted there was a distinction--the modern gag law was by far
the most odious. The sedition law was an attempt to gag the
people in their individual character, but the senator's gag was
an attempt to gag the representatives of the people, selected as
their agents to deliberate, discuss, and decide on the important
subjects intrusted by them to this government."
This was a taunt, and senators looked to see what would follow. Mr.
Clay rose, leisurely, and surveying the chamber with a pleasant
expression of countenance, said:
"The morning had been spent so very agreeably, that he hoped the
gentlemen were in a good humor to go on with the loan bill, and
afford the necessary relief to the Treasury."
The loan bill was then taken up, and proceeded with in a most
business style, and quite amicably. And this was the last that was
heard of the hour rule, and the previous question in the Senate:
and the secret history of their silent abandonment was afterwards
fully learnt. Several whig senators had yielded assent to Mr. Clay's
desire for the hour rule under the belief that it would only be
resisted parliamentarily by the minority; but when they saw its
introduction was to produce ill blood, and disagreeable scenes
in the chamber, they withdrew their assent; and left him without
the votes to carry it: and that put an end to the project of the
hour rule. The previous question was then agreed to in its place,
supposing the minority would take it as a "compromise;" but when
they found this measure was to be resisted like the former, and was
deemed still more odious, hurtful and degrading, they withdrew their
assent again: and then Mr. Clay, brought to a stand again for want
of voters, was compelled to forego his design; and to retreat from
it in the manner which has been shown. He affected a pleasantry, but
was deeply chagrined, and the more so for having failed in the House
where he acted in person, after succeeding in the other where he
acted vicariously. Many of his friends were much dissatisfied. One
of them said to me: "He gives your party a great deal of trouble,
and his own a great deal more." Thus, the firmness of the minority
in the Senate--it may be said, their courage, for their intended
resistance contemplated any possible extremity--saved the body
from degradation--constitutional legislation from suppression--the
liberty of speech from extinction, and the honor of republican
government from a disgrace to which the people's representatives
are not subjected in any monarchy in Europe. The previous question
has not been called in the British House of Commons in one hundred
years--and never in the House of Peers.