Congress, request the SPEAKER to swear in the New Jersey members.

Mr. TURNEY renewed the call for the previous question on Mr. EVANS's resolution, and the call having been seconded by the House, the main question was put, "shall the resolution pass?" and it was decided in the negative-yeas 112, nays 116, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Alford, John W. Allen, Simeon II. Anderson, Andrews, Barnard, Bell, Biddle, Black, Bond, Botts, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Calhoun, John Campbell, William B. Campbell, Carter, Chinn, Chittenden, Clark, Colquitt, James Cooper, Mark A. Cooper, Corwin, Crabb, Cranston, Crockett, Curtis, Cushing, Davies, G. Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dillett, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gates, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Granger, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, Wm S. Hastings, Henry, John Hill of Virginia, Ogden Hoffman, George W. Hopkins, Hiram P. Hunt, Jaines, Charles Johnston, William Cost Johnson, King, Lawrence, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mercer, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Naylor, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborne, Palen, Peck, Pope, Proffit, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Rayner, Ridgway, Russell, Siltonstall, Sergeant, Simonton, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Tolaud, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, Peter J. Wagner, Warren, Edward D. White, John White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. Williams, C H. Williams, S. Williams, and Wise-112.

NAYS-Messrs. Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Boyd, Brewster, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, W. O. Butler, SH. Butler, Bynum, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Colcs, Connor, Craig, Crary, Cross, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, De la Montanya, Doan, Doig, Drom goole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely. Fine, Fisher, Floyd, Formance, Galbraith, Geriy, Griffin. Hammerd, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, John Hill of N. C. Hillen, Holle man, Holmes, Hook, Howard, Hubbard, Thomas B. Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloch, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morvis, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Pickens, Prentiss, Ramsay, Reynoids, Rhett, Rives. Robinson, Edward Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, A'bert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Sunter. Swearingen, Sweeny, Taylor, Francis Thoma, Philip F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel. David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, and Henry Williams-116.

So the House refused to permit the gentlemen who were commissioned by the Governor of New Jersey to be sworn.

Mr. HOFFMAN said he had prepared a resolution, which he was about to submit to the House, which embodied the wishes of a large majority of its members, as recently expressed to him by many of them. He remembered how anxious the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. THOMAS] was to have rules adopted, for the purpose of guiding the House in its proceedings, and the SPEAKER in his decisions. Several others of the gentlemen of the Administration party we e equally anxious, and their object was only to have them ad ped, for the purpose of preserving the decorum of debate, and for relieving the new SPEAKER from the responsibility and embarrassment the want of them occasioned. There was ou covert purpose concealed behind these avowed objects. They had nothing in view but to establish a set of rules for the purposes they had mentioned, and he had no doubt, therefore, but the resclusion he was about to offer, would meet their support.

Mr. H. would observe, however, that there were many of these rules that were warring with the wishes of a majority of the members; and if they were, in a body, once adopted, gentlemen would see how impossible it would be to get any of them changed, because a change could only be effected by a vole of two-thirds. He had therefore proposed a resolution to adopt the rules of the last House temporarily, until a report could be made on them by a committee, with the exception of the 11th rule, which he proposed to strike out. Mr. H. then offered the following resclu ion, and moved the previous question on it.

Resolved, That the standing rules and orders of the list House of Representatives, except the 11th rule, be adopted as the rules and order of proceeding of this House for the ensuing ten days; that the rules and orders be referred to a committee, with instructions to report such amendments of the said rules and orders as they may deem expedient.

Mr. VANDERPOEL inquired of the gentleman from New York what the 11th rule was that he proposed to have stricken out?

Mr. HOFFMAN replied that it was the rule prescribing the viva vece manner of voting in electing officers of the House.

Mr. CRAIG asked if an amendment to the reo

lution would be in order after the previous question was moved?

The SPEAKER said that, under the parliamentary law, by which only the House was now governed, a motion for the previous question did not cut off amendments. A motion to amend the resolution would, therefore, be in order.

Mr. CRAIG then moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words "with the exception of the 11th rule."

Mr. BELL offered an amendment to strike out the 40th and 41st rules in relation to the previous question, which, as it now stood, was liable to great objections. He did not wish to do away with this principle altogether, but wished it referred to a committee to undergo certain modifications.

Mr. FILLMORE also offered an amendment, the effect of which the reporter did not understand; but it was subsequently withdrawn by Mr. F.

Mr. FRANCIS THOMAS said that he was one of the number of those who entertained the opinion that it was not necessary, at this time, to go into a discussion of the propriety of modifying the rules under which they had acted for the last two sessions, with regard to the manner of putting the previous question. He would now content him elf with saying that, after experiencing much inconvenience from the want of them, the House found it necessary to adopt the rules which the gentlemen from Tennessee proposed to dispense with. Mr. T. thought that now was not the time to go into a consideration of these rules, and that the House would find it much more to its convenience to take them as they existed at the last session of Congress. To get at a decision of the question-to get the majority with him-he would move to lay on the table the resolution of the gentleman from New York, together with the amendments that had been offered to it, for the purpose of submitting, as a substitute for it, a resolution providing for the adoption of the rules as they stood at the last session. If the CR would look at the parliamentary law, he would find that a motion to lay on the table had precedence of a motion for the previous question.

Mr. BELL observed that if it should be so decided by the CHAIR that the motion to lay on the table had the precedence, and that motion should prevail, he should then object to the gentleman from Maryland offering his substitute; because, by the parliamentary law, you cannot adopt the substance of the same proposition that was laid on the table.

Mr. JAMESON observed that, according to the doctrine laid down by the gentleman from Tennessee, the resolution of the gentleman from New York could not be adopted, for the substance of it had been laid on the table, and the gentleman and his party had pertinacious'y refused this morning to take it up. Nay, there was an appeal of the gentleman from Alabama from the decision of the CHAIR, that the motion to reconsider the vote on

resolution on the table could not

voting, which he looked upon as a species of Executive whip to be applied to the members on this floor. One of these gentlemen the other day stated that there had been for several years past too much Executive action felt in this Governmnnt, and he would appeal to that gentleman, and those who thought with him, to seize this first opportunity of striking a blow at Executive influence. He looked upon this viva voce principle as one of the most powerful engines of Executive influence, and it was essentially important that it should be destroyed. Every man who had been in this House for the last five or six years, must have seen the alarming increase of Executive influence, and Executive patronage, and the alarming control which party discipline and party drill had over the members of this House. He called upon gentlemen of the State Rights party to join him in destroying this dangerous agent of Executive influence.

Mr. PETRIKIN observed that he, as one of the Democratic members of the House who had been alluded to by the gentleman from Tennessee as being acted upon by Executive influence, felt himself called upon indignantly to repel the insinuation. Though he did not pretend to contend with the gentleman from Tennessee in eloquence and argument, he neither admitted him nor any other member to be his superior in firmness of purpose or devotion to the best interests of the country. He had listened to the gentleman while he was charging the party with which he had acted with being operated on by Executive influence, with surprise and indignation, and as far as he himself was concerned, he pronounced the charge to be untrue in point of fact. Mr. P. said he boldly declared it to be his belief that the viva voce principle of voting was the true Republican principle, and that the man who feared openly to express to his constituents all his votes, was not fit to be a Representative in Congress; he should be thrust out of the hall. Mr. P. said that the first motion he ever made, when he first came here, fresh from his native State of Pennsylvania, was to establish this viva voce principle of voting. He was not listened to, and perhaps it was because he was not in the habit of occupying the time of the Hou e in brawling speeches; but he had made the motion because the principle he sought to establish prevai'ed in the Legislature of Pennsylvania. The e; resentatives of the people there are too proud (Mr. P. said) t skulk behind the ballot boxes. No; they never fear to let their constituents know in what way they give their votes. What! (said Mr. P.) am I, and the party with which I act, under Executive influence? Are we under any other influence than that of cur constituents. No, sir; I retort the charge, and ask if it is not disappointed ambition--the mortification of a defeated party, which powerfully influences those who now seek to destroy the viva voce principle? I ask if it is not the coward fear of walking up to the cha'k, and openly proclaiming their votes to their consti. tuents, on them? I

reign to the subject. It was absurd to suppose that they could not adopt rules for their government because points of order might be interposed. He was of the opinion that they had the right to adopt rules for their government at any time, from the very necessity of the case.

Mr. MERCER made a few observations, giving his opinions on the subject of order.

Mr. DAVIS of Indiana offered as a substitute to Mr. HOFFMAN's resolution, a resolution provid ing for the adoption of the rules of the last House of Representatives, until otherwise ordered by a majority of the House.

The SPEAKER said that the motion of the gent'eman from Indiana was not in order, as the question was on the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. CRAIG.]

Mr. BELL here withdrew his motion for amendmen', and

Mr. CRAIG called for the yeas and nays on the question.

Mr BELL then addressed the House at length in opposition to Mr CRAIG'S amendment, appeal. ing to the gentlenen of the State Rights party to ass'st him in de troying the vira voce privilege of

influences; but I do say, that it is as fair for us to make such charges against them, as for them to charge us with being under Executive influence. Sir, (aid Mr. P.) the charge made by the gentleman from Tennessee, is equivalent to a charge of perjury and fraud-of treason to our constituentsand I therefore indignant'y repel it.

Mr. PICKENS observed that, as he had been particularly appealed to by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,] he desired to make a very few remarks on the topics to which he had alluded. He [Mr. BELL] appealed to those gentlemen who announced the sentiment on this floor that there had been, heretofore, too much Executive action in this Government, and besought them to aid him in destroying one of the most powerful engines of Executive influence; and asked where that rule containing the viva voce principle of voting had ils origin? Mr. P. took pride in answering the gentleman's question. The first time he (Mr. P.) recollected that the rule was introduced, was in the session of 1834 and 1835, when it was considered by the most intelligent and patriotic men in the country, that there was too much Executive action on the Government. It was when the gen

tleman himself was in the SPEAKER'S chair, that the party of the Executive, with which he acted, and of which he was the acknowledged head, had that tremendous majority here, which seemed destined then to sweep over all the dearest righ's of the country. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] then acted in concert with that great party whose strong organization trampled, without remorse, over a vanquished minority. He recollected those times well, and felt the power of the organization which the gentleman from Tennessee was then supposed to support. He is the last man that ought to ask when this viva voce question was introduced. I voted at that time, said Mr. P. against this viva voce principle of voting, preferring the old fashioned Republican principle of voting by ballot, and when I am called upon to vote on this subject, I shall vote for that principle again-but I shall not do it for the reasons the gentleman has offered. Does he suppose that I am to be overawed by Executive influence? Does he suppose that I am gcverned by any other principle than the interests of my constituents? Was there not an influence now much more to be dreaded than that of the Executive on the members of this House? We have had, said he, a convention lately, organized under a combination of three powerful and dangerous influences, one of which was that of the banks' interests, that boded much more danger to the people of this country than any the gentleman had alluded to. Sir, that party organization, produced by such a convention, he looked upon as more terrible in its sway, at this juncture, than any other. Mr. P. said that he would always vote for the ballot system, because he believed it to be the most repablican; but he thought it a direct insult to this House to suppose that there would be members here who would be mean enough to give their votes one way under one system of voting, and another way under another. He remembered the scenes of the last night of the session of '34-35, when the three million appropriation was under consideration, and the conduct of the gentleman from Tennessee, then the bead of the great Jackson party in this House, on that occasion, and he thought that the gentleman was the last man who ought ever to talk of Executive influence. He trembled when he thought what might arise from extraneous in finences brought to bear upon the independence of this House. As far as the iron sway of Executive control is concerned, thank God! we have the prospect of a change. We have principles avoured, embracing the great doctrines of the Constitution. We have a prospect of reform and regeneration. It is folly and madness to attempt to reform this Government by men. You must have great measures. If you wish to strike at the accumulation of power in this Government, or in the Executive, strike at the fiscal action of the Government: reform that, and you reform men. The most we now have to dread is from those moneyed combinations throughout the country, connected with conventions for political purposes, calculated to bring down the independence of individuals and of this House at their mercy, and to absorb all society in one consolidated interest for the benefit of the few, and at the expense of the

many.

Mr. VANDERPOEL said he, toe, had the honor of being a member of this House five years ago, when this proposition, that all elections of cfficers by the House should be made viva voce, was introduced; and he had the further honor of participating in the debates on that subject. So important did he deem this rule, which his colleague [Mr. HOFFMAN] proposed to exclude from the code, that he would vote against the adoption of the entire code unless this viva voce provision were retained. Nor would he consent to adopt the very liberal and magnanimous suggestion of his colleague, when he told us that we might now adopt a 1 but the eleventh rule, and then introduce the viva voce provi sion as an independent proposition. He knew well what the consequence would be if this course were adopted. Days, weeks, and, peradventure, months, wou'd be wasted here in the discussion of this proposition, and no decision would be made till after the elections should have been had, which gave the rule a practical character. He meant the

election of Clerk, Printer, and all the other officers of the House. It was, indeed, a great favor on the part of his colleague, to give us the privilege of adopting a rule after the mischief against which it was designed to provide was perpetrated.

Sir, said Mr. V. are we wiser than our fathers? Did they not deem it important, with a view to our accountability, to provide by a sacred constitutional provision, that "the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, should, at the desire of one-fith of those present, be entered on the journal?" Upon every question, then, that comes before us in our legislative capacity, no matter how insignificant, one-fifth of this House can hold up the other four-fifths to the gaze of their const tuents. Was it, then, in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution to skulk under the ballot, when we entered upon the great and responsible work of electing officers for this House, even to the office of Speaker? It had been said that the people of this country, our constituents, voted by ballot, and that they regarded this, not only as their privilege, but their right, and that the Commoners of England were now contending for this great principle. All this was very true; but did not gentlemen see, in reference to this question, a manifest difference between voting in an individual, and in a representative capacity. When the people undertook to exercise the great and invaluable right of suffrage, they entered upon a work of their own; they were then doing their own business, and no one had a right to inquire how they executed that business. But every vote we gave here, we gave in a representative capacity. We were the creatures of our creaters, and who but our constituents were our creators? We were agents, and who but the people were our principals? Responsibility from the agent to the principal was dictated by every consideration of regard for integrity and justice; and he would enter his protest against an innovation which lost sight of the great principle, that it was right and imporant that our doings here should be open, daylight doings, such as our constituents could see, either for praise or condemnation. He never could, under these views, con, sent to expunge the 11th rule.

Mr. WELLER did not intend to detain the House long with the few remarks he was at out to make. He considered the question to be so sim. ple, that i ut little needed to be said to illustrate it; and therefore, what he was at out to say, would refer principally to his own c ur e on this occasion. He intended, as long as he remained a Representative of the people, that they should see the manner in which he sustained himself in his repr stative capacity, for he was not afraid to let his constituents be the judges of his conduct here. Nay, he was anxious that they shou'd know the manner in which he discharged his duty to them, as he would dis 'ain to act as the r agent, unless his conduct should meet with their fullest approbation. He who acts as an agent, (said Mr. W.) should be ac. countable to his principal; and, therefore, the records of this House should show how the agents of the people discharged the trests confiled to them. He stood here nei her under Executive influence, nor under the influence of banks. He thanked God he had no influences to operate on him but the influences of those who sent him here; and with them he would always be ready to make a prompt settlement of their mutual accourts. Why should it be said that those who prefer the riva voce system of voting were under Executive influence? He did not fear the Executive, or that he would attempt an improper influence over the members of this House. If there was such a man on this floor, let him avow it. He did not believe that this Executive or his predecessor was a tyrant or super. He knew that it had Leen so charged in the columns of a corrupt press, but the people of the country had pronounced the charge to be fa'se and unfoun led. He was under no such influence hin se f--he stood here as a Representative of the people, fearing no influence whatever, and he was not to be deterred from the course his judgment approved, by violent poundings on the desks or a flourish of arms. There might be men he e who possessed more physical power than hmself, and, by pounding of desks and violent ges

ticulation, might attract more notice; but these appliances would never deter him from the course h's judgment approved. He repeated, that he was under no influence either of the Executive or of the banks, and therefore wished every vote he gave to be openly proclaimed to the whole world.

Mr. BRIGGS said a few words in reply to Mr. VANDERPOEL, and referred to the cases in the Constitution where the ballot system of voting was prescribed, arguing, from thence, that that system was more in accordance with Republican principles and was sanctioned by the framers of the Consti

tution.

Mr. CRAIG said, he did not comprehend the arplicability of the remark of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,]-the remark that the Executive he d up a whip over this House. By what part of the Executive was it held up? Was it by the President, or some of his subordinates-the heads of Departments, or by what other branch of the Executive? For his own part, (said Mr. C) he was unconscious of any such influence as that indicated by the figure of "the whip," except that which came from his constituents. To then, and to them alone, he acknowledged himself to te re. spon iole. The constituent body, and they alone, had a right to infl et la hes upon the members of this House. The members of this House were the mere agents of the people who had elected them, and sent them here as their Representatives. By consequence, it was the right of the people to know all her actings and dongs in this hall. How could the people approve or condema, of our deeds were conceal d from them?

Mr. C. further said, there was but one class of the community in whose political honesty he had much confidence-that was that great class made up of the agriculturists, mechanics, manufacturers; in a word, that great cla s who lie at the foundation of society, and whose labors supply the fruits upon which we all live, and are made comfortable. Every day's experience and observation seemed but to confirm him in the opinion that there was no way of preserving our Repub ican institutions but by keeping the conduct of the members of this House fully open to the inspection of the people. They, in the mass, are honest-they are virtuousthey have no interest in error, and they will not knowingly permit their liberties to be bartered away under Executive influence, or in any other way. What ciher motive can suggest the secret mode of vong by ballot, instead of the open mode, "viva voce," but a wish to conceal our ac's from our constituents? It is not the dread of responsi bility to the Executive, but of responsibility to the constituent body, that induces a preference of

the secret mode.

Let, said Mr. C. the idea generally obtain that the House of Representatives may conceal themselves from the view of their constituents, and, in his best judgment, the way will have been paved to the downfall of popular liberty.

At the polls each individual voter stands as one of the independent elements of Government-irresponsible to any person or authority whatsoever. The mode of voting in the primary elections may therefore be supported by many strong arguments, but not one of these arguments is applicable to the Representative. He is an agent, and responsible to his employers. The voter at the polls is independent, and ought, it might be said, to have the means, if he wished to do so, of concealing for whom he had voted.

Forme ly, the mode of electing officers in the Legislature of Virginia was by ballot; but recently, in a change of the constitution of that State, that mode had been repudiated. At this time, all elections, whether in the Legislature or among the people, are conducted on the vira voce mode. This is the favorite mode of that State, and it cannot, it seemed to him, occasion ang surprise that her Representatives should be in favor of its adoption here.

After some remarks from Mr. WISE, in opposi• tion to the amendment,

Mr. BYNUM expressed his regret at herring gentlemen descant in the old way about Executive influence and Executive patronage. He hoped had that the events of the last five or six years would

a

r

2

have taught the gentlemen a lesson. What Execu tive influence did the gentleman from Tennessee allude to? He was the last man on earth who ought to talk on such a subject. That gentleman himself stood on this floor side by side with the dominant party, sustaining Executive influence and Executive power, during the highest excitements of party. These charges have been made time after time, for political effect, for the last five or six Jears; and never had there been a single charge verified. Sir (said Mr. B.) the idea that we should not vote vira voce, through fear of Executive influence, is ridiculous. The gentleman from Tennissee had mistaken the influence. If there was any lash more than another that a Representative should fear, it was the lash of his constituents, as was stated by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. CRAIG] That was the fear; and it was

the fear of his constinents, who were not here to watch his course, that made the viva voce princi ple objec ionable to those who wished to misrepresent them. He would confidently ask every member present if he ever knew of any Representative who deserted the interests of his constituents in consequence of Executive influence. What had been the events of the last ten years, and what were the changes in the principles of members that they had witnessed? Had these changes been in favor of the Executive? On the contrary, had not all of them been in Opposition to the Administration. When he first came into Congress there was a majority of thirty or forty in this House in favor of the Administration, but the were influences more potent than that of the Executive at work, by which that major ty, before the close of the session, was dwindled down to twenty or thirty. When we arrived here a few years hence, there was an Administration majority of twenty-five or thirty. What changes were there the in favor of the Executive? None, sir. Exactly the reverse. Those who changed, and there were many of them, went against the Executive. At the last election of Speaker, that officer was elected by a majority of thirteen votes; but before the close of that session the Administration party was in the minority. Let me tell gentlemen, said Mr. B. a fact worthy of their notice. Go where you will, there is complaint-loud complaint among the people, that their Representatives have misrepresented their will. Now there was one strong reason why the viva voce principle of voting should be retained; and that is, in this widely extendel country the constituents of some of the members, living at a great distance from them, (in some instances two thousand miles,) would find it impossible otherwise to know how they had discharged the trusts confided to them. What is the gentleman about to do? said Mr. B. Is he atempting to do that which will give the people an opportunity of knowing what their Representatives are doing? No, sir; he is for permitting them to vote on the secret principle, in order that they may conceal their votes from those whose agents they are; and some of whom, living at a distance of two thousand miles, may never hear how their votes have been given. Mr. B. said he had heard the charges of Executive corruption and Executive patronage until it had sickened and disgusted every honest man. The peop'e understood the matter; and, notwithstanding the gentlemen who made these charges had been asked again and again to put Their finger on a single case of corruption, without be ng able to do so, the stale charge was still reTeated. Every facility had been offered to gentleme to bring the truth of their charges to light, if truth existed in them; and yet they were unable to Verify a single charge. He had some respect for the gentleman from Tence:sce, and therefore he would not apply to him the language which his unfounded charges and insinuations deserved; but he would pat it to that gentleman whether it was consistent with his high standing to repeat such charges as Executive corruption and Executive influence, without having at least some foundation for the n. The people (said Mr. B) want information, not only of the doings of their own immedia e Representatives, but of this whole body. They are the great Conservatives of the nation, though not

the false, treacherous Conservatives, who have de. serted from the Democratic par y. He could say, and he was proud of saying, that never, in the course of his legislative experience, often as he had heard the charges of Executive influence and Executive corruption reiterated here and elsewhere, never had he seen or heard the slightest proof offered to verify the charge. What proof was there of it? Gentlemen had made these charges here, and had repeated them after they had gone home, but the proof was still as far off as ever. The argument of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,) with regard to the superior honesty of the people, applied with great force in favor of the viva voce principle of voting. The people are admitted, (said Mr. B.) on all hands, to be more honest than their Representatives, and, therefore, there is the stronger reason why they should have an opportunity of knowing the course they pursue. It was all important that the people should know the votes given by their agents. It was important that they should know not only their principles, but the manner they carried them out by their votes; because in voting, the principles of men are shown. In the State he represented, the people voted by ballet, and it was right and proper that they should do so in their primary assemblies, because they there acted as principals; but in the case of a mere agent, as was a Representative, the principle was different; his vote should be given openly, in order that those whose agent he was might see that his duty was correctly performed. There was another reason in favor of the viva voce method of voting; and that was, the people are much easier deceived than the Executive. He is here at the seat of Government, and can see what the Representatives are doing; but the people at a distance can only know of the votes of their agents through the publications of the day. Gentlemen (Mr. B. said) had quoted English examples in favor of abolishing the viva voce method of voting. Now he was tired of hearing English examples quoted in an American Congress. Were the members of the Congress of the United States a set of subjects? To whom do we owe allegiance, but to the institutions of our country? And why should we fear having our votes proclaimed to the world? The man who was capable of such fear, was a disgrace to the seat he occupied. If gentlemen would look round them, they wou'd see that ninetenths of those who had charged their positions, had been deserters from the cause of the people, and had not changed their course in consequence of Executive influence. This, said Mr. B. is my opinion, and I am therefore clearly in favor of adapting such a system of voting as will give the people an opportunity of looking into the conduct of their Representatives.

Mr. REYNOLDS having obtained the floor, said he felt a deep interest in this subject. He had bestowed upon it much reflection, and was clearly satisfied it was the proper and correct mode of voting to be observed by all Representatives and agents that were responsible. Each gentleman in this House, he sail, knows that he does not act for himself in his official and representative character, but he is here to do the will of those who sent him. He is responsible to his constituents, and to no other power on earth; and, as he is responsible, his official acts ought to be open to the inspection of his constituents in all elections.

To prove, said Mr. R. that this system of voting was the proper and correct mode, he might refer gentlemen to all the new States, and many of those that had formed new constitutions. Experience and enlightened policy have convinced the people of the correctness of this doctrine, and, therefore, the viva voce system has been incorporated into most of the constitutions that have been recently formed or amended. If he was not mistaken, this principle was found in the constitutions of Michigan, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, and other States in this Union. It was also made the rule in our sister Republic, the Goverament of Texas.

I, said Mr. R. there could exist a doubt in the mind of any one on the policy of this measure, the experience and enlightened views of all these Governments ought to dispel those doubts, and

convince every one of the correctheses of the doctrine. If this system be not correct, the people at this day, when the science of selfgovernment is better known and more appreciated than at any former period, would soon abandon it, and recur to the old and secret manner of balloting.

In the State of Illinois, this system had been adopted for many years past, and it was found on experience to be not only just and right, but also extremely popular. He believed no Representative of the people of Illinois would attempt a change of this rule in our General Assembly. It was due to the people they or we represent, to spread on the journals our votes in all elections. He hoped the intelligence and good sense of this House would not hesitate one moment in the adoption of this rule of voting, if other great and important subjects were not attached to it. It is saddled with a very "deep water" subject of politics. Some gentlemen had stated that it would assist the Executive influence in this House, which was already too great; others contend that bank influence is as great and even greater than Executive power in the House.

These subjects ought not to weigh on this proposition, and prevent its passage. If this system of voting be correct, the maxim of the ancients ought to apply, "Let justice be done if the heavens should fall."

He could not see in what manner this system could aid either the Executive or the bank influence. Neither influence would operate on him, and he presumed other gentlemen were as independent as he was. It was only the influence of the people that he would regard and bow to; and it was the same with all other Representatives, he supposed.

He disagreed with the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wise,] and others, that the vita voce system was the best system for the people, and ballot for their Representatives. He thought the reverse was best; that is, ballot for the people, and viva voce for their official agents.

The people, he said, are responsible to no earthly power for their sovereign act of voting. The Sovereign power is rightfully lodged with them, and they are, by the forms of our Republican Go. vernments, enabled to exercise that power without any responsibility, except to their own consciences and to the Supreme Being. This being the fact, the people have the undoubted right to vote in any manner that best pleased them. In the ballot system, the voler could exercise his free will and choice better than by viva voce. If he pleased, he need not let any one know his political preferences or choice. It might happen that a voter was in a situation to incur the displeasure of some one, if he should vote viva voce, which by the ballot sys. tem he could avoid, and vote his real sentiments without any restraint whatever.

Notwithstanding this view of the subject, many entertained a different opinion. In the State of Illinois the people, as well as their representatives, voted viva voce, and no inconvenience was experienced by the public. No injury would ever be experienced by the people of Illinois, if they remained as free, equal, and independent, as they now

were.

The situation, he said, of the Representative was quite different from his elector. He was the creature of the people. He was the offspring and miniature of his constituents. He was always presumed, in theory and practice, to speak their voice and sentiment:; and if he did not, he was considered guilty of a breach of political faith, and violated not only the form, but the substance, of our representative system of Government. These statements being admitted by all to be self-evidently true, was it not also just and proper 10 preserve the evidence and truth of the official acts of the Representative?

It would be idle and nugatory to make the Representative accountable to his constituents, if there were no evidence or proof preserved of his official conduc. The pop'e have a right to have the best evilence of the official acts of their agen s, and that was the records and journals of their proceedings. The viua voce system of voting, he considered, w

any gentleman could move to adopt it, and then they would have rules to govern them in their delibera tions upon it, and would have the previous question, 100, to cut off debate, if it should become tedious. This, in his view of the matter would be the most proper course to pursue, and he hoped gentlemen would make no objection to this mode of proceeding.

It

Mr. SALTONSTALL was as anxious as any gentleman in the House, that the body should be organized at the earliest period possible. With regard to the delay in the organization, it was occasioned by the argument of a great constitutional question, and he was willing as one of the minority to take his share of the responsibility of it; for although the question was decided contrary to his feelings and opinions, he believed the argument upon the question would be productive of much good. With regard to the question before the House, he objected to viva voce voting, because it was an innovation on the long established practice of the House. It was also, in his opinion, contrary to the practice of the Constitution, although some gentlemen had held a different opinion here. was well known that in the Constitution, the word ballot is used in regard to the eletion of a Chief Magistrate. When the election of a Chief Magistate devolves upon this House, the Constitution says it shall be by ballot. Thus it will be seen that in the highest and most important election which this House can make the Constitution says, it shall be by ballot. This being the case, he could not see how gentlemen should hold the opinion that viva voce voting was in consonance with the principles of the Constitution. He admitted that it was proper that the votes of members of this House should be recorded on all public measures, and the Constitution provided for this by declaring that it should be in the power of one-fifth of the members piesent to call for the yeas and nays. Thus far the Constitution had made provision for public voting, but no farther. With regard to officers of the House, it was a mere incidental matter. When we meet together here we meet as a body of the people, and have the right to make choice of such servants as we please, without being held responsible to the people in regard to this matter. The people care nothing about it, and would never make any inqairy in relation to it. His constituents would never call upon him to know who he voted for as Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Doorkeeper, or Printer. There was not a man among his constituents who would catechise him thus; and if there should be one who would do do so, he would freely tell him who he voted for; whether his vote was given by ballot or viva voce. He held that viva voce voting in the House was objectionable, because it had the tendency to effect a party organization; and he contended that there should never be such an orga ization in the House. The officers of this House should never be the tools of a party. In addition to this, it placed high minded and honorable men in a delicate situation, and subjected them to be held up in the public press as traitors to party. Besides, gentlemen received a great many courtesies from the officers of the House, and it might seem unkind to be voting publicly against those officers, al hough they might think others more worthy or more capable.

Mr. BELL addressed the House at some length in reply to gentlemen who had spoken on this subject yesterday, and in vindiction of his own conduct on several cccasions. He contended that the secret ballot in the House was necessary to protect gentlemen on this floor from the influence of the Executive, and prevent them from being made the subservient tools of Executive will and power. But it was still more necessary to protect them from the great central heads nan at Washington, whose ire was even more to be dreaded than that of the Executive himself. He had known men on this floor who had the physical courage to march up to the cannon's mouth, yet they had not the courage to brave the denunciations of the party press; they never could be brought up to that sticking point. These men, too, he h 11, were some of the best men in the country, and he contended that

it was necessary to adopt the ballot as a protection to such men as the e.

Mr. CUSHING rose to make a few remarks with regard to the adoption or rather the continuation of the rule under discussion; and he did so because, upon referring to the course of gentlemen on this question, he found that those who opp ed the adoption of the rule in relation to viva voce voting were his political associates, and those who supported it were the friends of the present Administration and his political opponents, and on this question he differed with his political friends. This question was partly a question of principle, and partly a question of party expediency. If it was merely a question of party expediency, he should doubt with regard to the course to be pursued; he would Vote with his party associates; but he regarded it as a question of principle, and as a question of principle it must override party expediency. In the first place, with regard to the question of principle, he conceived the members of the Congress of the United States to be public agents, and as public agents, bound to let their acts be known to their principals. We are the agents of the people. The members of the Senate of the United S'ates are the agents of the States. The members of the House of Representatives are the agents of the people of the States. That he held to be the fundamental principle of Our Government recognised by the Constitution. Sir, what are Representatives? They are men who represent others-men who speak on behalf of those whom they repe ent. We are here to represent our constituency. Well, who are the constituency? Those who appoint and constitute. Our constituency are the people who appoint and constitute us their agents and representatives in this House and our votes here are not our own votes, but they are simply the votes of those who sent us here. But his colleague had asked if our constituents had not sent us here free agents. Undoubtedly they did, but they sent us from a previous conviction of the harmony of our sentiments with their sentiments; and, in our votes here, we must represent their sentiments, otherwise we are not their representatives. He repeated that we were the representatives of our constituents merely, speaking their voice; and that voice should be a public voice, not a secret, not a clandestine voice, as it were, but a public voice, in the face of the world. and in the face of heaven. Such was the general principle; but he held it to be the constitutional principle also. The Constitution of the United States, in the fifth section of the first article, provides that "the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those prcsent, be entered on the journal." This was the general principle of the Constitution applibable to all cases prescribed by the Constitution, excepting one single case, which is in the election of a President of the United States, which, in another clause, the Constitution says shall be by ballot. That insertion of an express exception, was an implication of an exclusion in all other

cases.

The Constitution makes a single exception as to the vote by ballot, in the case of a President of the United States; and this he held to be an exclusion of that mode ia regard to all other votes. Perhaps he would be told by some gentlemen that there was no express provision in the Constitution as to the mode in which the officers of this House were to be elected. But, sir, is not the choice of officers of this House a vole? Do we not vote for a Clerk? Certainly we do; and as a general principle in the Constitution, that vote should be a public vote. In fact it had been a public vote on more occasions than one in this House. It had been assumed by the gentleman from New York, and by his colleague, that the introduction of the viva voce voting into this House was an innovation on existing usages, which was to be apprehended. He, however, did not fear innovations. He had heard it said that monarchs dreaded change; the people never did. He believed in change, in innovation, in reform, in improvement. This was the spirit of a Democracy, the spirit of a Republic, and it was not to be dreaded.

ments.

We must change, we must improve, we must innovate, and he was not to be frightened with this cry of innovation. Time is chang. ing, men are changing, the world is changing, and we must change with the changes of the times; we must advance with the changes of the age, or the tide of public improvement will leave us be. hind high and dry, and instead of innovating to do right, we will be innovating to de wrong, by refusing to keep up with these improveThen whether this was an innovation or not, he was not to be alarmed by it; but he denied that it was so much of an innovation as some gentlemen apprehended; for he could show gentlemen case after case in which a Clerk had been appointed by resolution on which the yeas and nays might have been called. There were a multitude of cases where officers of this House had been appointed by resolution, and it would be competent, at any time, to move a resolution to appoint a certain officer, if there was no rule to the contrary, and one-fifth of the members might call the yeas and nays upon it, which would make it as much of a public vole as by any other means. But even if this mode of voting viva voce was an innovation, he was pie. pared to justify that innovation. What is the objection to it? We are told by gentlemen that the vote by ballot is necessary to secure members against external influences, and from Executive influence. But it would seem, from the remarks of gentlemen, that this external influence was not merely Executive influence; for his co!league, and the gentleman from Tennessee, had very justly told the House that Executive influence was in many cases exerted through party organizetion, which organization constituted one of the greatest tyranuies under which men in this country labored. But in regard to all these objections, if it was necessary that we should have a ballot in order that men might give a secret vote for officers of this House to free them from Executive oppression, he put it to gentlemen to say if the same argument would not be good to exclude from the Constitution the right of having voies taken on all measures by yeas and nays. If it was important that we should have a secret vote for a Clerk or any other officer, to protect men, was it not ten times more important to protect them in regard to public measures? Hie contended, therefore, that the principle of Democracy, and the principle of the Constitution of the United States, was public voting-voting in the face of the House, in the face of the world, in the face of our constituents, who are to judge of our votes, and see whether they are in conformity with the declarations which we made at the polls. All our votes here, not only in regard to measures, but in regard to men, ought to be public and open, SO that every inan might see and judge of them. But it had been said by his colleague that this election of officers was a mere inci lental matter; that the people cared nothing about the matter as to who the servants of this House were to be; and his colleague had said that his constituents would never make any inquiries of him in regard to this matter. He agreed with his colleague, that his constituents might perhaps never inquire of him whom he voted for as officers of the House; but, with regard to this being an unimportant question, he would ask his colleague if there were not hundreds and thousands of questions qui'e as unimportant, on which one-fifth of the members of the House called for the yeas and nays, and their names were recorded upon those questions and perpeared upon your journa's. The gentleman from N. York [Mr. HUNT] says that the officers of this House are mere servants, and it was, therefore, of little moment how they were elected; but, sir, the Corstitution associates these officers of the House in terms of expression, which, perhaps, were not present to the gentleman's mind when he spoke of them. The Constitution says "the House of Re Fresentatives shall choose a Speaker and other fficers." Mr. C. asked the House, which had teen struggling for three weeks to effect an organization he asked the country which had been looking to us with anxious eyes, if the choice of a Speaker was not an important question? Yet the Speaker is one of a oyi other officers in regard to