James Madison Papers

Motion on Delegates’ Financial Interest in West, [2 May] 1782

Motion on Delegates’ Financial Interest in West

MS (NA: PCC, No. 36, I, 293). Docketed by JM: “Motion of Mr Bland seconded by Mr Madison[.] May 2d 1782. Rejected as out of order.” Although Bland presented the motion in Congress, the manuscript is in JM’s hand. Also in his hand, on the page containing the docket, appear the words, “assistance from the fleets of his M C or C M as can be afforded for the like purpose.” This passage was evidently a part of the first draft of JM’s Motion on Protection of Commerce submitted to Congress on 2 May 1782 (q.v.).

[2 May 1782]

that the question be now taken on the proposition contained in the words following to wiz.1 [that previous to any determination, &c. (as recited yesterday) ]2 the same being the remainder of a proposition, on the first part of which a vote was yesterday taken on a call a division,3 and now intitled to decision without debate.4

1JM evidently meant to write “wit” or “viz.” On 1 May Congress had further altered Arthur Lee’s motion of 18 April, as amended that day (q.v. and n. 1), by deleting the remainder of the first paragraph asking for a postponement of a vote on New York’s offer to cede her western claims (JM to Randolph, 1 May 1782, and n. 6). Therefore, the present motion requested a vote on the second proposal in Lee’s motion, quoted in Motion To Amend Lee’s Motion on Western Lands, 18 April 1782, n. 1.

2See JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 223.

3See JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 232.

4As stipulated by the twenty-second rule for “conducting business,” adopted by Congress on 4 May 1781 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 480). When Bland introduced the motion, it was at once challenged as being “out of order.” The “chairman,” Daniel Carroll (Motion on Chairman of Congress, 15 April 1782, n. 1), in doubt about the correct parliamentary procedure, acted in accordance with the twenty-sixth rule (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 481) by calling “for the judgment of the house.” As he was privileged to do by the twenty-third rule (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 480), Bland then “required” a tallied vote “on the question, is the motion in order.” With the exception of the Virginia delegation, the states represented in Congress unanimously decided that Bland’s motion was “out of order” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 234–35). On the sheet of paper containing the motion as drafted by JM, Charles Thomson recorded how each delegate voted. See Motion on Point of Order, 3 May 1782.

Index Entries