Motion on Congressional Rule of Order, [10 April] 1787
Motion on Congressional Rule of Order
[10 April 1787]
That the right of a State under the 22d. article of the Rules of the House, to put off the decision of a question, shall be construed to relate only to the final question on the entire Ordinance or proposition depending, and not to any motion for amendment.1
Ms (PCC). In JM’s hand. Docketed by a clerk: “Motion of Mr Clark Secon[d] by Mr Grayson—a rule of order—passed—April—10—1787.”
1. JM was referring to the “Rules for conducting business in the United States in Congress assembled,” which were agreed to on 4 May 1781 ( , XX, 476–82). The twenty-second article read: “When a question is about to be put, it shall be in the power of any one of the states to postpone the determination thereof until the next day, and in such case, unless it shall be further postponed by order of the house the question shall, the next day immediately after reading the public dispatches, &c. and before the house go upon other business, be put without any debate, provided there be a sufficient number of states present to determine it; if that should not be the case, it shall be put without debate as soon as a sufficient number shall have assembled” ( , XX, 480). The Massachusetts delegation had moved to postpone until the next day a vote on Rufus King’s amending motion to strike out the words, “‘on the last friday in the present month’” from Dyre Kearny’s original motion to adjourn Congress from New York to Philadelphia. An adept parliamentarian, JM used this rule of order to counter King’s attempt to block the move of Congress. JM must have immediately written out the resolution and persuaded Abraham Clark and Grayson to present it, thereby turning the Massachusetts delegation’s postponement against them by allowing only the original question to be brought to a vote the next day, thus precluding any further debate. However, the Massachusetts delegates still succeeded in defeating the motion to adjourn by using the interim to convert one of the Rhode Island delegates to their side and thus depriving the pro Philadelphia states of one of their seven votes ( , XXXII, 167–71; Notes on Debates, 11 [10] and 12[11] Apr. 1787; JM to Randolph, 15 Apr. 1787; JM to Monroe, 19 Apr. 1787 and n. 3).