Mr. Bayard said, the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was not correct. He had stated that the offences of the two members were the same in circumstances, and committed at the same time. He apprehended the two cases were very distinct; as, by the depositions before the House, it appeared that the offence of the member from Connecticut was committed before the House was called to order, and that the offence of the member from Vermont was committed after the House was called to order. The argument most depended upon in a former case, against the expulsion of the member from Vermont, was that which insisted that the act of violence complained of being committed when the House was not in session, was not a cause of expulsion. If this argument had weight at that time, it ought also to have weight in the present case. It would, therefore, be the height of injustice to blend the two cases together; since there might be cause for expelling one member and not the other.
The Speaker observed that every thing which had been said with respect to a division of the question was out of order, as it could not be divided. He would also remark, in order to shorten the debate, that the House was not called to order when the stroke was made by the member from Vermont upon the member from Connecticut without the bar of the House.
Mr. Harper asked, if the report of the committee should not be agreed to, whether the resolution might not then be agreed to?
The Speaker replied, it could not be divided; but a separate resolution might be brought forward.
The question on agreeing to the report of the committee, which recommended a disagreement to the resolution for an expulsion of the two members was then taken, and stood—yeas 73, nays 21.
The resolution for an expulsion having been disagreed to,
Mr. R. Williams proposed a resolution in the following words:
"Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, for riotous and disorderly behavior in this House, are highly censurable, and that they be reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of this House."
Mr. Harper moved the previous question upon this resolution. He did it, he said, upon this ground. The House had just decided, and they had lately decided in another instance, that disorderly conduct shall not be punished by expulsion; and it was his opinion that no less punishment than expulsion ought to be inflicted, as he was unwilling to diminish the reprehensive power of the House, by inflicting what he thought inadequate punishment for offences of this nature. If there were any gentlemen who thought this conduct excusable, and that it ought not to be punished, they would, of course, vote in favor of the previous question; and those who thought with him, that both ought to be expelled, would also vote in favor of it.
Mr. Nicholas called for the yeas and nays upon this question. Agreed to be taken.