The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-12-04

nropriety of adopting the resolution The senator
from Ohio had so ably expressed his views upon
the subject that he scarcely deemed IL ssary
90 at any length into the subjscl-matter before
them II seemed to him (Mr. b. ihst the senator
from North Carolina had altogether misconceived
the obi, CT and design Of the resolution. He (Mr.
b. J considered il very salutary rule, and most
excellent one, where the opinion OF the majority Of
the Senate was to control them that this power
should he reserved; and this was the why the
rule twas originally adopted, in order that the
4 majority might be able TO express their views.
/ They all knew now that there was perfect
harmony existing between the Vice President
aud the majority of the present MEMBERS and OPP
position was now offered, in order to deny power
which before was never refused. II was to be pre-
sumed that the President of the Senate would APP
| point many as he considered would carry out the
wishes and views of the majority, who placed him
1 in power. And IN relation 10 responsibility, the
senator from North Carolina ably answered
on that point Of his argument by the senator from
Ohio, that he (Mr By did not deem it necessary to
go into the question OF responsibility at all IL fifty
| four senators could deprive the President of the
| Senate Of his power, II was quite competent for
| them TO displace him. But he was responsible TO
| the millions of the American people; and would il
not be right in them TO intrust that power to him.
who responsible 10 the country The Vice
| President acted always openly and above board, in
view of the world, and under the responsibility with
which he was invested. MIR. B. here reviewed the
|
vested in the Vice President, from the founda-
ton of the republic, from the year 1889, through
4 the various administrations, applicable TO
the matter in debate, and went on 10 say, that
i il was not customary in the early days of the
! republic. In 1907, there Were but two standing
| commlltees-one a committee to examine bills, ard
called the COMMITTEE on Engrossing Bills the
| other committee to audit and control the con-
tingent expenses OF the Senate. All others were
special commitees, and were raised as the necessi-
! ty of the case required In 1916, the rule was
| adopted for the appointment Of certain standing
lcommittees-that for instance foreign relations,
and the principal standing committees as existing
at present. In 1920, when the rules Of the Senate
were revised, the same rule was adopted, and a
plurality vote required. On the 9Th December,
1923, James Barbour from Virginia submitted the
following resolution: "That all committees be al,-
pointed by the presiding officer Of this house, I'M
less specially ordered otherwise by the Senate .
This was the first radical innovation Of the rule,
originating with the Senator from Virginia. and
authorizing, not the Vice President, but the pres
iding officer OF the Senate, to appoint all committees.
That was adopted on the 9th of December, and
read in this way: sThat the 3Ist rule, for
conducting business in the Senate, be so amend
ed as TO read: 'All committees shall be APP
pointed by the presiding officer of this House, I'M
less specially ordered otherwise by the Senate -
On the 18th Of December, 1894, the committees
were appointed in that manner, under the vice
presidency of Mr. Calhoun, the Vice President hav-
ing exercised his power. Mr.. Randolph, of Vir-
gina, on the 18th April, 1926, submitted resolu-
ton to change the rule, and this was the form it
finally assumed "Rssoirsd, That the 3lst rule,
as modified December 9th, 1923, be rescind.
ed and that said rule, as it existed before
4 said modification, be restored as the rule for
the appointment Of committees" That was
/ by ballot of the Senate. This was adopted
4 by nearly unanimous vote-forty voting in
the affirmative, and two in the negative. But ex-
ceptions were made two years afterwards; and, on
motion Of Mr.. King, it was resolved that the Vice
President should appoint the select committees. But
in the rules adopted 18th February, 1923, all COM
mittees were required TO be elected by ballot There
was rule enforced, however, on the 4th December,
1928, which authorized the President pro tenn to APP
point the committees; but in Of there being no
President pro tenn, the Senate was to proceed by
ballot TO elect them. On the 10th Of December,
Il lS33-he president pro tenn. then, under the rules
of the Senate, having power to appoint standing
committees-Mr. Sprague Of Maine offered mo-
ton to change the rule, so to make the appoint
ment of committees by ballot and major.
ity vote. Mr. Sprague's motion was: "Rtsolred
| That the 34th rule of the Senate shall be so
II cath of December, 1928" This was adopted by a
n party vote-22 yeas and IL nays During the vice
presidency Of Mr.. Johnson-Col. Richard M. John.
son--he was vested with the power to appoint all
committees and he exercised it from 1897 to lS4l.
4 From l84l TO l845, there was no Vice President
and at the last session. by vote of the Senate, il
! was agreed that the President should appoint all
standing committees; and at this session, by vote
of the Senate, he has appointed select committee to
wait on the President, and so on. He had thus
briefly recapuated the action of the Senate hither-
to this question. In regard to the analogy of the
case, it in accordance with the practice of all
the legislative bodies in the Union There was not
he believed, an exception in the United States-not
a single instance in which this power was not
lodged in the presiding officer. The presiding off.
Il ser in mai Of repre iyra M
oil the States in the Union had the power to appoint
committees; and though he would not wish to see
this rule abolished-though this motion did not
template resembling it, but merely the suspension Of
thought il would be impotic to refuse the exercise
of that power by the Vice President in this particu
lar case. No good objection had, in his opinion,
been urged against that course.
4 Mr.. BENTON said that, as the question before
the Senate was an important one, he deemed ii
proper that he should make few remarks there.
i on, and show what had been done in similar case
20 years back. He read an extract from the printed
report of the congressional debates of the 18th OF
April, 1896, containing the remarks made by John
Randolph, then in the Senate upon giving notice
that he would move for the rescssion ofhe rules OF
that body which gave to the presiding officer the
appointment Of the committees, and the control
over the journal of its proceedings. Mr. Randolph
strongly opposed the system then in practice, (vest-
ing the appointing power in the Vice President
/ restored to the Senate.
i Mr.. BENToN also read the following extract from
the proceedings ofhe Senate of the 18th Of March,
4 1926.
On motion Of Mr. Randolph the Senate then proceeded
TO consider the motion submitted by him rescind the
rules of the Senate which place the of appointing
the committees and the supervision Of the Journal with
the presiding officer
i "a debate Of two hours duration took place this
ton in which Mr. Randolph spoke repeatedly in support
the expedency and constitutional necessity of the
posed change In the rules rather their restoration to
what they had been; and in explanation Of his views in re-
gard to parliamentary formsof the rights and duties
presiding officers and members Of legislative bodes-es
pecally of those of the Senate Of the United States and
coniendng amongst other positions Tint not the duty
nor the right Of the President Of the Senate to call mem
Der to order until the call be made by member and
peal be made 10 the chair, sc.
| "NIessrs Johnson OF Kentucky Holmes, Mills, Van
Buren,, Eaton and ayns, entered also into the debate
chiefly in explanation Of the considerations that led
the Senate to make the existing change in its rules
their experience OF the effects of the change md theiI
views OF its prcpriety or improperly; the comparative
merits ofthe two modes Of appointing committees &c sc
As the debate nj large has been reported II proper