Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1858-12-03
THE LEGIsLATURE.

THE LEGISLATURE.
We this week close the proceedings, de-
bates and public acts of the Legislature, hay-
Ing given them more completely than they
have ever been given before, and, this week
al, least, to the exclusion of almost everything
else. or course, hereafter the readers Of the
Hg'clman will find greater variety of mat
t.r, but embracing much from Washington.
oh the recent session of the Legislature we
have but few words now to give The Sen
ate debates cyince more than the usual ability
in that body. while the House had a large
number Of new members, and quite modest
vithal, for comparatively few were prominent
i'm The debates. Opening pleasantly the ses-
sion closed with unusual storms, both in and
out of doors IL is an old and very grave
error in Vermont legislation to crowd the
most important questions, especially If they
are dispunblc, into the close Of the session,
and 20 decide them in the haste of the clos
ing hours aud the heat of excited passions.
Such has been the fate of more than one or
two questions at this session and it is pre-
ciscly because it will be but too easy to raise
storm about them which would peryadc and
seriously disturb the State. that we drop the
topic without another word, except to add
faw facts that do not appear in the reports -
The House non-concured in the Senates
proposition concerning the state House APP
preparation. in quite a paroxysm of indigna-
ton. because the Senate had appended it as
aa amendment to the bill making appropria-
t.ons for the support of goyornmeut-they view
pressed upon the House, with strong Lam
guage, by three or four gentlemen being that
the Senate was discourtcous, and even threat
cning to defeat that bill if the House would
not yield on the State House appropriation.
The last mputaGou on the Senate was well
answered by Che Senate itself when it in
stauay receded from IFS amendment, after the
House had non-concurrcd. As to the alleged
dscourtcsy; certainly there was none on the
part of the Senate. 1t was its right to pro-
pose It's amendment ON either bill it was the
night OF the House to reject it on either; and
neither body could justly accuse the other of
a want of courtesy in either case. But the
fact was that the Senate proposed its amend
meut. first, 10 che STATE House bin Of the
H5use, where the House itself must confess
THAT it legitmatoy bclouged-and the House
did not even consider it, It's presiding Off
Ger ruled it out--ruled out the action of an
other body, to wit, the Senate-on point Of
order If there was discourtesy anywhere,
il was in this act.-not in the Senate. But
we will not accuse the Speaker of positive
discourtesv. nor find fault with his point Of
order. II the Senate erred in its message to
the House that it had amended the bill at the
recommendation Of its committee Of confer
ence, the Speaker would only have been cour-
teous to the Senate if he had treated the
amendment as one in the usual form. The
Senate had the right to propose its amend
ment. ritlout committee of conference if it
chose. and it would have been the duty of the
House to concur or non-concur We think
it would have been better had the Speaker so
treated the Scnates amendment, and present
ed the question to the House. 1t was pre-
cisely because he returned the Senato's prop
osition. uthom ony action by the House, that
the Senate then appended its amendment to
the general appropriation bill-and the House
rejected it with Indignation because it came
in that form. We state the facts to complete
the record, leaving the reader to judge wheth-
err it was best for either body to be indignant
and if it was. which, under the crcum-
stances, ought to have been most Indignant
the Senate or the House.