Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1858-12-10
From the Montpelier Waterman and Journal

ton concerning the State House appropriation, in
quite paroxysm Of indignation because the Sc.
nate had appended it an amendment to the bill
making appropriations for the support of govern
ment-thc view pressed upon the House. with
strong language, by three or four gentlemen, be-
ing That the Senate was discourtoous, and even
threatening to defeat that bill if the House would
, not yield on the State House appropriation.
sto the alleged discourtcsy certainly there was
none on the part of the Senate. 1t was its right
, propose its amendment either bill; it the
right of the House to reject it either; and nei-
! ther could Justly accuse the other of a want of
courtesy in either But the fact was that the
senate proposed its amendment, first, 10 The State
HouSc bW Of The House, where the House itself must
confess that it legitimately belonged-and the
House did not even consider it. Its presiding OFF,
Ger ruled it out-rulcd out the action of another
body, to wit, the Senate-on a point of order If
there was discourtesy any where it was in this
act, not in the Senate. But will not accuse the
Speaker Of positive dscourtesy, find fault with
hi' point of order If the Senate erred in its mes
sage to the House that it had amended the bill at
the recommendation of its committee Of conference
the Speaker would only have been courteous to the
Senate if he had treated the amendment as one in
the usual form. The Senate had the right to pro-
pose its amendment ,cifhom n committee of confer
cnce if it chose, and it would have been the duty
OF the House to concur or non-concur. We think
ltwould have been better had the Speaker so treated
the Senates amendment, and presented the ques,
ton tn the House. 1t precisely because he re-
|
| By The House, that the Senate then appended its
amendment to tho general appropriation bill-and
the House rejected it with ind gnaton because it
came in that form. We state the facts to complete
the record leaving the reader to Judge whether it
was best for either body to be indgnant-and if it
was, which, under the circumstances, ought to
have been most indignant--tho Senate or the
| House.
The foregoing paragraph is from an article
In the Wdtchman and Journal Of this week
on the closing scenes of the Legislature. As to
tine warmth VI language which mvuJ,re of
the House may have INDUCED in, We need say
nothing, farther than that we do not at all
wonder at it. But we certainly are surprised
at the remarks of the Waterman on the
courSe Of the Speaker. One might almost
suppose that the Waterman thought the
Rules Of the House and the Joint Rules Of
both Houles were triies, which the Speaker
could follow or disregard just as within or
good nature should urge him to 20, in any
emergency.
Certainly every reader will interpret the
language Of the Jsurn7! as an attempt
to cast reflections upon the Speaker of the
House of Represent for his course on
'the report Of the committee of conference,
as it was called and on the Houses condition
al appropriation bill, when they were sent in
from the Senate on the last night Of the ses-
sion, While tho Waterman apparently od-
mits the correctness Of the Speakers ruling,
it complains that he ought to have laid
them before the House as regular, instead
of sending them back as irregular. The
editor of the Waterman must have got
little sleepy before these oco urrences took
place, or he would have known that he had
mistaken the facts We are authorized by
the Speaker to say that both 'the cport' and
The bill ,rere seperaHy laid hefore The House By
him, and that both Cere By The unanimous rote
of the house sererGHy ordsred 10 be returned 10
The Senate, with respectful message that
they were irregular and could not be enter
tanned. Inasmuch as no one, not even the
editor Of the WatchD,an (whose Parliament
airy experience in Congress has boen consi- |
derahle, to say nothing of his long acquaint-
ance with the rules of the Vermont Legs |
lature), denies the strict correctness Of the |
Speakers opinion, expressed on that occa-
sion, and as he was sworn to be faithful in |
the discharge Of his duty, we think no one
out of Montpelier, and very few in it, will
complain of what he said or did in the mat
ter. So much for what is personal in the
W'atchmans remark We will take the OPP
portunity to make brief statement of what
took place in tn, House on this subject, for
tho benefit of the Honorable Senate, and for
the amusement Of the public.
The House passed a conditional appropria-
ton bill, for completing the State House,
and sent it to the Senate; the Senate passed
the bill in concurrence with certain propo-
sal Of amendment, and returned 1t to the
House ; the House refused t6'toncur IN the
proposed amendment and return d the bill
and amendment u tho Senate the Senate
insisted upon its amendment, and asked for
a Conference, without appointing any COM
mitteo Tor that purpose, theieby violating
the express provisions Of the Joint rules.
No other notico Was taken of this breach of
propriety than au informal one, the result
of which was Il second request from the
Seoate for Committee of Conference accom-
panied with al announcement of its COM
mite, Mesers, Butler, Davis aud Goed.
The House then, as the Ruiz requires, APP
pointed Mcssrs. Linsley, Kellogg and
Nudnam as Committee of Conference
Il .