The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-11-28

A message was then received from Senate
proposing to hold election for Comptroller
on Monday next, at 10 nj.
The House refused to concur, and sent
message to Senate proposing to 60 into salc
election forthwith.
Mr.. Hutchinson from committee reported
Joint rules of order for the government OF the
two Houses.
Mr.. Logan moved that the House do moi
concur. He opposed the rule limiting the
number of finance ommittee-maklng the
Senate and House branches thereof OF equal
number. He held that it was wrong in prin.
ciple. the House of Commons being clearly
entitled to rule said committee from all leg
isatiye precedents hitherto recorded. Also
the rule in reference to the joint committee
on Magistrates. He held that this commit
tee would take tile appointment entirely out
of the hands of the member. He had never
heard ofsuch committee before.
Mr.. Durham favored the joint rule.
Mr.. Latham of Washington did the same.
Mr.. Lyon opposed the rule in relation to
Magistrates. He deemed it an innovation.
He thought each members knew better
whom to appoint for his county, than COM
mittee of members from other counties.
Mr.. Davis favored concurrence in the re-
port of the committee.
MIR. Lyon and Mr. Russ replied, opposing
the rule in relation to joint committee on
Magistrates.
Mr. Freeman favored the appointment of
competent Magistrates, and he deemed this
rule to be in the way of that necessary OBJ
ject.
Mr. Blair desired to know how the mem
bers of the proposed committee could tell
who was competent to be a Magistrate, and
who not. How could member from the
East tell who ought to be Magistrate in
Randolph He was there to represent his
County and to recommend Magistrates. He
denied the right of Others to do this latter
part of his duty for him.
The yeas and nays being called for, the
House refused to concur in the report as fol
lows: p.v
Those who voted in the affirmative were
YEAs-Messrs Allen, Baker, EOyd, Cow
an, Crawford, of Macon, Crawford, of Row.
an, Davis, Davidson, Durham, Foard, Gar
riss, Gorham, CRANBERRY, Harding, Harper,
Henderson, Holderby, Houston, Hutchinson,
Judkins. Kelsey, Kenan. Kendall, Latham, of
w dsuluStou, Lee, Lung, LutioiioH, IhaItlu,
McAuthur, McClammy, Mckay, McNair, Nc
Rae, MooIe, of Hartford, Patton, PEBBLES,
Relnhardt, Richardson, Smith. of Guilford,
Turnbull, Whitefield, Williams, of Harnett,
Williams. of Pitt, Woodard-44
Those who voted in the negative are,
NAYs-Messrs Ashworth, Autry, Barden,
Beasley, Black, Blair, Blythe, Bradsher,
Bright, Bryson, Carson, Chadwick, Clark,
Clements, Daniel, Farrow, Freemen, Gallo
way. Cambria, Garrett, Goodwin, Guess, Hin
nant, Hodnett, Horton, Of Watauga, Horton,
of Wilkes, Jenkins, of CASTOR, Jenkins, of
Granville, Jones, Jordan, Latham, of Craven
Logan, Lowe, Lyon, May, McGougan, Moore,
of Chatham, Morton, Morrissett, Murrill,
Neal, Perry, of Carteret, Perry, of Wake,
Rogers, Rosebro, Rountree, Russ, Scoggin,
Scott, Shelton, Simpson, Smith, of Duplin,
Stevenson, Stone, Studderth, league, Trull
Umstead, Vestal, Walker, Waugh, Westmore-
land, Whitley, Wilson, of Forsyth, Williams,
OF Yancy, Womble, York-67.
So the whole OF the report of the commit
tee was rejected.
But Mr.. Logan moved to reconsider the
vote and to strike out the rule in relation to
joint committee on Magistrates, which was
carried.
The report was then concurred in, and the
House adjourned