New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-12-13
JOINT RULES IN THE HOUSE.
DEMOCRATS MAINTAIN THAT THEY ARE STILL IN
FoRCE-REPUBLICANs TAKE AN OPPOSITE VIEW
SPEAKER RANDALL GIVES HIS OPINION.
Inv r,,t ,alp ,stT IN TuE TRIBuNyl

DEMOCRATS MAINTAIN THAT THEY ARE STILL IN
FoRCE-REPUBLCANs TAKE AN OPPOSITE VIEW
SPEAKER RANDALL GIVES HIS OPINION
IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TREBUNEI
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1.-THE House drifted
unexpectedly to-day into discussion Of the question
hetber the Tentysecond Joint Rule Is still in force or
not Mr. Bland Of Missouri in endeavoring to bring be-
fore the House his silver BILL in favor Of which he was so
stent last session. the point of order that UNI
der the Twenty-rst Joint Rule IL was the duty OF the
House after six days from the beginning OF second or
ubseouent session in Congress- 10 resume and act upon
all bills resolutions and reports which originated in the
House and at the close of the next preceding
session renamed undetermined, in the same man
Nor "a If SD adjournment had not taken
Mace A regular rule OF the House, the
I36th makes the same provision, and as there Is no
question that the rules Of the House are In full force II
was unnecessary for Mr. Bland to refer TO joint rule In
o,ler to effect his purpose But the Democrats were
EAGER to have discussion of this question, and when
Mr. Garfield raised the point Of order that the Twenty
first Joint Rule was force, they entered npon the
debate with considerable spirit.
What was said was entirely informal. the question
Of order was debated for nearly hour after Speaker
Randall had announced ms decision upon IT, The dis
eussion was chiefly interesting because 1t disclosed the
fct that the Democrats are probably determined TO
stand BY Speaker Randall in the position ho
bsa taken ia spite of tho vote Of the
senate that the Joint rules are st in force. Daring the
eonsidera 4 n OF this subject Mr. Randall attempted 10
exlsr n rolloauy which took place between himself
ana Mr. Garfield during the last session OF Congress- ana
which has been repeatedly quoted TO show mat MI
Randall then denied the existence Of Joint rule On
that occasion he submitted resolution providing that
the rules Of the House of Representatives OF the ALd
Congress should be the rules of the House OF the present
Congress until otherwise ordered excepting Rules l66
and 1877 Mr. Garfield then made the point OF order that
It was unnecessary 20 make declaration OF this kind
because the rules Of the preceding House. ny
immemorial usage, were the rules Of the present
House unless they were amended or repealed Inc
Chair Speaker Kerr overuled the point Of order on the
Tound that the Constitution clearly gives TO each
House the right TO adopt its rules, whatever may
have been the rules OF order Of preceding House IN
reference TO this matter They cannot supersede the
constitutional right of this House 20 adopt own rules
Mr. Randall declared to-day that what be said on that
occasion referred only the rules OF the House proper
and not 90 Joint rules he also made the point that
tie present House unanimously suspended the JOINT
rules at the end Of the last session, and said that what II
takes two bodies to make takes two bodies TO undo Mr.
Garfield defined the Republican position to be that no rules
whatever whether Joint several can bind the House
except By the Of the Houses otherwise the con-
stutional provision that each House shall make its own
rules would be void and branch Of Congress would
have the mower 70 bind the other branch in peFpetuty
Attention was also called TO the fact that in the latest
edition OF Barclays Digest the Joint rules were not
printed as binding upon tie present Congress- but simply
as the Joint rules 10 up to the time that the last
Congress adjourned. They inserted in the Digest
for tine information OF the members II WAS also shown
that in the journal OF the proceedings Of the last House
appeared that House had neglected 70 reenact the
joint rules and the Senate had officially informed
the House Of this fact by message received just before
the time of adjournment.
The position taken by the Republicans that the JOINT
rules could not exist without the consent Of both Houses
because there would otherwise be no power to enforce
them was taken up by Mr.. Springer, who has rather
assumed the leadership Of the Democrats In this eontro
versy and who said, "Whe cannot compel the Sen
ate 20 obey the joint rules end OF the House.
and propose TO do e." This declaration greeted
with little burst of applause the Democratic side
aud from the galleries. Mr. Randall himself said from
the chair The Senate may obey the joint rules but
that is no why the House should not especially
as the House has followed these rules three times in
counting the electoral vote and there is reason why
Il should not be done again."
II has been learned that the distinguished parlia-
meutarian Barclay in a issue Of his Digest about 70
be pubbshed had prepared his individual opinion that
the Joint rules are not force but the Democratic a
hores having cargc OF tae publication refused to per
nit this opinion TO be inserted.