The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1876-12-21
JOINT RULES.
Interesting Debate in the House of Repre-
sentatives.


Mr.. McCrary sent to the Clerks desk
and had read an extract OF the House
proceedings of astsession, to show that,
on question which then arose, Speaker
Kerr ruled that the constitution gave
each house the right to adopt it's own
rules, and that that right could not be
superseded.
The Speaker remarked that the ex-
tract lust read confirmed in remarkable
manner his present judgment, inasmuch
as in that discussion the word ssiont
was not once used, but that the whole
discussion had reference only to the
House rules proper, implying that the
Joint rules were to be reached In some
other way than by the simple action of
the House.
Mr.. Garfield argued that no rules,
either joint or several, can bind the
House except by it's consent, and that
the proposition that joint rule coming
from a former Congress had any more
authority in the Forty fourth Congress
shan House rule was (if not absurdl
certainly untenable.
The Speaker-Has not the gentleman
himself frequently in former Congresses
moved to suspend the sixteenth and sew
enteenth joint rules without those rules
having been formally adopted by that
Congress-
Mr.. Garfield Certainly; admit that
freely, and for the reason that whenever
the two houses of Congress proceed
without challenge to act under the rules,
these is an implied assent to those rules
and they are tacitly adopted, but the as
sumption of the Speakers ruling to-day
is that the House can bind the Senate to
be governed by rules to which it does
not consent, and, OF course, Uace VerSG.
In that way Congress that sat ten years
ago could bind all later Congresses for
ever unless one body chose to relieve
the other from the old obligation OF q
dead Congress, thus absolutely nullify-
ing the constitutional privileges and pre-
negatives of the House and also the Sem
ate. We have never adopted joint rules
for the Forty fourth Congress. We
have concurred with the Senate in the
rules which it proposed to adopt. The
last and present presiding officer OF this
House, the presiding officer of the Sen
ate, our journal, our body of rules in the
form of digest, all concur in the ad-
mission that there are no joint rules of
the Forty-fourth Congress. There isno
body of rules printed in our book which
processes to be the joint rules of the
Forty-fourth Congress. Still, / do not
wish on an incidental and informal point
to bring the House to vote on the ques-
ton without time for consideration.
Everybody can see that there can be a
very great public question that will turn
upon the twenty second joint rule, and I
prefer that whenever we come to that
discussion we shall come to it on a di-
rect issue with full debate. /, there
fore, withdraw my appeal.
Mr.. Springer asked Mr.. Garfield
whether the joint rules werein existence
at the close of the FOrty-third Con-
gross.
Mr.. Garfield declined to answer until
after he should have examined the aues-
tion. s@
The Speaker-The Chair does not
wish by any statement of his to antici-
pate that question, except herein con-
nected with q matter of fact. This
House, composed of the same gentlemen
who now ST. here, did at the end of last
session recognize the fact that the Joint
rules were in existence by adopting
unanimously resolution to suspend
Joint rules Nos. Is and IL. hi
Mr.. Springer-These joint rules have
never been readopted by any subsequent
Congress from the foundation of the
Government to the present time. The
twenty-second joint rule was acted under
in the counting of the Presidential
electors in 1869, and also in 1873. and
yet it was never adopted but once in
1866.
Mr.. Hoar asked Mr.. Springer whether
the rule of action which had been hand
ed down by tacit consent from Congress
to Congress as to the mode of the pro-
ceeding of the houses was not necessarily
abrogated by a message from one of
them to the other that it considered
these joint rules no longer in force,
Otherwise, would not the House be
bound not merely by the act of previ.
Gus House, as In the case of its own
rules, but by the act of previous SEN
etc?
Mr.. Springer-If the doctrine be
maintained that when joint rule is es-
tabished between the two houses one
of them can abrogate that rule at it's
will, there is no necessity whatever for
adopting joint rules because they do not
bind either party to the agreement.
The Speaker stated that the history
of the two houses as to the Joint rules
showed that when any proposition by
one house to amend them failed in the
other house the rules continued to be
recognized, accepted, and acted under
as if they were in fall force.
Mr.. Kasson-That only shows that
the house proposing an amendment
consented that the rules should 90 on
without amendment.
The Speaker-The Chair thinks that
that whichit takes two bodies to do. takes
two bodies to undo. 1t is a mere mai
ter of opinion. 2y