The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-12-09

l
them. BE quoted at length from tn
Joint rules and said the authority TO ap
point conference committees was derivet
from the Joint rules. The Transmission
Of messages from one House TO the othe
was In pursuance Of the joint rules.
Mr.. Edmunds said there was genera
parliamentary rule providing fer com
mittees Of conference. ...
Mr.. Johnston argued that there wer
various committees appointed under tn
joint rules, among them committees oI
enrolled bills and committee on ibrary
and Others. ''..' d. ~ '-.'
Mr.. Sargent said that when the list 0
committees was reported the other day |
was accompanied by resolutions autho
ri1ing the Committees on Library, Publi,
Buildings and Grounds, Printing and En-
rolled Bills, to act concurrently will
these committees Of the House. Tbi
showed that the Senate did not recognize
the joint rules under which these com
mittees might act Z. y { Fs -
Mr.. Dayis said that when the, commit
tees! Nefe reported he inquired OF III,
Senator from Iowa (Wfigh,J, who report
ed them, as to whether there had beer
aHy change in tho usual custom, and he
was assured by the Senator that there
was no change. It now appeared there
was change, for the purpose Of avoiding
the Joint rules. ..,..,. -....ts-. LA
Mr.. Wright said sonie one was talking
10 him when the Senator from West Vir.
giniA Davis asked the question. He
understood him to inquire II thereywas
any great change In. the organization Sol
the committee, and he replied In the
negative. l. a,z .r.acS.tZf
Mr. Morton said that perhaps there
was no legal proposition that could be
started bat what could be argued favor.
ablss IL was perfectly plain TO him
that there were no joint rules as the Sen.
ate had Withdrawn from them, and II
had 4 perfect right to do so. He quoted
from the various authorities In support
OF his argument, and read from the re.
cord the views heretofore expressed by the
Senators on the Democratic side Of the
Chamber. He said.in his opinion the
entire purpose OF his friends on the other
side, 10 maintaining that the joint rules
were binding now, was 10 maintain the
22d joint rule, relative to the count Of tue
electoral vote which had been condemned
us wicked every where. ......
Mr.. Merrimon said he would not be SO
uncharitable as 10 say that the Republi-
can side desired TO get rid Of 1t for pur-
pose. zJlyIt "a illa lha
Mr.. Morton said he had been trying
to get rid Of the 22d joint rule for years
past. ... %. ..,, .. tam. ..s-s..,. ..II.--
Mr.. Bayard spoke OF the 22d joint rule
as being the only one Objectionable, and
read from his remarks Of last session ID
favor Of the passage q law regulating the
count OF the electoral vote instead Of
dealing with the subject by the rule, He
commented at large on the joint rules,
their object, their origin and said he must
adhere to the position heretofore taken
by him,to the effect that the joint rules Of
the House and Senate were as much
within their control as other rules, and
might be terminated by each House at
It's discretion. -uHf
Mr.. Edmunds quoted at length from
his remarks when this matter was before
the Senate last session, and also from the
remarks OF Mr. Merrimou at the same
time to show that the Senator had
changed his opinion. ....
Mr.. Merrimon said at the last session
he had not given the subject much atten-
,ion, but alter he heard the arguments oil
the other Senators he had reflected on the
matter and had changed his opinion.
Mr.. Edmunds, resnming his argument,
referred to the question before the House
at the last session, and alluding to the
decision OF the late Speaker Kerr, said
that although he (Edmunds) disagreed
with him on the subject OF general
politics, long and pleasant friendship
existed between them. Mr.. Kerr had de.
parted from his career Of usefulness,
amidst the sorrow Of all good men promi.
nent in that great party. BE was noted
not only as an honorable, patriotic citizen,
but having the large views Of a states.
man. Continuing in his argument he
commented on the joint rules and said
they wero simply the standing orders oi
each House. He argued that each House
had perfect right to retire from such
rules.
After further debate by Mcssrs. Meri
rimon, Edmunds and others, the qeustion
being on the appeal Of Mr.. Merrimon
from the decision Of the Chair, the de-
cision was sustained, yeas 80, nays 4, as
follows: ...... ..,.
AyB-Alcorn, Allison, Anthony, Bay.
ard, Blaine, Booth, Boutwell,, BRUCE,
Burnside, Cameron (of wisconsin,, Chat.
fee, Christiancy, Clayton, Cockerell,
Conkling, Conover, Cooper, Cragin,
Dawes, Dennis, Dorsey, Eaton, Edmunds,
FreIinghuysen, Hamilton, Harvey, Hitch:
cock, Howe, Ingalls,, Herman, Logan, Nc.
Crary, Mcdonald, Mcmillan, Mitchell,
Morrill,, Morton, Paddock, Patterson,
Price, Randolph, Sargent, Sherman,
Spencer, Tyler, Wadleigh, Wallace,
West, Window and Wright-5O.
NAyEs-=Maxey, Mertimon, Whyte,
and Withers--4.
Mr.. Cameron, Of Pennsylvania, who
would have voted yea, was paired with
Mr.. Salisbury, who would have voted
In the negative.
ApsEET OR Nor vorISG-- -Barnum,
Bogy, Davis, Goldthwaite, Gordon, Ham:
lin, Johnston, Jones (of Florida), Jones
(of Nevada), Kelly (of Kentucky, Nor.
wood, osleSby, Ransom, Robertson, Shar.
on, Stevenson and Thurman.
Mr. Wi,hers introduced bill for the
relief OF the owners and purchasers Of the
land sold for the direct taxes in the In !
surrectionary States; II was referred.
The Senate took, up the joint resolu.
ton proposing an amendment to the Con.
s,itution OF the United States, in regard
to the count OF the electoral vote, and Il |
was read before proceeding with the con.
thereof. '''
The Senate went into executive session
and when the doors opened adjourned
until Monday.