Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1876-12-20
Garfield said the joint rule referred

Garfield said the joint rule referred
to was not printed as a rule of tn,
present Congress. The joint rule
were headed joint rules and orders O
the two houses as they existed at tn,
close of the 43rd Congress.
The Speaker said that it was put il
there without any authority and h,
therefore withdrew the appeal. Th,
Speaker said though not desiring tt
anticipate he would state as a matter
of fact that this very House at The
close of the last session recognized
the existence of the joint rule BY
adopting unanimously resolution t6
suspend joint rules Nos. 1G and II.
Mr.. Springer said these rules had
never been re-adopted since the foun.
dation of the Government, and tina,
the Presidential vote of co and W
was counted under them.
Mr.. H0ar asked If such rule Of
action thus handed down was moi
necessarily abrogated by a MESA ge
from one House to the other that il
considered them no longer in force.
Mr. Springer said the power to
abolish by either House would obyi.
ate the necessity of any rules.
The Speaker said history showed
that when one House proposed to
amend any joint rule if that PROPOSE
ton failed in the other House the
rules continued to be recognized as in
full force.
Mr.. Kasson said that only shows
that the House proposing the amend.
ment consented that the rules go on
without amendment.
After further discussion Haskins
asked: Supposing the Senate refuse
to recognize the joint rules how
could the House enforce them?
Mr.. Springer said it could not, the
Senate was law unto itself, but we
for our part abide by those rules, and
we choose to do it. Applause.
Mr.. McCrary asserted that Speaker
Kerr had made decision covering
the whole ground during last session.
Further discussion resulted in a
issue between the two parties, the
democrats claiming that the Joint
rules held both Houses until both
agreed to abrogate them, and the re-
publicans ridiculing that position.
Mr.. Garfield further discussed the
END Joint rule, and alluded to the
vote in the Senate of fifty to four by
which the rule was declared not in
force.
Mr.. McCrary had read an extract
from the House proceedings of last
session, showing that Speaker Kerr
ruled that the Constitution gave Ell
ther House the right to adoptits own
rules, and that that right could not
be suppressed.
The Speaker remarked that the dis
cussion confirmed his own Judgment,
since in that debate the word ajoint"
was not once used. The whole dis
cussion referred only to House rules,
implying that the joint rules were to
be reached in some other way than
by the simple action of the House.
Mr.. Garfield held that no rules can
bind the House except by its consent,
and that the joint rule Of the former
Congress was binding was untenable
if not absurd.
The Speaker asked if Mr.. Garfield
had not frequently moved to suspend
certain joint rules, when they had
not been formally adopted.
MIR. Garfield assented, but it was
because neither House had desired to
abolish them and tacitly adopted
them.
The Speaker to-day, however, as
sumed that the House can bind the
Senate to be governed by rules
against its will, and vice versa, thus
the 34th Congress could bind all later
Congresses forever, unless one body
chose to release the other from an old
obligation, thus absolutely multiplying
the constitutional prerogatives OF
both houses.
Mr.. Garfield concluded by assert
ing that these joint rules had ne yer
been adopted by the Ath Congress
and there were no joint rules govern
ing the present Congress. He did
not wish to bring the House to vote
hastily, without consideration. Ev-
erybody could see very great pub
lie question will turn upon the I'D
rule, and it was better that the issue
should DE decided after a full DEBATE.
Mr.. Poland explained that in the
present political condition of the
country he would be warranted in
saying the Commission appointed by
Congress I'd inquire as to the desira-
bility of the double standard of mon
ey, could make no report in time for
action at this Congress, and this bill
should therefore pass the House, and
when the Commission did make its
report, the bill could be accordingly
amended in the Senate. He desired,
however, to offer as substitute for
the bill originally reported, one that
if the bill were to be passed at all,
the sooner it were acted ON the better.
The gentlemen who had filibustered
against it last session, had found on
their return home that their constitu-
ents were not in harmony with them.
Mr.. Monroe, of Ohio, proposed as
a compromise on the part of the op-
ponents of the bill, that demand for
the previous question be seconded,
and the two Houses debate on the
bill. The proposition was agreed to.
the debate to last two hours, one to-
and one on Thursday. The
bill then went over.
The Speaker appointed as a COM
mittee to enquire as to whether
frauds had been practiced in the
election in New York, Brooklyn, Jer-
sey City and Philadelphia, Messrs.
Cox, of New York, Rice, of Ohio,
Waddell, McDougall and Wells, Of
Miss.