The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-05-20
Vermont in CONGRESS.

Senator Morrill, has introduced bill re-
quiring the removal Of the tracks of the
Baltimore and Ohio railroad company from
certain streets in the city OF Washington
and for other purposes.
On the resolution to call upon the secre-
tary of the treasury 10 communicate to the
house all letters, kilograms, orders and iE-
structions relating to the organization and
prosecution against the SO called whisky
ring at ST. Louis, Chicago and Milwaukee,
Messrs. Denison, Hendee and Joyce of
Vermont voted against the resolution.
On Mr.. Paynes resolution to issue silver
coin to the extent of $l0,000,000 for an
equal amount of legal tender notes, the
Vermont members voted in the affirmative.
Mr.. Joyce has presented the following
petitions
The petition of William b. Mussey and
Son and others of Rutland, that the law
regulating the mode of packing tobacco re-
main unchanged.
Also the petition of John Is. Beaman and
others Of Vermont, tor the repeal of the
check stamp act.
A TILT BETWEEN EDMUNDs AND CONKIIN.
In the Senate, on Tuesday, the bill to
restrain Chinese immigration having been
introduced, Mr.. Conkling moved its refer
ence to the foreign relations committee.
Mr.. Edmunds objected, as the committee
on commerce. was the proper one to con-
slider the subject.
A discussion cnsued, during which Mr..
Conklin said he had made a mistake in
moving its reference TO the committee on
foreign relations without consulting the
senator from Vermont.
Mr.. Edmunds SAID he apologized to the
senator from New York, and would en-
deavor hereafter to conduct himself SO as
not to make any motion in the Senate with
out consulting his friend from New York
| (ConklinP). This bill certainly applied to
| the regulation of commerce, and should
| 20 to the committee on commerce.
Mr.. Conkling said the senator had en-
ployed the term regulation. He thought
| it seemed to be the mission of the sen.
ator from Vermont to regulate not only
commerce, but the senate and his fellow
senators. 1t was not part of the obliga-
ton which rested upon that senator TO be
80 alert as the suggestion of his that the
| bill 90 TO the committee on commerce
would indicate. Among his (Conkllngs)
many faults, a chronic habit of objectiDp
was not one.
Mr.. Edmunds said his honorable friend
from New York had entirely vanquished
him. He has stated that l am chronic
objector, and that l have interfered with
| what ought not to have interfered with.
My good friend has said that he does no,
consider himself to be chronic objector
| agree to that. believe all the people OF
the United States know that " Barkis is
wllin." There is no objection. Had he
(Edmunds) knows that the senator from
| New York had private consultation with
tho senator from California who intro
duced the bill and that that senator
did not object to il going to the
committee on foreign relations, he would
have said nothing In his Edmund,
opinion, If he was allowed to have one, and
he believed he had by the constitution, not,
wilhstauding the senator from New York
the bill should go 10 the committee ON com
merce. If the senator from New York
and his committee were shy of this Chinese
question, he (Edmunds) had no objection
to 1t going to the committee on foreign 70
lations. AS the senator from New York
was member of both committees, boil
committees might report good bill, anc
as he (Mr. Edmunds) was not a member Of
either, the bill couldn't be bad one
Laughter.
The bill was then referred to the com
mittee on foreign relations.