The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1876-11-30

t18 t0At. IHls Diii pIVVbuco tnut Wucn
that question comes up " shall
that return which shall be the genuine
rcturn according to the votes Of both
houses, shall be cOunted.' ~ "
This part of The bill was amended so
ms to provide that only that return shall
be counted which The houses, acting sep
arately. shall each, decide to be true and
valid.
MIR. Stewart, of Nevada. objected to the
bill with much force as liable to lead to a
revolution where two sets of returns
were in controversy. lie was in favor of
repeating the Twcnty-second rule, and
leaving the question where the constitu-
ton had left it. .
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIvILEGE.
In regard to the right of the two houses
to make rules to govern its proceedings.
Mr.. Sherman said
1--WE may put this joint-rule in the
| form of an act, and yet the two houses, in
| the execution OF that ministerial duty.
may adopt any other rule they may see
| proper. II we put our joint rule, the
whole of it, in the form OF law, the con-
stitution gives to each house the power
| to make rules for its own government
| and the power to make joint rules for the
| government OF the two houses. That Is
| a constitutional power, and the Forty
| third congress cannot deprive the next
! congress of the power of making rules to
suit itself. The senate can make any rule
| II pleases that affects its mode of proceed
ing, and no law can affect it, and the next
senate may change it. So with the house
of representatives. The right to make
| the rules of each legislative body Is inner
| ent in every parliamentary body and is
| expressly guaranteed to 1t by the consti-
| tuition of the United States"
AS above stated the bill finally passed
the senate and there dropped. We have
alluded to the discussion, not for the pur-
pose Of criticising a measure that was
manifestly defective, but to make ii more
apparent from the opinions expressed,
| that with the two houses, acting concur
rently, resides the constitutional power
of counting the electoral votes and deter
mining their validity. That Mr.. Nor
tom theory Of rejecting no vote without
the concurrence OF both houses is less
equitable than the principle OF the Twen-
ty-sccond joint rule, by which the con.
currence OF both houses is required to
count a vote, hardly admits Of argument
But THE TIMES HAD CHANGED.
The party necessities that existed in
1865 had shifted front. Another rule was
demanded that should surround Repub.
lican interests with safer bulwark. Mr.
Merriman, of North Carolina, expressed
it exactly when he said: "Ia tie nee,
congress there ,oiU be a rery large apojorit,
Of Democrats Il, the Toner house: there aci
be a Republican majority in tie senate. ane
Il looks gerry much as If the purpose ,oas I,
create check, a negatire npon he Demo
cratic house,
THE NEXT MOVEMENT.
On the 10th Of January. 1876. a resolu
ton from the committee on rules previ
ously introduced by Mr.. Edmunds. wa
reported back, providing that the join
; rules of the senate and house in force a
the close of the last session be adopted a
the Joint rules of the two houses tor tn
present session, the house of representa-
tives concurrIng.
Mr.. Morton, whose failure to pass hi
pet measure had in no wise discourage,
him, was promptly on hand with mo
ton to amend by striking out the Tween
ty.second joint rule.
On the 18th of January, Mr.. Bayar
offered asa substitute Joint resolution
providing that the committee on rules G
each house be instructed to examine an
after concurrence, report what amend
ments. ii any, were necessary to the ex
isting joint rules, land especially what LEG
islation was eXpedient in regard to tn
matters considered in the Twcnty-secon
joint rule.
Mr.. Morton's amendment was adopte
on the following day.
On the 18th of February, MIR. Bayard'
substitute came up for consideration bu
no final action was taken on it, the Re
publican senators virtually killing it wit
amendments and robbing it of its concur
rent character, by having it referred t
the committee on privileges and elet
tons. Some points of interest, however
are connected with the discussion.
Mr.. Edmunds for instance admtte
that the Twenty-second joint rule "ha
its origin on an occasion when a join
resolution of the two houses was pending
before President Lincoln on the subjec
OF the insurrectionary states. 1t wa
feared that the president might not az
, prove of the resolution, and that the da
for counting the votes would come on bt
fore it would be known certainly whethe
, he did or not.''
Hence, as before stated, the interpos
ton of the new rule as measure of pre-
caution.
Mr.. Morton objected OF course to MI
Bayard's resolution aud called attentio
to the fact that his bill that failed in til
house. the session before, was still upO
the files of the senate. This bill he il
sisted covered the whole ground.
abolished the Twenty-second Joint rul
and established a safer method, protect
ing states against dIsiranchisement an
providing for limited debate, so that II
vote should be rejected without due cor
sheraton. f ''
MORTON's BILL AGAIN.