The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-04-18

Mr.. Springer then read section of the Electoral
Commission bill, which provides that nothing In
the act shall be held TO impair or affect the right
OF any person to test the title OF person declared
elected, II any such right exists.
Mr.. Garheld-I demand o vote on the question
Of reference, and call for the yeas and nays.
Mr.. ThOmpg0n-If II be In order move this
memorial and all accompanying paperp be refer
red 10 special committee OF fifteen members 70
be appointed by the Speaker, Imake that motion
for this reason, thai in appointing that committee
have full confidence that the Speaker OF THIS
House will faithfully perform his delicate and
important duty, and that committee 80 constrno.
ted will have the confidence OF this House ana
will command the respect of the whole country,
MT UNes 5 9GB any metoD 10 reer SS
paper to q select committee Of fifteen, as such
motion gives an importance TO the subject which,
in my opinion, is insulting TO the House, and Is
designed TO create unrest In the country upon
settled question of O Presidential title.
Mr., Oliver argued that the resolution was Meth:
or petition nor q memorial. II asked nothing OF
Congress, It was simply q notification that the
Maryland Legislature had considered the subject
Mr.. Springer hoped the gentleman from lowe
would not dictate TO the Legislatures OF states what
kind Of a petition they should send TO Congress.
II was the providence Of States to send them to
Congress- and they should be received In respec'
table manner.
Mr.. Garfield insisted on the right Of the House
TO say whether the paper should be referred 70 a
committee or not. II II was not referred, then It
remained upon the table Of the House.
Mr.. COnger demanded a motion should be put,
would the House now consider the mouon 70
refer?
The speaker-Tho Chair thinks that that is
not proper motion. This paper has right 10
reference
Mr.. Conger-That is question for the House.
not the Chair 10 decide.
The speaker-Sometimes the Chairhas his opin'
ion and occasionally advises the House.
Mr.. COnger-I would he unwilling to dispute
that
Mr. Banks argued that the House had right tc
saw whether the resolution should be considered
or not. Suppose resolution should be present
ed denouncing as guilty a crime the Speaker oil
any other member Of the Honse was the HOUSE
compelled to receive such resolutions II q reso
luton denouneing the President should be pre-
gented was the House obliged TO receive III No
IL could refuse to receive 1t. He remembered
when, on account of certain opinions pronounced
by Daniel Webster, petition throwing oploquy
| on his name and character was presented 10 th(
Legislature of Massachusetts and the Legislature
riRhtfully refused to receive 1t. All that he de
sired was that the House should have the right t
say whether the present resolution should De con
sidered or not On that question, the riget to con
| sider the House should never, under any Clrcum
stances, surrender Its privilege, for 1t was on
which might at any time affect the the honor ant
character not only Of the House but Ofevery mem
ber Of II.
Mr.. COX IN. Y. contended that under the rule
petitions like all other matters coming up In IN
morning hour of Monday, must be referred with
out debate. The rule has been ever interpreted
| to mean that q unanimous request by the Hous
for the transaction Of business other than the rel
erenee and printing Of bills and joint resolutions
| could not be entertained by the Speaker Tn
/ rule was express, and was unchanged ana un
changeable so far as the right Of petition was con
| cerned. This was in one sense memorial from
sovereign State, the State Of Maryland. 1t was Il
decorOus terms II came here as petition unde
/ ther first amendment OF the constitution, tn
right Of people TO petition for redress OF griev
| ances.
MI. Stephens Raid-In part agree with the ger
tIeman from Boston (Banks), and also with IN
gentleman fIOm Ohio (Garheld), as well as wit
inc Chair but hold that It is unquestiOnsble o
parliamentary law In all bodies, that when an
matter ia presented the question may be raised
'shall It or shall 1t not be considered 2" The fol
ty.first rule under which the gentleman fr0I
Massachusetts, argues, present. totally ditereI
question. That relates to our ordinary ouslneS
That relates to whether we Will act upon II nov
but anterior to all that stands the general parlit
mentary principle that every deliberatiVe bod!
when any matter is presented to It, has right
say, 1--WE will not receive IT." We Will not ente
tain" (that is the wOrd), or 1--WE reject IT" IN
question which the gentleman from ONO (Ga
feld) raises is equivalent to that which is that
reject Ii that the House will not entertain It, I'M
is also, what the gentleman from from Maisachl
sets (Banksl means by what he claims under u
T6e speaker-The Chair besides this cOmmun
cation from the Maryland Legislature Is q respe
table communication on subject OF vast lmpo
lance 1t is proper that 1t should have que q
liberation. The Chair, therefore, thinks that th
rule properly provides for Its reference