Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-04-16

printing. The gentleman from Massachusetts
was forgetting the old tradition of his party on
tho right of petition. He reminded him that
when Quincy Adams petition for the dis
solution of the Union was presented in the
House from the State Of Massachusetts, the
gentleman on the other side undertook to have
II aId referred; That was opposed on the Demo-
right of petition had been vindicated BY
time by reason and patriotism. In this case
the(was larger right than the ordinary right
OF petition. 1t was tho right of sovereign
state to present it's grievances, and the State of
Maryland had done SO in this memorial.
raa WI; stephens said agree in part with the
also with the gentleman from Ohio (Garfeld).
as well as with the chair, but hold it is un-
questionable as parliamentary law in all bod
les, that when any matter il presented the
question shall be raised Shall it or shall it not
be presented? The forty-frst rule, under
CUES, presents totally different question than
relates to ordinary business. That
relates to whether we win act on it
now, but anterior to that stands the general
parliamentary principle that every deliberative
body, when any matter is presented to it, has a
not entertain it, That is the word, or, 1--WE
reject it. The question which the gentleman
from Ohio, Alr. Garfield raises il equivalent to
that, which u.s. that we reject it-that the House
VIII not entertain it. That is also what the
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Banks)
means by what he claims under the 4lst rule.
! MIR. Banks-My position is this. that rule l3O
IN regard to receiving resolutions from State
Legislatures, appoints tins when they shall
be in order. The gentleman from MARYLAND
{Swann) has presented a resolution from that
State, and it Is in the hands of the speaker.
Then the House has the right to say whether it
will receive it or not, and at that precise mo-
ment objection is made to It's reception. 1t is
impossible, Mr.. Speaker, that any individual. or
any public body, can have the right to present
here anything viii III he or it desires independ-
entity of the will of the House to receive it.
The petitions to which the gentlemen from
Georgia and New York (stephens and Cox have
manner under the constitution. This is not a
petition. This is a resolution of State Legis-
1ature. In this case there is nothing which
obliges us to receive this resolution.
Mir. stephels-The gentleman from Massa-
chusets certainly did not understand. He and
do not disagree. Ieay that it is the right of
every parliamentary body at the initiative,
when a question is presented, whether me-
moral or petition, or anything else, to say
whether it will receive it or not.
Mr.. Banks did not understand you in that
way.
Mr.. stephens-Certainly that is my position
but understand the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts to raise the question of consideration
under the 4lst rule, and I say his question
should be question of entertainment.
Mr.. Banks-Very WE'LL assent to that prop
osition.
MIR. Stephens-That forty-first rule simply
means, will we act upon the matter now? But
the question really to be raised in this case is,
will the House entertain this resolution or will
it reject it? 1t is the right of the House to say
to-day whether it will rel ect it or not. That is
fundamental principle of all parliamentary
law. All rhis discussion in years gone by re-
lated to this question about presentation. It
was the right of the petitioner to have the pc
titlon presented, but the question was as to the
duty of the House to receive it. The right of
the House to reject petition never was denied.
The parliamentary principle of law to raise the
question as to the reception of or rejection of
a paper has never been touched by our
rules. That underlies our rules. Our
rules are all founded upon it. No deliberative
body could exist without that right. just as
you would turn out man obtruding himself
at your door, SO you have right to reject a
petition. 1t is the right of self organization,
of self protection, but it should be wise and
patriotically exercised. The great right of the
American people to petition is now settled,
ter. Now the House to-day has the right
to reject this memorial from the State Of Mary
land if it saw fit, but is it wise to DO it. Is ii
just Ought not State of the Union to have
a hearing here. Ought not this memorial to be
referred to committee. This country will say
yes, and it will be great error if this House
should say no.
The Speaker-The chair desires to say as the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Banks) relies
on rule IL in behalf of his declaration Of right
Mr.. Banks, iuterrupting-N sir; ray posi-.
ton is that under rule 1870, the right is exhaust
House receives petition, then other proceed.
ings take place to its disposition, but If, as
the gentleman from Georgia has suggested, ths
| House refuses to receive it, or if the House re-
| ject it, then these further proceedings are sus
| pended.
The Speaker-The chair understands tn,
gentleman from Massachusetts to claim tn,
right of the House to say whether IL woult
consider the question, and the gentleman from
Michigan, (Mr Conger,) referred to rule Al e.
! establishing that right. The chair agrees will
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.. Stephens il
this particular, that that rule does not cove
this case. That rule, which was anterior t
| ject in the manner of proceeding to its dispO
! sition. The gentleman from Georgia, how
ever, draws line of distinction betweel
the right to consider and the right t
receive. Now, under rule 100, which direct
the chair as to the manner of procedure, com
latures are authorized to be received in tn
morning hour on Monday, and the rule pre-
| vides how they should be disposed Of. 1t say
that they shall be presented for reference an
printing. The chair thinks that the inherer
right alludedto by the gentleman from Georgi'
in every legislative body, is fully realized b
the body in CAGE it shall refuse to refer its ~
titions. A motion to refuse to refer is, In tt
opinion of the chair, equivalent to q motion |
refuse to receive. AT all events the effect
the same. The gentleman from Massachuset
forgets, and perhaps many members OF Il
House forget that the subject of this petite
} has already gone to the Judiciary committee K
J Maryland XII mmel). and referred to that cor
; mittee, and that bill precedes this memoir
from the State legislature of Maryland. Th
, communication from the State legislature
a respectful communication on subject of 80
J importance. It is proper that it should ha
due deliberatlon. The chair, therefore thin
that the rule properly provides for
reference. The gentleman from Massachuset
9 undertook to prove, by suppositious CAT
G that G communication might come in he
! which was disrespectful to the House; viii
e charged a member of the House with crime,
> anything Of that sort, but the CHI
! Massachusetts that this is n
e such a case. There is no 81
: predicament. In this case, here is respectt
a communication. The rule provides for its
), ference, and the chair thinks that vote shou
be taken on this question of reference. In I
f line of Thought Of the gentleman from &c,
y gia, (Mr. etephens) the chair would think Il
s the refusal to refer, would be equivalent to
y refusal to receive.
i Mr.. Cox, of Ohio, said that while he agre
Q with the rule as stated by the Speaker, he c
: not agree with the Speaker as to one eff,
g flowing from it. He believed th
n under the rule, when memorial
# petition was read from the clerks def
the right of the petitioner is fully acco
u plished. If no member should then make a
: motion whatever in regard to it, it would 81
It DIV 90 on the table of the House, and aft