Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-12-08
trary to the fact, as it was assured be would do
at the last election?

BILE contingency.
Mr.. Reagan argued that the matter presented
was question of privilege and that the presi-
dent of the Senate was merely the vehicle or
medium between the electors and the two
houses of Congress.
MIR. Conger made an elaborate argument to
show that the matter did not present ques-
tion of privilege. He relied principally on the
fact that in the late revision Of rules, rule 8,
which specified what were questions of privi-
lege, did not'include thin subject. The pres
ence of the two houses on the occasion of the
Vice President opening and counting the elec.
toral votes was generally, he said, taking ad-
vantage of a permission given them by the
constitution, if they desired to be present dur
ing the interesting ceremony in connection
with the declaration Of the Presidential cleo
tions. No possible construction could
be given to rule 8 which would
make this question of privilege. The prin-
ciple involved in this matter was very serious
and important one. However important the
subject was however desirable it was to have
the question settled. how much the attention
of the Senate, House and country had been
called to the subject matter, whatever dangers
the country might have escaped, and what
ever dangers might still threaten, the integrity
of the House and Of it's rules had been preserv-
ed. If the speaker were TO 60 beyond rule 9 and
declare this question of privilege on some
wild theory, because the government is Repub-
ican, because great interests are st stake, be-
cause the Presidential election is an important
matter. because the country has been on the
very verge of revolution and had barely es-
capped, and because that same danger threaten
ed again and again, the speaker himself would
be acting in revolutionary manner.
MIR. Hooker replied to Conger and Robeson,
and quoted from the digest of rules, in which
it is declared that whenever the speaker is of
opinion that question of privilege is involved
in q proposition, he must entertain it in prefer
ence to other business, such opinion, of
course, being subject to appeal, and when a
proposition is submitted, which relates to the
privileges of the House, it is his duty to enter
tain it at least to the extent Of submitting the
question to the House as to whether 1t does not
present question of privilege" The digest
further says: "Au enumeration of questions
of privilege that may arise cannot, of course,
be given, but the following list embraces near
the right of member to be seated; and the
election of President of the United States"
Mr.. Updegrsf argued that the matter did
not present under the rules, question of
privilege. If it related to a particular election
it might do so, but the rule relating to elections
generally did not do so.
Mr Whitthorn said the attitude of the gen.
tleman informs the speaker as well as the coun-
try that there is claim under the constitu.
tion that the Vics President alone has the right
or authority to count the electoral vote. The
speaker and the country are Informed by the
past legislation, practices and customs hereto
tore prevailing that the House of Representa-
tives and Senate have asserted their righ: to
do this thing. The pending proposition is
one going directly to the highest privileges of
the House. The attitude of the gentleman on
the other side is o denial of that right. Tho
speaker is aware the House must decide the
question at this session. It is, therefore,
right before the speaker, and / submit that
the proposition involves question of privi-
lege; but 1 arise merely for the purpose of
saying the question involved here has no
reference to the pending Presidential cleo
tion. declare to you and the country, and I
speak for the people of my State, and believe
for the Democratic party of the country, that
the proposition has nothing to do with the
election of Mr.. Garfield. He has been elected
by the people, and I, for one. shall see to it
that he is inagurated.
Mr.. Springer called attention to the fact
that Republican Congress had enacted
Joint rule for counting the electoral vote.
Mr.. Robeson replied that under pressure of
the war and the reconstruction that followed it
the Republican party had made good deal of
false legi4lation. They had been weak and
precipitate in many of their actions, and were
suffering from it to-day.
The Speaker-The chair desires to say that
the law says that the electoral votes shall be
ascertained and declared agrseably to the con-
etitution. This law also fixes the time fer
counting the votes and fixes this session as the
one at which the count shall be made of the
last Presidential election. The uniform prac-
tice. certainly the recent practice,
goes to the extent of showing and
places fair construction ON what has been
the action of Congress-that the two houses do
count, and have counted the electoral vote.
The two houses of Congress in the first session
of the thirty-eighth Congress agreed to the
twenty-second joint rule for counting the vote,
The Senate in the first session of the forty
fourth Congress re enacted all the joint rules
of the forty-third Congress except tho twenty
second, and the House taking no action there
on, the Senate declared there were no Joint
rules in force. The Senate decided in the
ty-fourth Congress by vote of 38 to Z that
the President of the Senate had no power to
count the vote, The Senate now sends this
joint rule to take the place of the twenty-sec-
Ond Joint rule. If the chair were to refuse on
technicalities to allow an adjustment between
the two houses, as to the government of the
houses when in joint session, such proceeding
must lead to chaos confusion, perhaps COM
motion. But as far as the question of privi-
leges strictly is concerned, the chair is of the
opinion that it makes no difference by whom
the votes are to be counted. If done by the
two houses it lis the highest duty they
by the constitution relating to the election of
President and Vice President, and
one that the very existence of
our form of government msy depend
upon. If counted by any other person it must
be done in presence of the two houses, so that
all rules regulating joint meeting are of the
highest privilege. affecting as they do the exer-
else of the most important functions of the
two houses. In answer to The point mad Q by
the gentlemen from Michigan and Iowa (Con-
ger and Updegraff) as to the rules of the
House the chair desires to say it is not COM
petent for the House to make any rule which
obstructs in any degree the execution of the
terms of the constitution. The chair therefore
considers, in view of past practices, that this
is question of privilege.
MIR. Van Voorhes, of New York-Do you fiud
it necessary to abrogate rule 9?
The Speaker-The chair has, in answer to
that, stated that it is not competent for this
House to pass any rule to impair the due exc
cution of the constitution.
MIR. Van Voorhees-Does rule nine do that !?
The Speaker-The chair takes 40 cognizance
of any rules when the constitution of the
United States and the laws of the land come
in conflict with them.
Mr.. Bickneli then demanded the previous