Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1894-12-14
Essex County Atrala.
ISLAND POND. IT. DECEMBER II.

Some of our readers seeing STit"'su ON
the rulings Of the President OF the last
Senate in the "Rutland controversy" 50
called. are asking for an explanation OF
the situation. As we understand the
matter bill was introduced changing
the boundaries OF the city of Rutland. IL
had passed the House, came to the Sen.
ate, and test vote resulted III one
majority of the Senate in favor of the
bill. The senator from Rutland desired to
offer amendments to the bill, and 4 mo-
ton was made that the bill be ordered
to lie. The motion was lost. The Senator
from Rutland desiring time to prepare
BIS amendments several dilatory motions
and calls for the yeas and nays were
made. Then the senator offered an amend
ment and debated it during the remain
der of the day saturday. The diIatory
motions were made that day evidently
in selfdefence. and seemed iuSilhabie AT
the close of the day it becoming evident
that the purpose was to debate the
amendments until the next Wednesday
morning-whch time had been fixed by
n resolution fur final adjournment and
had passed both houses. which would
leave the bill with all the unfinished bust
ness of the session still unfinished SO asto
necessitate the calling an extra session at
an expense of probably $4,000 or
$40, 900 to the State and the beginning
of the unfinished business dc norO, a
senator from Addison asked that the
senator from Rutland yield the floor for
Il motion to adjourn. This he did with
out any condition stated rs to his retain
ing the floor. On the Senate rcassemblIn8
ON Monday the Chair recognized the
senator from Washington. The senator
from Rutland rose to a question OF order,
claiming the floor because he yielded to a
motion to adjourn on Saturday. The
Chair ruled that he was not entitled to
the floor until after the morning hour.
Rule 10 states that the morning hour
may be devoted to business therein speci-
fed. Jetftrsou's Manual also states that
When a question is interrupted by a
vote of adjournment It is thereby removed
from before the House and does not
stand ipso Mcto before them at their
next meeting, but must come forward in
the usual way" The same we suppose
as when it is interrupted by an order OF
the day. An appeal was taken from the
ruling of the Chair, and the Senate suS-
tanned the Chair. Then a senator moved
to adjourn. 1t was evident that no pur-
pose but waste OF time and delay could
be accomplished by the motion The Sen
ate refused to adjourn. \ motion was
made to reconsider the vote refusing 10
adjourn. The Senate refused to recon
slider. Another senator moved to adj
journ. The Chair ruled tina t motion out
n of order because the Senate had tran
sacted no business since the former mo.
ton to adjourn. Gushing says, and the
universal practice is that IF a motion &c
adjourn be made and decided in the mega
tive il cannot be immediately followed by
another motion to adjourn; some husi
ness must intervene between the tive
motions An appeal was taken from
the ruling. Anoth, senator rose to de
bate the question or appeal. The Chan
ruled that debate was not i'll order. TIL,
rule is that motions relating to adjourn
1nent shall be decided
without debate" The Senate SUSTAINED
the Chair on both rulings. The senator
from Washington moved that the HOUSE
be requested to return to the Senate The
joint resolution for final adjournment
(Which resolution provided for a hna
adjournment on the then next Wcdncs
day morning.. Another senator rose tC
debate the motion. The Chair ruled that
debate was not in order because thcr,
was nothing before the Seuate, not ercr
the resolution itself After the calling o
the roll was commenced by the secretary
another senator arose to debate the
motion. The Chair ruled that he wa:
out of order and directed the secretary tc
proceed with the call. Rule-"If til,
Chair directs the clerk to proceed will
the call there can be no further debate
The Senate adopted the motion of tn,
senator from Washington. The resolu
ton was returned to the Senate, tn,
closure broken, the business of the session
resumed, everybody was given an op
p)rtunity to be heard, and the bushes!
oFthc session was finished with a dis
patch never exceeded probably in th'
history Of the State.
We are no pariamcntarian but til,
foregoing presents the main features o
the situation
1t is complained that the Chair did not
do justice to the city Of Rutland, especi
ally in its last rulings. How was Rut
land even affected by them 1.-The motor
was to recall the joint resolution provid
ing for final adjournment so that the ses
sion would not expire by the limitation
fixed by the resolution, and another hav
to be called at an enormous expense t.
finish the work of the session, and to dC
considerable portion OF it all over again
Was it wrong to preserve the continuit,
OF the session so that the State could dc