Page images
PDF
EPUB

ought to follow that. There is no necessity for such a committee, unless there are amendments to the Constitution to be proposed.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Is that in order? We have passed over that matter.

The PRESIDENT. I do not think it is in order to go back.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. We have a Committee on Canons. Let us have one on the Constitution.

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. This is only to preserve the symmetry of our committees. We have a Committee on Canons, not on amendments to Canons.

Rev. Mr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. We can make a canon, but we cannot make a constitution. The proper title is "Committee on Amendments of the Constitution," not "on the Constitution."

The PRESIDENT. It is evident the amendment is not favored by the House, and therefore I will put the motion made by Dr. Beach on the adoption of the rules as amended. The question is on that motion.

The motion was agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEES.

The PRESIDENT. I will now give notice of the appointment of additional committees. There is one indeed under the old rule which has not yet been announced-the Committee on Christian Education. I appoint on that committee

Rev. HENRY A. COIT, of New Hampshire.
Rev. CHARLES MINNIGERODE, of Virginia.
Rev. DANIEL R. GOODWIN, of Pennsylvania.
Rev. ALDERT SMEDES, of North Carolina.
Rev. GEORGE BECKETT, of Georgia.
Rev. EDWIN E. JOHNSON, of Connecticut.
Rev. GILES A. EASTON, of California.

Mr. NATHANIEL H. R. DAWSON, of Alabama.
Mr. HENRY COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania.
Mr. JOHN B. HOWE, of Indiana.

Mr. CHARLES J. JENKINS, of Georgia.
Mr. GEORGE C. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts.
Mr. ISAAC ATWATER, of Minnesota.

As the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, I appoint :

Rev. CHARLES H. HALL, of Long Island.
Rev. THOMAS U. DUDLEY, of Maryland.
Rev. BENJAMIN A. ROGERS, of Texas.

For a reason which will be apparent to the House, I have appointed but three clergymen on that committee, and the following make up the rest of the committee:

Mr. MORRISON R. WAITE, of Ohio.
Mr. R. C. L. MONCURE, of Virginia.

Mr. JAMES M. WOOLWORTH, of Nebraska.
Mr. GEORGE F. COMSTOCK, of Central New
York.

Mr. ELIT. WILDER, of Minnesota.

Mr. JOHN W. STEVENSON, of Kentucky.
Mr. EDWARD MCCRADY, of South Carolina.
Mr. SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, of New York.
Mr. CORTLANDT PARKER, of New Jersey.
Mr. GEORGE W. RACE, of Louisiana.

It is important, as I have long thought, that the wealth of intellectual power which this Church has the privilege to possess in her laity, as represented in this Convention and in all her Conventions, should be utilized, and we put that duty upon those distinguished men.

As the Committee on Memorials of Deceased Members, I have appointed:

Rev. ALEXANDER BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Rev. SAMUEL CHASE, of Illinois.

Rev. WILLIAM F. ADAMS, of Louisiana.
Rev. WALTER AYRAULT, of Central New York.
Rev. THEODORE P. BARBER, of Easton.
Rev. MARCELLUS A. HERRICK, of New Hamp-

shire.

Rev. RICHARD M. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey.

Mr. HARRY I. BODLEY, of Missouri.

Mr. ARMAND J. DE ROSSET, of North Carolina.
Mr. CAMBRIDGE LIVINGSTON, of New York.
Mr. AUGUSTUS H. MOSS, of Ohio.

Mr. WILLIAM WELSH, of Pennsylvania.
Mr. JEREMIAH C. GARTHWÄITE, of New
Jersey.

COMMITTEE ON CANONS.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, submitted the following reports:

REPORT No. 1.

The Committee on Canons respectfully report that on the morning of the third day of the session they met for organization, the Rev. William Cooper Mead, D.D., being Chairman, and appointed the Rev. Francis Harrison to be their secretary. By order of the Committee. (Signed) WILLIAM COOPER MEAD, Chairman. October 9, 1874.

REPORT NO. 2.

The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred a proposed addition to the Standing Order of the House, respectfully report that they have considered the same, and recommend the adoption of the following:

"Section 3. The Secretary of the House of Deputies and the Treasurer of the Convention, although not returned as Deputies to the Convention, shall be entitled to seats upon the floor of the House, and, with the approval of the President, to speak on the subjects of their respective offices.

"Section 4. This order shall always be printed at the close of the Digest, as well as prefixed to the Journal, with the date of its adoption.'

By order of the Committee.

(Signed) WM. COOPER MEAD. October 9, 1874.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I move the adoption of the resolution contained in Report No. 2.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. It has to go on the Calendar and come up to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT. The rule is that the Secretary shall keep a Calendar of business, on which reports of committees, resolutions which lie over, and other matters undisposed of shall be placed in the order in which they are presented, so that this matter may be disposed of now, and the motion is made to adopt this resolution of the Committee on Canons. The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The hour of adjournment having arrived, the House stands adjourned until to-morrow at the usual hour.

FOURTH DAY.

SATURDAY, October 10. The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 10 A. M.

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter by Rev. Giles A. Easton, of California. The Lessons were read by Rev. Edwin M. Van Deusen, D.D., of Central New York. The Creed and Prayers were said by Rev. William Paret, D.D., of Central Pennsylvania. The Benediction was pronounced

by the Right Reverend William Mercer Green, D.D., Bishop of Mississippi.

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read and approved.

BISHOPS OF ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN.

Rev. Dr. COOKE, of New York. The Committee on the Consecration of Bishops have a report to make. Before making the report I beg to call your attention, Mr. President, to the seventeenth rule of order, as adopted yesterday, and to enquire whether the rule will be considered by the President as applying to the report which is now to be made :

"Whenever the election or confirmation of a Bishop is under consideration, the House shall sit with closed doors."

The PRESIDENT. I should not think, speaking promptly on the question, that such a question was under consideration when the report was merely being made. It will come under consideration when the report is before us.

Rev. Dr. COOKE, of New York. I submit the following report:

The Committee on the Consecration of Bishops have had before them the testimonials referred to them of the Rev. Edward R. Welles, D.D., Bishopelect of the Diocese of Wisconsin, and find after examination that all the rules and Canons of this! Church touching the election of a Bishop have been complied with in the case under consideration. The Committee therefore submit for the consideration and action of the House the customary resolutions : "Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies approve of the testimonials of the Rev. Edward R. Welles, D.D., Bishop-elect of the Diocese of Wisconsin, and give their consent to his consecration.

"Resolved, That the House proceed to sign the proper certificate to be presented to the House of Bishops.'

I also, from the same Committee, submit the following report:

"The Committee on the Consecration of Bishops have had before them the testimonials referred to them of the Rev. George F. Seymour, D.D., Bishopélect of the Diocese of Illinois, and find, after examination, that all the rules and Canons of this Church touching the election of a Bishop have been complied with in the case under consideration. The Committee therefore submit for the consideration and action of the House the customary resolutions : "Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies approve of the testimonials of the Rev. George F. Seymour, D.D., Bishop-elect of the Diocese of Illinois, and give their consent to his consecration.

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That the House proceed to sign the proper certificate to be presented to the House of Bishops."

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Kentucky. dent

Mr. Presi

The PRESIDENT. The Chairman of the Committee will please indicate what disposition he wishes to make of the reports just made-whether they shall lie over or not.

The Rev. Dr. COOKE, of New York. The Committee present the reports and resolutions for the action of the House.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. A report when made, under the rules adopted yesterday, goes down on the Calendar, and will come up in its order as a matter of course. I call attention to Rule 6: "The Secretary shall keep a Calendar of business, on which reports from committees, resolutions which lie over,

and other matters undisposed of shall be placed in the order in which they are presented." The PRESIDENT. That settles the matter. It designates the disposition which shall be made of each report.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I rise to make a simple suggestion as a matter of convenience. I suppose this business goes on the Calendar, and will come up, being first in the order of business, on Monday. Isuggest that either at that time or now we make it a special order of business at the opening of the Convention. We can do so when it comes up on the Calendar or now. I would make it the special order of business at the opening of the Convention, immediately after Divine service. That will obviate the necessity of compelling persons to remove from the House, and it will then only be necessary for the ushers to close the House and not admit persons from the outside until we get through that order of business. This would be much more agreeable, I think, to the Convention and to persons without.

I make the suggestion, not for the purpose of interfering with these reports on the Calendar, but for the purpose of giving notice that, when they come up on Monday as the first business in order on the Calendar, I shall move that they be made the special order on the opening of the Convention on the following day, immediately after Divine service.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Does the gentleman not know that there are already some matters on the Calendar in advance of this?

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I was not aware of it.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. There are. Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. But as it is always allowable to make a special order, I will move, at the suggestion of gentlemen around me, that this be made the special order on the opening of the Convention immediately after Divine service on Tuesday next. I will not include in my motion the direction to the ushers not to admit any person into the House, but of course that direction will be given by the proper officer.

The PRESIDENT. It will require a two-thirds vote to pass that resolution.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. To make a special order?

The PRESIDENT. In the form presented, because it repeals a rule of order already made.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. Let us see, sir. We go to the Calendar at twelve o'clock, unless there be an order of the day. I think the seventh rule contemplates the universal practice of all bodies to make an order of the day, and that this rule is in subordination to that general principle.

The PRESIDENT. My decision has no reference to the Calendar, but it is because the rules distinctly specify the order of business. Of course, the House can suspend the rule of order for this purpose, but it will require a two-thirds vote to do so.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Do I understand the Chair to decide that the House cannot, except by a vote of two-thirds, fix any matter as a special order for any particular time?

The PRESIDENT. At any particular time which violates the order of business as prescribed by the rules.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. But the 7th Rule prescribes that the Calendar shall be taken up at 12 o'clock.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I understand the rule to be (and I think those wise in parliamentary law will sustain me) that the matter of making anything a special order is part of the control of its proceedings which exists in every deliberative body by a mere majority at all times. It

does not conflict with anything, but simply postpones to a particular time the matter in hand, and fixes when it shall be taken up. However, if the Chair is of the opinion he has indicated, I will not insist on this motion, but will pursue the course which I stated before, and when these reports are called up in their place on the Calendar, on Monday, I will move to make them the order of business for Tuesday morning.

ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED BY CHICAGO FIRE.

Rev. Dr. LOCKE, of Illinois, submitted the following report:

"The Rev. Dr. Locke, who was appointed by the last General Convention, with the Bishop and Clergy of Chicago, a committee to receive and distribute the alms of the Church contributed for the relief of the Church organizations disabled by the Chicago fire, feels that it devolves upon him, the Bishop being dead, to report the amount and the use of those alms.

"He submits, then, the following report, omitting all the several items and stating the gross amounts. The items are not necessary, for every one has been separately acknowledged to the donor at the time of receipt:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

"Besides all this, large sums were sent to individual clergy, which are not here reported, because they never came before the Committee, and there were also immense supplies of clothing and stores sent to each parish, all of which was acknowledged and faithfully distributed.

"The undersigned, on behalf of all the Churches, so severely injured by the fire, and especially on behalf of the Church Hospital, of which he is the President, begs leave gratefully to acknowledge the abundant generosity of the General Church.

"CLINTON LOCKE,

"Treasurer appointed by General Convention of 1871, of Chicago Relief Fund." Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that this report be printed on the Journal and the Committee discharged.

The motion was agreed to.

THE NICENE CREED.

The PRESIDENT. Petitions and memorials are now in order.

Rev. Mr. DOUGLAS, of Mississippi. I present a memorial of the Diocese of Mississippi in regard to the Nicene Creed. As this memorial has already been read in substance, I move its reference to the Committee on the Prayer-Book.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. Payne, of Albany; Rev. Mr. Schuyler, of Missouri; Rev. Mr. Rogers, of Texas; Rev. Mr. Trimble, of Arkansas; Rev. Dr. Scarborough, of Pittsburgh; Rev. Dr. Stringfellow, of Alabama; and Rev. Mr. Bliss, of Vermont, presented memorials on the same subject from their respective Dioceses, which were referred to the Committee on the Prayer-Book.

COURT OF APPEAL.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have a memorial of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, asking this General Convention to take such steps as will result in the establishment of a Court of Appeal, and I ask that it be referred to the Committee on Canons.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I have a memorial of the same nature from the Diocese of Texas.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. In behalf of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, I submit that the measure suggested will require an amendment of the Constitution. and the question should properly go to that Committee, and not to the Committee on Canons.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. The Committee on Canons at the last Convention, if I remember aright, reported on the subject, and reported that it involved an amendment to the Constitution. I think, therefore, the appropriate reference is to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. We are certainly not bound by the action of the last Committee on Canons. The House did not approve of the report, and, of course, it now remains an open question. This memorial which I have presented does not in form ask for change of the Constitution. Therefore it ought not properly to be referred to the Committee on changes in the Constitution. If the Committee on Canons should come to the conclusion that it does require a change in the Constitution, then the proper action can be had they will so report to the House and have it sent to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution; but until they have so reported, there being nothing in the memorial which looks to a change in the Constitution, it seems to me that the proper committee to receive it, in the first place, is the Committee on Canons.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I wish to ask a question. Did not the Committee on Canons report, at the last Convention, that it required an amendment to the Constitution?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There was a report to that effect, but that report was withdrawn and another report subsequently presented, which never was acted upon, on account of the late period of the session at which the report was made. There was a division of opinion in that Committee, I as to whether a change in the Constitution was necessary or not; but even if that Committee had been unanimous that it did require a change in the Constitution, the action of that Committee would not foreclose the case and prevent its going before the present Committee, who may think differently, and by an equally unanimous vote decide that a Canon is sufficient for the purpose.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I am not willing to undertake the labor of preparing a system for a Court of Appeals, and therefore I withdraw my motion.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. The motion I made does not rest at all upon the action of the last

Committee on Canons; it rests on the intrinsic nature of the thing itself. How is it possible to establish a Court of Appeals in this Church without a fundamental, radical, and vital change in the Constitution? It is the most important tribunal that could possibly be made. We have established a committee for the very purpose of considering amendments to the Constitution in all their length and breadth-in all their gravity; and I do insist for that Committee that they are entitled to examine the subject. It ought to go to that Committee, and none other, to take primary action; therefore I renew my motion that the memorial be referred to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. As long as I am sustained in the opinion which I do entertain by the Hon. Murray Hoffman, that a change in the Constitution is not necessary to establish a Court of Appeals, I insist upon my motion that this memorial go before the Committee on Canons. He has a long discussion of the matter, as will be found by any gentleman reading his book on the Church, and comes to the final conclusion that a change in the Constitution is not necessary. Members of the present House probably who were members of the House of 1850 and 1853 will remember that the Committee on Canons, composed in part of Dr. Hawks, Judge Hoffman, Judge Chambers, and Hugh Davy Evans, of Maryland, reported a Canon providing for the establishment of a Court of Appeal. The constitutional question was then scarcely raised. Canon failed, not because of any constitutional objection, but because of another matter which it is not now necessary to allude to. But those gentlemen, whose authority I presume will be acknowledged by every member of this House, were of the

The

opinion that this tribunal could be provided

without changing the Constitution.

at all events, prima facie, it goes to the Committee on Canons, because the memorial itself does not ask for a change in the Constitution, and we have no right to presume that it does require a change of the Constitution until the Committee to whom we refer it, and who prima facie are the proper recipients of it, shall so report to the House. If the memorial itself asked for a change of the Constitution, then as a matter of course it should go to the Committee on Amendments of the Constitution; but inasmuch as it does not, the proper committee is the Committee on Can

ons.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I wish to state a historical fact which I happen to know as to the authority of Judge Hoffman. It is true that the effort was first made before the Committee on Canons as far back as 1850, but it was found not practicable to carry it through, and thereupon a constitutional, amendment was proposed for a Court of Appeal by Judge Hoffman himself, and that was passed with hardly an objection in the General Convention of 1856. I had the honor to take a seat for the first time in the Convention at Richmond in 1859, when the measure was brought up for its second reading as a constitutional amendment. I felt it my duty on that occasion (in which I was strongly seconded by my reverend friend from Virginia, Dr. Andrews, who knows the fact) to rise at once, and oppose that amendment as destructive of all the usages of the Church. It was argued at great length at Richmond, and the Court of Appeals was voted down by a vote by orders of 29 to 3. That is a historical fact. It has always been deemed a subject of constitutional provision. If in the face and eyes of all that, this body is now ready to really displace the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution who ought to examine this matter, and send it to the Committee on Canons upon the mere ipse dixit of Judge Hoffman, which

[ocr errors]

he himself retracted, they will establish a danger ous precedent.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I rise to a question of order. This debate is going to be prolonged considerably from present appearances, and I revoke the twelfth rule of order: "There shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes to refer any matter to a committee, or upon a motion to recommit any subject which has been before a committee."

The PRESIDENT. I was about to bring that rule of order to the attention of the House.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. It is a new rule. We are not yet familiar with it. I call attention to it now, that we may stop this debate.

The PRESIDENT. I do not know that we can do it under that rule. I was about to mention it myself as an illustration of the impossibility of using human language so as to control human action in the diversity of human affairs. It says, "There shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes to refer any matter to a committee; " but here comes up the question whether this memorial shall be referred to one committee or another, and therefore the letter of the rule hardly applies.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut.

I wish to state to my friend from Pittsburgh the fact that heretofore we have had no Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, and that this very morning a memorial came before the Committee on Canons, on which I hold now in my hand the action of that Committee, for the purpose of presenting it at the proper time to the House, to be referred to this very Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, because the Committee on Canons, as we deem, has nothing to do with it. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that he consent to the reference at once of this matter to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. It would be sent from the Committee on Canons in the end, undoubtedly to the Committee on Amendments of the Constitution, and I want to simplify the busi

ness.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I rise to a question of order. A point of order was made, and the Chair ruled that this matter could not be debated, but must go to a committee without debate. I raise the point of order that the case comes not within that rule. When that rule was under discussion, I went to a very distinguished gentleman learned and familiar with parliamentary law, and told him that this very doubt would arise on the first thing that came before the Convention. I think a resolution to refer is not a motion to refer a matter before the House. A resolution to refer a matter relates to a resolution which for the first time brings a subject before the House. It does not refer to a motion to commit a matter which comes before the House in the ordinary way. I want the ruling settled now as to that question of order, for it lies at the foundation of our whole proceedings. Let me explain. If a matter is introduced here that has not been before a committee, and discussion takes place upon it, a motion to commit it to a committee is debatable under our rules. If, however, a gentleman comes upon the floor and offers a resolution declaring that such and such a subject be referred to a committee to report on it to this House, that cannot be debated. That is the difference. If it be a matter introduced and entertained by this House, the mere motion to commit it is debatable, because the very next clause in that same rule says that a motion to recommit shall not be debatable, and by strong implication a motion to commit for the first time a matter that has never been before a committee, and is introduced originally in the form of a motion to refer, is debatable. I want that settled.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I maintain that the gentleman makes a distinction without a difference. The twelfth rule of order says:

"There shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes to refer "-What? To refer that resolution, as the gentleman's argument indicates? No; but "any subject."

Rev. Dr. PÅRET, of Central Pennsylvania. I rise to a point of order. The rule says that the Chair shall decide all questions of order without debate.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair listened very attentively to one gentleman making his point of order. In order that the mind of the Chair might be informed, he was willing to listen to an argument on the other side. I believe that is legitimate. When the Chair decides a question, of course he can do it without allowing anybody to debate.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I ask for the decision of the point of order.

The PRESIDENT. I can easily decide it. I do not require any argument on the opposite side on the point of order made by Mr. Montgomery. I decide that there can be no debate on a resolution which proposes to refer any matter to a committee. But the question before us is, as I stated, a variation of the rule. It is as to which committee this memorial shall be referred. Whether the variation is sufficient to justify debate I do not know, and I will ask the opinion of this House upon that point before we proceed further.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. Is it competent to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, made just now, as to whether debate is in order?

The PRESIDENT. No, because that is an abstract question, which is not before us. The question before us is whether there is a sufficient variation from the rule in the contest which has sprung up, to justify debate as to the committee to which this memorial should be referred.

:

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I understand that but the Chair just now decided that a motion to commit is not debatable under any circumstances; and if that is to apply to the House during the present session, I wish to take an appeal from that decision. This is the only time we can take an appeal, I suppose, from that decision of the Chair.

The PRESIDENT. That question is not now before us.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. The Chair decided the question, and I take an appeal from his decision.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President, if it is desirable to have this question decided now, have no objection to having it decided; but I was about to modify the motion as first made, so as possibly to relieve the House from further discussion.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I rise to a point of order. The gentleman has made a motion to commit to the Committee on Canons. That is not debatable; but there comes in an amendment, a different proposition as a substitute, to commit to another committee. Now, that stands before the House as the subject for decision, and is not debatable either.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. It is twelve o'clock, and I call for the order of the day.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The question should be put on the amendment first without debate, and then on the original proposition, if the amendment is voted down, without debate. ["Right."]

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. The eighteenth rule says:

"All questions of order shall be decided by the Chair without debate; but any member may appeal from such decision; and on such appeal no member shall speak more than once without express

leave of the House." The Chair made a decision. I appeal from that decision.

The PRESIDENT. An appeal is made from the decision of the Chair.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Let me suggest a point of order. The decision of the Chair is now not pertinent. We stand on the original motion as amended, and the Chair may make his decision upon that, and the subject is withdrawn from the House on which the gentleman wishes to appeal.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. The Chair has decided already.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I hold that the duty of the Chair, under the rule, is to take the original motion, if there be no amendment, and put the question to the House, and if the House vote "aye," to send it to that committee; and there is an end of it. If an amendment is moved, the Chair should put the question on the amendment without debate.

The PRESIDENT. I believe that is right.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. If there be an appeal from the decision of the Chair, that is another question.

The PRESIDENT. I believe that is right, and therefore the appeal now lies. I have decided that a motion to refer must be without debate, except the five minutes allowed to the proposer of it.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I propose to modify my motion.

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Easton withdraw his appeal to admit the modification?

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. Can I renew the appeal?

The PRESIDENT. Of course.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. In deference to the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on Canons, I modify my motion so as to move that the memorial be referred to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, to report to this House whether it requires a change in the Constitution to establish a Court of Appeals. If they shall so report, then, of course, we shall have the matter before us to decide. If they report to the contrary, then this memorial will go before the Committee on Canons, if the House so decide, to prepare and report to the House a plan for a Court of Appeal.

The PRESIDENT. The motion now is to refer to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Simply to report upon this one point, as to whether a change in the Constitution is required to establish a Court of Appeal.

The PRESIDENT. Is the resolution in writing to that effect?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have not written it, but it can be reduced to writing in a mo

ment.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. That suggestion, I think, ought to be satisfactory to every member of the House.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. There is no question about that, but my appeal was on another point.

Rev. Dr. PETTIS, of Kentucky. I rise to a question of order, that it is past 12 o'clock, and we must proceed to the order of the day.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I ask that the resolution relating to a change of the Constitution be referred to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. I make that motion.

The PRESIDENT. The rule must first be suspended so as to refer the matter of the Texas memorial to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The Committee on Canons are prepared to report back the memorial

« PreviousContinue »