Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-01-29
AT A DEAD LOCK.
The Struggle in Congress Over
the Civil illRightssBill.
Successful FiIIbusterIng Tactics of

Successful FilIbusterIng Tactics OF
the Democrats.
Washington Special (Jan. ~ to the Cincinnati
Commercial.
The proceedings in the House to-day are
described in the word filibustering. King
caucus was more successful than yesterday.
The resolution Of the caucus last night rel
ative to the Civil Rights bill was Obeyed.
Directly after the journal was read General
Butler, as Chairman of the Judiciary Com
mittee, and organ of the Republican eau
Gus, moved to reconsider the vote whereby,
some weeks ago, the House Civil Rights
bill was recOmmitted to the Judiciary Com
mittee. The Democrats Immediately
indicated their readiness to make
good their pledges. A series Of
filibustering movements wss begun,
to which, at the close Of the DAYS
session, there seemed likely to be no end.
The proceedings consisted almost entirely
Of roll-calls, enlivened by occasional ex-
pressiOns both Of humOr and i'll feeling.
Gen. Butler took charge of the parliament
airy movements, on the part Of the R-pub-
licans, Sam. Randall on behalf of the
Democrats. Charley Eldredge, Of WiscOn-
sin, occasionally endeavOred to supercede
Randall, and when he did, made bad work
Of it. Twice, by blundering motions, e.
dredge nearly lost to the Democrats their
vantage ground. This the Republicans
would have turned to their own benefit,
had not Mr.. Beck speedily rescued Eldredge
from his dilemma.
Late in the day, Butler obtained unani-
nous consent to suggest a truce. His
proposition was of a complicated parlia-
mentary nature, the effect of which would
have been to have permitted a six hours
debate upon the Civil Rights bill and in
termediate motions, most of which should
be given TO the Democrats. Sam Randall,
speaking for the Democrats, declined the
proposition, and in doing so showed
himself to be possessed of great
shreWdness as a parliamentary lead
er. He made a point which most Of the
Republicans privately found it difficult
to cOntrOyert, and which Butler only did
answer by swagger and a defiance. Mr..
Randall proposed that the useless struggle
should now end, that the House should de-
vote itself exclusively to the passage of all
the appropriation bills, so that the wheels
of the Government might not be stopped, |
or an extra session be made necessary.
Then that being done, both parties could |
return to this struggle of physical endurance |
over the Civil Rights bill.
Mr.. Butler could only say that it was not |
for Mr.. Randall to control the apprOpria- |
tiOn bills, not being Of that committee, and |
that the Republican two-thirds did not pro-
pose to have the Democrats dictate their |
course of proceeding. Mr.. Randall's propO-
sitiOn was speciOus, for it is very evident |
that should such an agreement be made, |
the business would be in such condition /
that no time would be left for the Civil |
Rights bill in the closing hours Of the |
session.
The contest also showed that it would be /
entirely possible for a comparatively small
minority always to prevent a quorum. It /
was decided that the presence of a quorum
can only be determined by a recorded vote;
that while it is possible for a majority of /
those present in the House to enforce a call
of the HOnse, so as to compel the attend
ance OF a numerical quorum, there is no
authority, either inthe SpeakerOrthe House,
after such a numerical quorum has /
been obtained, to compel any individual
member to vote. The call of the House
can drag members from their beds to the
Hall of Representatives, but it can not
compel fmembers to open their mouths.
1t would seem that :he only remedy of the
majority would be the expulsion of men,
bers who declined to vote, but even then
the Speaker has no right to declare that a
member is present, unless it shall so ap-
near ON the record.