New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-03-01

House last week on account OF SICKNESS vi nPoi YOU"
business which called them out of town. The addl-
tonal votes to-day simply due to their RETURN
After Mr.. SprIngeTs motion had been defeated MI
Sheakley and Mr.. O'Brien moved recess uhtil Too
tins evening. This was evidently of those diia-
tory motions which the Speaker ruled last week thaC
he could not entertain. Mr.. Springer, desirous OF
testing the sense of the ouse and more DESTROYS OF
any pretext for calling the roll and causing delay,
appealed from the decision of the Chair. Inc
Sneaker under the rules was not bound 10 entertain
all appeal from a ruling previously made; bnt III
order that the House might have an opportunity 10
express its Judgment upon hsruling he did admit "
and recognized Mr. Wood who moved to lay the
appeal on the table.
The House had been in state of great confusion
all the morning. Nearly half the members were at
times on their feet walking about from one portion
of the chamber to the other aud discussing WIN
each other in loud tones so that 1t was al tlhleS
almost impossible for any one at short distance
from the Speakers desk TO hear what was gong OH
At this point however, the confusion became even
worse than it had been before during the DAY.
MFR. OBren desired to discuss the point OF
order and the Speaker was willing 10 near puU
John Young Brown objected. Mr.. O'Brien and Mr..
snriroer both insisted on being heard while
members Oh the Republican side of the House as
well ~ MANY Democrats were shouting for order ana
demanding that the calling of the roll be proceeded
with. Above the din could be heard the loud raps
of the Speakers gavel in bis vain attempts to restore
order Finally the vote proceeded ana the House
sustained the Speaker by vote Of 1sl to I'll.
These 81 men who voted to override the Speaker
decision arc probably all who could DE depended
upon TO stand by the revolutionary leaders 10 the
end The remaining 30 who voted for recess To-
day were willing for the sake of peace, that one au-
iournment should take place after the decision OIL
the South Carolina case, since precedent had Deeh
set by taking a recess after each decision previously
rendered by the Commission.
The flibusters accepted their defeat with very bad
grace and although the decision against them had
been SO pronounced, they still insisted on making
another motion for a recess. and MT springer de-
manded that the Speaker instead OF refusing I'd Ie-
coenize such motion should entertain it, and then
decide il out of order, so that the hiIDusters igC
have an opportuny to appeal from his decision and
get n vote on that appeal. This position was, OF
course, ridiculous one, but persistent were MI.
Springer and others that it required the greatest
frmness and determination on the part of Speaker
Randall to enforce his ruling. Finally, after scene
of the greatest confusion having failed to induce
tbe Chair TO entertain the motion, to entertain an
appeal from his decision Mr. Springer turned to the
galleries, and in very excited manner exclaimed
"And from the Speakers decision appeal to the
country"
After this the business proceeded in an orderly
manner until the reading of the objections presented
in the Joint convention had been completed. Mr.
Phillips Of Missouri then put forth by the
reyolutionist as the leader in their long contem-
plated scheme of insisting that the 700 pages OF
testimony taken in the South Carolina case should
be read in full The Republicans desired that the
Sneaker should at once rule that the reading OF this
testimony was out of order. This he declined to ito,
following the precedent set on Monday, when he
decided that it was for the majority OF the
House to determine Oh all occasions whether
il would listen to the reading OF
any paper or not. The motion to read this testl-
mony was beaten by a vote of 81 to w. Another
roll call was secured by the flibusers on motion
TO reconsider and lay the table. This was the last
datory motion that was possible. before the actual
discussion on the decision, but the anarchists had
succeeded in consuming nearly three hours by their
tactics of obstruction. Two hours of debate fol-
lowed in accordance with the provisions OF the iaw
a debate not remarkable for any very striking
passages.