National Republican., 1878-05-14
The FLOOD.GATES OPENED.
lbntinued from FYrst Paqe. ]


involved Is q new one in the history Of our
country. An examination Of the basis upon
which the preamble and resolution are intro
duced Is proper. The Legislature Of the State
Of Maryland passed a joint resolution touching
the subject treated of In the preamble and res
olution just read, a copy Of which has been re-
mitted TO this body, received, and referred, In
which the following language is used:
That due effect has not been given to the electo.
Ial vote cast by this state on the 9Th day Of Deccm
Der, lsIG, by reason Of fraudulent returns made
sionny by the Electoral Commission and subject
10 judicial revision
And further
alleging that the returns from Louisiana and
Florida, which were counted for the present. occu.
void.
Here Is the appeal OF State Of this Union to
the Federal legislative power for tho corrCc-
tion of n high grievance said to have been
committed in the States Of Florida and Louis
lana against the rights of the State of Mary
land, in having by fraud, in said States of
Florida and Louisiana, produced different
result In the election of a President and Vice.
President from that actually decrecd by the
people themselves at the pOllsI
Whether these allegations can be sustained
by proof is not for the Chair to consider. 1t is
enough for him to know that they come from
power which, within the limits, is recognized
issue involved runs to the welfare of the pco.
pie of all the States. Nor Is IL within the
range of propricty for him to express an opin.
ion as to how far such investigation should go
to reach the facts, nor what limits should be
set up us to remedies to be provided against n
recurrence Of such like events.
higher privilege than the one here In.
volved and broadly and directly presented as to
the rightful occupancy of the chief executive
chair Of the Government, and the connection
of high Government officials with the frauds
alleged, the Chair is unable to conceive. The
Chair finds enumerated among the questions
Of privilege set down the Manual tho follow
ing: Election Of President" The Chair
therefore rules that the preamble and rCsolu-
tion embrace questions Of privilege of the
highest character, and recognizes the right of
the gentleman from New York to offer the
same. Applause on the floor and in the gal
leries.
MIR. CONGER appealed from the decision OF
the Chair, and Mr. POTTER moved to lay the
appeal on the table, and upon that tho yeas
md nays were ordered.
Mr.. REAGAN rose to give his reasons for
his vote but his voice was drowned with de-
mands for the regular order, and calls Of Vote! |!
vote ~
The roll was then called, and the appeal was
tabled by vote Of l2s to 1OS.
The vote was strictly PARTISAN except that
Democrats to table, and Mcssrs. BuCKSER,
and MILLS voted with the Republicans against
tabling.
Mr.. REAGAN said that the title to the Prcsi.
deucy by Hayes could not be disturbed, and
he would not vote for the resolution with n
view of disturbing that title. But there was
4 charge of fraud, and when it was deliberately
asserted that Secretary of the Treasury and
foreign Minister were parties to that fraud,
II was the duty OF the House to investigate.
Mr.. CONGER said there was nothing before
the House but vuestiOns of order, and he OBJ
jected to the gentleman discussing the merits
and effect Of the resolution.
The SPEAKER thought he had u right TO
speak as he did.
Mr. REAGAN said he had a hight to give
his reasons, but he had said all he desired to
say.
Mr.. CONGER made the point of order that
twO-third vote would be required to adopt
the resolution, because it changed the rules.
II gave unusual power to a committee. Ii
authorized chairmen of sub committees to ad-
minister oaths, which was another objection,
and he made the further point of order that II
involved an expenditure Of money and must
have its first consideration in Committee OF
the Whole 1t was also Objectionable because
it authorized the committee to sit during the
recess.
Mr.. POTTER said of course the subcom.
mittees could not administer oaths or sit dur.
ing the recess unless explicitly authorized tC
do so; and for that reason tho authority was
plainly given in the resolution. As to the
point that 1t involved an appropriation o
money, it did not show that on its face.
Mr.. GARFIELD argued that majority vote
could not authorize u committee to sit during
the recess. II must be done by two-third,
vote, MS under a suspension of the rules.
MIR. SAlLER argued that under rule 12 the
House could adopt tho resolution and max,
the order. This case was not without n pre-
ccdcnt, for what was proposed here had
often been done, and no instance could b,
shown where two.thirds vote was required t.
make such an order Us was proposed. In tn,
Twenty-sevcnth Congress resolution was in.
troduced to investigate Secretary Corwini
alleged connection with the Gardiner claim
and 1t was passed by majority vote. and tn,
committee was authorized to sit during tn,
recess.
MessIs. CONGER and GARFIELD said tla
at that time no point of order WAS made, a.
there was on this case.
Mr.. SAYLER said that whether the point o
order was made or not the right of the Hous,
to pass such resolutions as this was not denied
1t was affirmed in the Digest of the Rules o
the House, and he challenged the gentlemen
to show an instance where majority vote hat
not constituted just such u question as was pro
sed here.
Mr.. GARFIELD argued that If no objection
was made, unanimous consent was given, anC
1t was equivalent to a suspension of tho rules
lie denied the right of the House to say by
majority vote that subcommittee could ad
minister oaths.
The SPEAKER said that the administration
OF oaths was matter that belonged to tn
committee itself.
Mr.. SAiLER called attention to the fac
that in the last Congress all tho ub-cOmmt
tees which conducted Investigations admins
tered Oaths.
Mr.. CONGER said no one had then oh
jectcd.
Mr.. SAYLER said the right was the com
mon law of the House, and it should not b
defeat cd by factOus opposition.
Mr.. BUTLER said that pending tho pro
cccdings attending the impeachment of An
drew johnson IA rCCu-Hnt witness refused /
answer a question after he had been sworn b
subcommittee. lie was brought to the ba
of the House, and II was decided that he mus
answer; he was compelled to respond
Mr.. MORRISON also argued that the prcco
dents were all on the side OF this resolution.
Mr.. THOMPSON took the ground that thi
involved II change OF the rules
Mr. SANlER wanted To know what rule
Mr.. THOMPSON replied the sevCuty-sccOnC
rule, which declared that committees cOu
not sit during the session of the House witAou
the leave Of the House
Mr., SAliER said it was proposed to gran
that leave
Mr. THOMPSON IrnirI flint tLot rnulI l.