National Republican., 1878-04-23
NATIONAL TUESDAY MORNING. 1878
FoRrY.FIFTH CONGRESS.
Continued from Frst Pd0t. !


the way the gentleman was opposing the bill,
that there was some other fluid at work.
Mr.. soUTHARD wanted to make point Of
order that the amount Of appropriation was re-
quired TO be stated.
Calls Of "Order Order p
The SPEAKER said that rule prevailed only
as to regular appropriation bills. -
Mr.. REAGAN said the bill did state the
amount.
Mr.. RICE moved to adjourn, and upon that
the yeas and nays were ordered.
The motion was reiected-yeas 49, nays 207.
Mr.. MITCHELL inquired II 1t was not In
order TO ask for separate vote on the items Of
the bill. He protested that the bill had not
been printed as 1t was proposed to pass 1t. He
read the rule permitting division.
The SPEAKER said that was one Of the
very rules which II was proposed to suspend
Mr.. MITCHELL (amid loud calls 10 order
from all parts Of the hali) called attention to
the other rule, which required that the amount
Of money appropriated should be set forth In
the bill.
The SPEAKER said that referred only to
bills from thoregular Appropriations Commit
toe.
Mr.. MITCHELL roso to another point Of
order
Cries Of "Order! Order ~
Mr.. MITCHELL said they might call to
constituents had rights, and he did not pro
pose to be cried down. He protested against
the bill as an omnibus, log.rolling measure.
II was on the principle Of "You help mo and I'll
help you"
He was again called to order.
Mr.. cox IN. " rose, and was again met
with calls to order but he was heard to protest
against the passage Of the bill.
The question was put and the bill was
paeg h,,a a tn nf In
In announcing that he was paired, Mr.. TuR.
NER, of Ky, said he would have voted no be.
cause there was nothing for his State In the
bill and never had been.
After the result had been announced, Mr..
cox IN. " rose and said that he had pro.
test, signed by a large number Of members,
protesting against the passage Of the bill as an
unconstitutional measure, aud he desired to
have II read.
Mr.. HOOKER and Mr. HARRIS va. moved
to adjourn, while demands for tho regular
order resounded through the hall.
Mr.. MILLS. Do the rules permit minority
Of this House to protest formally against the
action of the maority2
The SPEAKER replied that there was
precedent for it-a notable case, which oc.
CURED in the Thirty ninth Congress, when
the Democratic side had protest entered
against the act Of the majority.
At this point there was much confusion In
the hall. Members were gathering abou, the
Speakers desk, aud a score or more of gentle.
men were loudly appealing to be heard
Mr.. BURCHARD. Will this protest have
any more effect than a negative voter
The SPEAKER. 1t will not.
Several members inquired IL 1t would not re-
quire unanimous consent to introduce the pro-
test
The SPEAKER thought not. The gentle.
man could have the paper,as well as the prece-
dent set IN tho Thirty-ninth Congress, read
as a Fart Of his remarks.
Mr.. KENNA insisted that remarks were not
in order pending motion to adjourn.
The SPEAKER said tho gentleman had
risen to a question of privilege, and he pro-
posed to have the papers read as part of his re.
marks.
Mr.. GARFIELD rose to higher question
of privilege and moved that the House ad-
journ.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New
York has the floor, and declines to yield for
that purpose.
Mr.. cox " Iask that the paper be
read.
Mr.. MILLS. And object want to know
IL 1t is a question of privilege for the minority
of this House to protest against the action of
the majority.
The confusion on tho floor was revived,
and the Speaker had difficulty in preserving
order.
The SPEAK Err said the gentleman had risen
to question of privilege and sent up tho
paper to bo read. He could not determine
whether it was a question of privilege or not
until II was read.
Mr.. GARFIELD suggested that 1t was the
duty Of the Chair to inspect the paper to de-
termine whether 1t was a question of prlvi-
lege.
Mr.. REAGAN rose to question OF order.
When the gentleman from New York was
recognized he said he rose to present protest
against the action of the House. That pro-
test could not be received, and 1t could not
now be converted into question of privilege.
The SPEAKER said tho gentleman from
New York rose to a question of privilege, and
he sent up paper which he desired to have
read. Thore was a precedent for this in the
Thirty-nuth Congress when Mr.. Brooks, of
New York, entered on the journal II protest
signed by all the Democratic members, protest.
ing against the way in which the Clerk had
made up the roll.
Cries of d" Read ~ Read p Read ~
Mr., GARFIELD said that tho case referred
to was not q precedent, for the protest was
then allowed to 60 on tho journal by unsni-
nous consent.
MI. BUTLER said the question of privilege
could not prevent motion to adjourn.
Tho SPEAKER again said that the gentle
man from NOW lOIh was On tHt anu ub-
clined to yield for that purpose.
Mr.. BUTLER said If that was the case,
member might keep the House here all night
Ou . question of privilege.
Half dozen members were hero protesting
at once that the protest could not be received
except by unanimous consent, while others
were protesting that Mr.. Cox was on tho door
on the question of privilege.
Mr.. REAGAN appealed from the decision Of
the Chair.
Mr. BUTLER. And pending that appeal
move that the House adjourn.
This turn Of affairs created cOmmotion aud
excitement anew, and while the regular order
was demanded from all parts Of the hail. Mr..
SPRINGER protested that the motion was NOT
in order pending an appeal.
The SPEAKER said tho Chair had ruled
that the gentleman fiom New York had a
right To have the paper read, and from that
ruling the gentleman from Texas (Mr. REA.
GAM had appealed.
Mr. CARLIsLE moved 10 lay the appeal On
the table.
Mr. REAGAN wanted tho question stated
The gentleman from New York
stated when he rose that he had sent up
protest, aud he (Mr. REAGAN objected to Its
now being changed to n question Of privilege.
Here there were demands for tho regular
order and for q vote on Mr.. BUTLER's motion
to adjourn, while Mcssrs BEEBE, FRANKLIN,
SpRINGER, aud others were making an effort
to bo recognized.
Mr.. BEEBE argued that, as Mr., Cox had
the foUr an question OF privilege, Mr..
REAGAN could not appeal from a decision Of
the Chair in order to enable Nj BUTLER TO
move an ad diOurnment.
The SPEAK En- decided the motion In or
1 81