Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1882-05-30
fORfYsByENTH CONGRESS.
SENATE.


On motion of Mr.. Slater the Senate bill to
reimburse the Creek Indian orphan fund vas
again considered.
Mr.. Cockrell opposed the bill.
After some further debate the bill vas LAID
aside without action
/ A resolution was adopted insfructing the
committee on military affairs to inquire into
the propriety and necessity of making further
provision for the sufferers bv the Mississippi
overflow.
Mr. Plumb reported favorable, from the
committee on agriculture. with amendments,
the House bill to enlarge the powers and du-
| lies of the department of agriculture. Inc
amendments elaborate the details and add
new section, providing that as far as con-
sistenr = 18th efficiency of service, officers and
EMPLOYEES Of the department. not appointed
\ nv the President shall be selec.ed without
reference to party affiliations from the indus
| rial classes of the various sections OF the
| Union
| The Japanese Indemnity Fund bill then
came up and Mr.. Van Wyck advocated the
amendment allowing the payment from
the fund of the claim for the property
destroyed by fire belonging to Col. Fisher.
U. S Consul at Japan. Without action on
the bill the Senate adjourned till Wednesday.
HOUSE.
| The House opened this morning with many
;ndicltions of bitter parliamentary conflict
expected during the day. The two sections
contained fewer vacant chairs than usual, and
the galleries were well filled. In the chap
| iain's prayer a request was made that right
and duty might be made plain to the men,
| bers.
As soon as the reading of the journal was
ended, Mr.. Reed, of Maine, called up for
consideration the proposed amendment TO the
rule prohibiting dilatory motions on the con-
| tested election case.
| The question of consideration, that is,
''Shall the House now consider it!" was
instantly raised by Mr.. Randall, of Pennsyl-
vania. and that was followed by motion from
Mr.. Kenna, of Virginia, to adjourn, and by
one from Blackburn, of Kentucky, that when
the House adjourn it be to Wednesday, stat
ing that Tuesday was Decoration Day. On
| the latter motion the yeas and nays were
ordered, and the tactics of obstruction thus
put in operation.
| The vote on Blackburn's motion was an
nounced at l. .40-yeas 2, nays AS, and the
Speaker declared the motion lost.
| Mr.. Randall moved that when the House
adjourn today. it be to Thursday next. On
that Mr. Reed, of Maine, made the point of
order that on proposition to amend the
rules dilatory motions can't be entertained.
Mr.. Randall denied the right of the Speaker
to put any such construction on his motion.
Mr.. Reed proposed to discuss the point of
| order, and suggested that a limit should be
put on that discussion.
| No agreement to that end however, was
made, and the Speaker said that he would
not make the Limitation less than an hour on
each side.
| Mr.. Reed then opened the discussion. He
claimed that the House had under the con-
| stitution, certain powers expressly conferred
upon it. Power which il could exercise with
out the let or hindrance of anybody. Powers
which it could not surrender which it could
not trade away which it must perform, and
the first of those powers was to judge OF
election returns and qualifications of its own
members. This House has been endeavoring
for the last ten days to perform that duty but
has been prevented by dilatory motions. The
best and most orderly way to put stop to
that course was to amend the rules, and that
was the object now.
The series of motions made today were for
the express purpose of a delay and of pre-.
venting the change of the rules. He NAM
tanned the proposition that wherever there is
the duty imposed upon Congress to accom-
plish a certain work, it is the duty of the
Speaker to carry out that rule and the laws
of the constitution. He cited the ruling OF
Speaker Randall when there was fibustering
against the execution of the electoral count
law, and when obstruction was attempted by
Mr.. Springer. of Illinois, with that combina
ton of physical activity and intellectual acute
ness for which he was distinguished to the
effect that he, the chair. had allowed this, and
had allowed that and had allowed the other
in the way of motions, but that the House
| q No hrnnuhf n n VI hor AZ
act.
| Mr.. Reed laid down the proposition that
inasmuch as by the organic law of the United
States the House had right to change its
rules at any time, and that no member or sci
of members had any right to use the rules
which are to be changed to prevent any
change which the House desires to make.
: There was no such thing as suicide in any
provision of the constitution.
He then quoted decision by Mr. Blaine
whom he spoke of as one of the greatest parl-
imentarians who ever sat in the Speakers
chair, to the effect that pending proposit.
; ion to change the rules, dilatory motions can.
! not be entertained. This ruling was made
! the 9th of January, 1875. He closed by
stating that the minority had no right further
to delay the action of the House.
Mr.. Randall proceeded to reply to Mr..
Reed. He admitted that the rules of leg.
islative body were first for the orderly con.
duct of business, and next for the protection
of the rights of the minority. On this latter
point he quoted from the ruling of the Speak.
, ers of the English House Of Commons. He
argued that inst as the constitution pre-.
scribed the matter in which it should be
| amended, so the rules prescribed the manner
in which they should be changed. As to his
decision in the electoral count he put it on
the ground that the law under which the
House was then acting was greater than the
rules and cut off dilatory motions.
In the present case. however, there was
no law interfering with the rules. In con.
clusion he justified the action of the minor
| ity in this contested election.
, Mr.. Mason of Iowa, argued on the repub
lican side of the question. declaring that il
{ dilatory motions could not be cut off the mi
/ nority could prohibit the majority from pass
ing an appropriation bill, or disposing of any
question at the within of little over one. fifth
{ of the whole number.
Mr.. Kenna asked Mr.. Kasson whether the
minority had ever been refused the right tc
make such motions as the minority had made
in the present case.
Mr.. Kasson replied that dilatory motions
had not hitherto been made in election cases