The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-30

~ ~ any other question great or small Was
possible that any legislative body OF
vtvihzea community could be placed in
that condition? il so, the house would be
defunctns oficio, its power would be dead.
and nothing would be left for il to do but to
perish. W
kenna asked Kasson whether the minor
Ivy had ever been refused the right TO make
sach motion as the minority had made in
The present case,
kasson replied that diatory motions had
not hltherto been made in election cases.
legislatiyely
kenna further inquired whether the con.
sututlonal duty of the house was higher in
election cases than in the case of raising
revenue or passing appropriation bills.
Mason replied that ii was; because
.he mousse must first fix upon men to
De entitled to pass on such measures.
| Robinson, Of New York, suggested that
simple remedy was by the motion on Mon
dav to suspend the rules.
kasson said he could not do that. The
suggestion come from men who had refused
70 vote 80 as TO deprive the house Of even a
majority vote. In conclusion he stated
that this obstruction became revolution,
not ieglslation. twas not the rule OF pro.
ceeuihg put OF non-proceeding. If the
| speaker uid not at some point refuse to al
low ullatory motions, then of course tho
haads OF the house were tied up and il
would not perform its functions.
Carlisle, OF Kentucky, spoke on the side
OF the minority. The house, he said Ind
established rules and was bound by them
all its proceedings. If the house could
disregard them for one purpose it could
disregard them for other PURPOSES. He
would not characterize this proceeding
as 1t struck his judgment. lie would credit
the other side with the same desire to pre-
serve the honor and dignity of its pro-
ceedings that he claimed for his side If
the house were not bound by its rules now
1t would not be bound at other times
II the majority could, in attempting TO
take up the contested election case.
shange rule in order to establish new
method OF proceeding IL could step in the
must OF the appropriation bill and change
the rules that govern the proceedings of the
mouse IN the consideration of that measure,
and so it could so on and on until the rules
We're frittered away and there would he
nothing to govern the proceedings of the
house but the arbitrary will of one man or
the arbitrary will of the majority. TAp-
plausc on the democrats side Tba. ia
where the house stood this morning, and
the country ought TO understand it.
lie proceeded to quote the remarks
OF uarnelu IN defense of the
rights rights ot the minority and yielded TO
Wllliams, OF Wisconsin, to read some fur
tner remarks of Garfield on the same occa-
sion IN which the action OF of the minority
was characterized as revolutionary.
Carlisle asserted that Garfield had subse-
quently to those remarks engaged in lust
such proceedings rs he'minority now was
engaged in. tCries of "Neverl'i from the
republican, side. In the closing of the 46th
congress the filibustering policy had
been resorted to by the republican majority
to preventacticn on the eapportionment bill
He did not consider that action revolution.
nry, although he did consider il unjust
ihed: For the minority to protect
itself by resort to- parliamentary
powers was an unquestioned right in this
country. In conclusion h0 defended the
action of the minority in the present case.
declaring that there was not an enlight-
ened court of justice in Christendom that
would not suppress the testimony which
was objected to in this contested election
case.
Haskell, Of Kansas, made an argument
on the republican side Of the question.
Blackburn, of Kentucky, followed on the
democratic side. He insisted that while
asserting and granting the right of the
nouso " VhahEe its rules, the
ing to the terms and conditions
which the rules themselves imposed He
showed the inconsistency ofreQuiring the
speaker TO exclude dilatory motions on the
question OF amending the rules. while al
lowing (for the last ten days. such motions
on a question Of the highest privilege, the
right Of member to his seat. 1t required
n majority OF two-thirds TO suspend any
rule for an hour, but now II is claimed that
on one day s notice majority of one could
change or abrogate all rules In the future
The precedent now sought TO be set would
not be limited or restricted to contested
election cases. The same pro-
cess might be resorted to in order
to abrogate the rule that guards the treas
ury from riders on appropriation bills, He
Ipieaded with the speaker to weigh the con-
sequences ofwhat he was asked TO do, and
to consider the power whichsuch decision
would give to the unbrided majority to
act outside of the rules. 1t would be the
entering wedge for the abolition of all pail.
amentary government, and would open
the treasury to thieves and plunderers,
The discussion was continued by Robin
son, OF New York; Cox, of New York.
Hooker, of Mississippi Reagan, of Texas:
MoLane, of Maryland; Ilageton of Wscon-
SIM Robinson, of Massachusetts, and Ran
dall, of Pennsylvania.
The speaker made decision sustaining
Mr.. Reeds point Of order that dillatory
motions cannot be mada TO prevent the
change of rules
Randall appealed from the decision of the
chair and Reed.moved to lay the appeal on
the table. The appeal was laid on the table
yeas, 100; nays, none.
Alter the announcement Of the vote Cox,
I | nj "A a 4