The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-06-24
Sneaker Keifer's Ruling.

Sneaker FOWLER tells us he thinks
Speaker KEIFER's ruling is right, that the
vote on a proposition to amend the rules
could not be delayed nor defeated by dila-
tory motions. That is TO say, all that the
majority in the House Of Representatives
has to do at any time in order to push
through the most infamous and outrageous
OF measures is to bring in a proposition to
change the rules so as TO allow that infa-
nous and outrageous measure to be voted
upon at once, and, presto, all the rights OF
the minority are gone. There Is no
middle ground in this case. Establish
the precedent that the minority can at any
time be deprived Of their rights under the
rules of the House by simply changing
those rules, and that those rules can De
changed IN violation Of the rules Themselves,
and the House of Representatives is abso-
lutely left without rules OF any sort. 1t Is
mere mob that can do any act however
outrageous and pass any bill however In
famous. 1t can override the Constitution
and laws at will. In fact, it is an irrespon-
sible body that has no limit whatever upon
its powers.
The words which we have placed in
itQ!icS above indicate wherein Speaker
KElFER's ruling was wrong. The rules
were changed by disregarding the rules
themselves. IL they had been changed in
conformity with the requirements of the
rules ms these existed when the proposed
change was made, nobody could have Oh
jected. The House of Representatives
must change its rules, if at all, at
some time or other during its session;
and these changes are always, or almost
always, made after the House has been in
session for months. Mr.. FOWLER, follow
ing the lead OF certain Republicans in the
House OF Representatives, argues that as
the Constitution confers upon the House the
power to change its rules, the rules disre-
carded 10y Speaker KEIFER and by him
treated with contempt were rightfully so
treated because the constitutional provision
on the subject overrides all rules. 4 more
flimsy excuse was never invented. The Con-
stitution confers upon the House the power
to seat and unseat members; TO pass ap-
preparation bills; to elect its own officers;
and in word TO do every act which il
does. Therefore, according to FowLER's
reasoning, the House can elect its officers
In violation OF its rules, because these Of
ficers are elcctable under constitutional
provision. In a word, rs the House can
pass no bin which the Constitution does
not empower it to pass, it necessarily fol-
lows that, il the reasoning IN question be
sound, the House can pass amy bill what
ever at any time, without paying any
regard whatever to its rules. All that
Speaker KEEPER has to do is to say: "Gen-
tlemcn. your rules are nothing worth. l
spit upon them. The Constitution en-
powers the House TO pass this bill, and |
shall allow the House to pass il forthwith.
/ will entertain no motion TO adjourn, and
no appeal from my decision. | desire to
have this bill passed, and l am going TO
crafty that desire"
This is no eXaggeration at all. II is in
effect exactly what took place when the
rules OF the House Of Representatives were
recently changed. Speaker KEIFER refused
to entertain Mr.. SPRINGER's appeal from
his decision. He OVERRIDE the rules OF the
House i'm obedience TO the dictation OF q
partisan caucus, and committed the great
est crime against the free institutions Of
this country which has been committed
since the mad days Of reconstruction legis-
lation. Then there was some excuse for
the perpetrators OF such crimes. Now,
there Is none,