Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-05-31

peIlsH-
Mr.. Kenpa asked Mr.. Kasson
whether the m mnority had ever been
refused the right to make such mo-
tions as>the minority had made in
the present case.
MIR. Kasson replied that dilatory
motions had not hitherto been made
III election cases. In those cases
the House sat judicially, not legisla
lativeIy.
Mr. Kenna further inquired
whether the constitutional duty of
the House was higher in election
cases than in cases of raising
revenue or passing appropriation
bills
MIR. Kasson replied that it was be
cause the House must first fix upon
men to be entitled to pass upon such
measures.
Mr.. Robinson, of New York, sug-
gested that a simple remedy was
by motion on Monday to suspend
the rules.
Mr.. Kasscn said he could not ad-
NIT the bona fdes of suggestion
coming from man who had refused
to vote, SO as to deprive the House
even of majority vote. In conclu-
sion he stated that this obstruction
became revolution, but not legislae
ton. It WAS not the rule of the
proceedings, but of non proceeding,
if the Speaker did not at some point
refuse to allow dilatory motions,
then of course the hands of the
House were tied up, and it could
not perform it's functions.
Mr.. Carlisle, of Kentucky, spoke
on the side of the minority. The
House had established rules, and
was bound by them in all its pro-
ceedings. If the House could dis
regard them for one purpose it could
disregard them for other purposes.
He would not characterize this pro
ceeding, as it struck his judgment
He would credit the other side with
the same desire to preserve the
honor and dignity of the House, and
the integrity of its proceedings, that
he claimed for his side. If the
House was not bound by its rules
now, it would not be bound at other
times. Ii the majority could, in an
attempt to take up a contested elec-
tion case, change rule in order to
establish a new method of p'oceed-
Ipgs, IL could step in, in the midst
of an appropriation bill and change
the rules that govern the proceed
ings of the House in the considera-
ton of that measure, and so it could
go on and ON until the rules were
frittered away, and there would be
nothing to govern ,be proceedings
of the House, buG the arbitrary will
of one man, or the arbitrary will of
the majority. Applause on the
Democratic side. That was where
the House stood this morning, and
the country ought to understand it.
He pro -eeded to quote he remarks
of Mr.. Garfield, in defense of the
rights of the minority, and yielded
to Mr.. Williams, Of Wisconsin, to
read some further remarks Of Mr..
Garfield on the same occasion, in
which the action of the minority was
characterized as revolutionary.
Mr. Carlisle asserted that Mr..
Garfield had subsequently to those
remarks engaged in just such
proceedings as the minority now
was engaged In.
There were cries of "never" from
the Republican side. In closing the
proc edings of the 46th Congress,
this tlbustering policy had been
resorted to by the Republican ma
jority to prevent action on the ap'
portlonmenJ bill. He had not cons
sideret th,t action revolutionary, al
though he had considered it utj justi>
fable. The right of the minority to
protect itself by aresort to the parlia
mentary process was an unquestions
able right in this country. In con-
clusion he defended the action of the
minority in the present case, declar-
ing that there WAS not an enlight>
eued Court of Justice in Christ-
endom that would not suppress
testimony, which was objected to in
the contested election cases.
Mr.. Haskell, of Kansas, made the
argument on the Republican side of
the question.
MIR. Blackburn, of Kentucky, fol-
lowed on the Democratic side. He
insisted that, while asserting and
granting the right of the House to
change its rules, change must be
made according to the rules and con.
ditions which the rules themselves
imposed. He showed the incon-
sistency of requiring the Speaker to
exclude dilatory motions on the
question of amending the rules,
while allowing for the past ten days
such motions on question of the
highest p ivilege, the right OF a
member to his seat. 1t required
two thirds to suspend any rule for
an hour, but now the claim was that
on one days notice majority of one
could change or abrogAt all the
rules. In the future, the precedent
now sought to be set would not bt
limited or restrained to contested
election cases. The same process
might be resorted to in order te
abrogate the rule that guards the
Trea ury from "riders" on appro'
priation bills. He pleaded with the
speaker to weigh well the conse-
quences of what ne was asked to do
and to consider the power which
such decision wolld give to al
unbridled majority to act out
side of the rules. It would
be the entering wedge for the aboli
ton of all parliamentary govern
ment, and would open the Treasur,
to the raids Of robbers and plunder
ers.