The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1882-05-30

Keifer Fcrgetslt ltaat he should
Serve the People
And iries TO EerVe the Re-
publican Party.
An Outrageous Partisan
SWindle.
Labor Troubles Imminent in
the East.
General Washington News
Crimes and Accidents.
Foreign Facts-the Things that
Happened Yesterday.
FORrY-sEyENFH CONGRESS-.
HOUSE.


HOUSE.
WASHINGTON, May 29.-As soon as the
reading OF the journal was ended, Mr..
Reed called upon The proposed amendment
to the rules. The question of considera-
ton was instantly raised by Mr.. Randall,
which was followed by motion of Mr.,
Kenna to adjourn to Wednesday, in CON
sideration of Decoration Day. The yeas
and nays were ordered on Mr.. Blackburn's
motion. resulting yeas 2, nays 145.
Mr. Randall moved that when the house
adjourn it be till Thursday next On that
motion Mr.. Reed made point of order
that on proposition to amend rules, dila
tory motions cannot be entertained. Mr.
Randall denied the right of the speaker
to put any such construction on his motion.
The speaker granted permission to dis
cuss the point of order at least an hour for
each side. Mr. Reed opened the discuss
sion and claimed that the house had, un-
der the constitution. certain powers ex-
pressly conferred which could exercise
without let or hindrance, any other body's
powers which it must perform, and. first,
these powers were to be judge of the cleo
ton returns and qualification of it's mem
bers. This house has been endeaYoring
for ten days to perform that duty, but was
prevented by dilatory motions. The best
way to put stop to that course was
now.
He maintained the proposition
that wherever there is duty imposed on
Congressto accomplish certain work itiis the
duty of the speaker to carry out that rule
of law or of the constitution. He cited the
ruling of Speaker Randall when there was
tilhbustering against the execution of the
electoral count law, and when an obstruc-
tion by Springer in effect that he (the chair
had allowed this and that and other in the
way of motions, Out the House was now
brought to a point where it must act. Mr..
Reed refuted the decision by Blaine to the
effect that pending a proposition to change
the rules dilliatery motions cannotbe enter
tanned, and closed by stating that the mi
nority had no right to further delay the
action of the House
Mr.. Randall, replying, admitted the
rules of alegislative body were, first for
the orderly conduct of business, and next
for the protection of the rights of the mi
nority and quoted from the ruling of the
speakers of the English house of commons
He argued that just as the constitution
prescribed the manner in W hich it should
10 ln1 411 4ha
manner in which they should be changed
As to his own decision in the electoral
conRt case he put it upon the ground that
the law under which the house was then
acting was greater than the rules, and cut
OF the dilatory motions. In the present case,
however, there was no law interfering with
the rules. As TO BIaine's ruling, or rather
the doctrine, Randall asserted it had never
been pressed nor advantage taken of it,
but on the contrary an effort had been
made on that. occasion when the civil
rights bill was under consideration to sus-
pend the rules so as TO cut off dilatory mo
tions but without success; so that after
Blaine's dictum 1t had been concede only
bya two thirds vote could the dilatory mo-
tions be cut off In conclusion he justii-
ed the action of the minority in this con-
tested election case.
Mr.. Kasson argued on the Republican
side of the question, declaring if dilatory
motions could not be cut off, the minority
could prohibit the passage of the appro-
priation bill, or dispose of any other ques
lion at their whim. Was. it possible that
any legislative body ina civilized country
could besplaced in that condition? If so,
the House would be fasactus cBfcio. Its
power would be dead, and nothing be left
for it to do but adjourn and leave the gov.
ernnient to perish.
Mr.. Kenna asked Mr.. Kasson. whether
the minority had ever been refused the
right to make such motions as the mi
nority had made in the present case.
Mr.. Kasson replied that dillatory mo
uons had not ought to be made in election
cases. In these cases the House sat Judi
clally. not legislatively.
Mr.. Kenna further inquired whether thu
constitutional duty of the House wa,
higher in election case than in cases O.
raising revenue by passing appropriation
bills.
Mr. Kasson replied it was, because tn,
House must first fix upon the men to b,
entitled to pass such measures.
robinson, N. Y, suggested the simples
remedy was by motion to suspend th'
rules.
Mason said he could not admit as BON
'.ae such question coming from maj
VINO had refused to vote, SO as to depriv
he house even of a majority vote. Con