Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-05-30

Fight TO be Kept Up-The Star
ROuter@ Forced TO PIead-The
Army BilI-NOmInaEIOns and Con-
firmaIiOns.
WASHINGTON, May 29-The House opened
this morning with many indications that a
bitter parliamentary conflict was t) be ex-
pected during the day. The two sections of
the hall contained fewer vacant chairs than
usual, and the galleries were pretty well
filed. In the Chaplain's prayer request was
made on behalf of the members that the
path Of right and duty might be made plain
to them.
As soon as the reading of the journal
ended Mr.. Reed, of Maine, called up for
consideration the proposed amendment to
the rules prohibiting dilatory motions on
| contested election cases.
The question of consideration, that is.
shall the House now consider it2" was in
| stantly raised by Mr.. Randall, OF Penpsvl-
vania, and that was followed by motion
| OF Mr.. Kenna, of West Virginia. To ad-
| iourn, aud by one OF Mr. Blackburn.
OF Kentucky, that when the House adjourn
It be to meet on Wednesday next, he stating
as a reason for the motion that Tuesday was
| Decoration day.
On the latter motion the yeas and navs
were ordered, and the tactics of Obstruction
were thus put in operation. The vote on
Mr.. Blackburn's motion was announced at
/ ll:4O as yeas ,, nays l45, and the Speaker
declared the motion lost.
Whereupon Mr.. Randall moved that when
the House adjourn to-day, it be to meet on
| Thursday next.
nn haf 4
/ OF order that on proposition to amend the
rules, dilatory motions cannot be enter
tanned.
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 limit should be
| put on that discussion. No agreement to
| that end, however, was made, and the
Speaker said he would not make the limita-
ton less than an hour on each side.
| Mr.. Reed then opened the discussion.
He claimed the House, under the Con.
stitutiOn. had certain powers expressly con-
| feTred upon 1t, powers which It could exer-
| else without the hindrance of any other
body, powers which 1t could not surrender,
| which It could not trade away, which It
was to judge of the election, returns and
! qualifications Of its own members. This
| House had been endeavoring for
the last ten days to per
form that duty, but bad been prevented
| by dilatory motions. The best and most
orderly way to put a stop to that course was
to amend the rules, and that was the object
now. The series Of motions made to-day
were for the express purpose Of delay, of
| preventing 2 change of the rules. He main
| tanned the proposition that wherever there
| is duty imposed upon Congress to accom-
plsh certain work, it is the duty of the
! Speaker to carry out that rule OF law or of
| the Constitution. He cited a ruling of
| Speaker Randall when there was filbusteriug
against the execution of the electoral count
/ law, and when obstruction was attempted
| by Mr.. Springer, of Illinois, with that COM
bination Of physical activity and intellec-
/ tual scuteness for which he was distinguish
! ed, laughter to the effect that he (the
| Chair had allowed this, aud had allowed
that, aud had allowed the other in the way
| OF motions, but that the House was now
brought to point where it must act. Mr.
Reed laid down the proposition that mas
United States the House had a right
| TO change its rules at any time,
/ no member or set of members had
/ auy right to use rules which are to be
changed to prevent a 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
| Speaker Blaine, whom he spoke of as one
| OF the greatest parliamentarians who ever
sat 10 the Speakers chair, to the effect
| that pending proposition to change the
| rules, dilatory motions cannot be enter
| tanned. This ruling was made on 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 legis.
| lative body were first for the orderly conduct
| of business, and next for the protection Of the
| rights of the minority. On this latter point
he quoted from the ruling OF one of the
Speakers Of the English House OF Commons.
He argued that Just as the Constitution pre-
| scribed the manner in which 1t should be
amended, so the rules prescribed the man.
ner in which they should be changed. As
to his own decision in the electoral count,
| he put It on the ground that the law under
| which the House was then acting was great er
| than the rules and cut off dilatory motions
In the present case, however, there was
no law interfering with the rules. AS TO
| MIR. Baine's ruling or rather dictum, Mr.
Randall asserted that it had never been
pressed nor advantage taken of IT. but, on
| the contrary, efforts had been made on that
occasion (when the civil rights bill was
| under consideration to suspend the rules,
so as TO cut off dilatory motions without
/ success. So that after Mr.. Blaine's dctum
| it bad been conceded that only by two
thirds vote could dilatory motions be cut of.
In conclusion he justified the action Of the
| minority in this contested election case.
Mr.. KassOn, of Iowa, agued on the Re-
| publican side of the question, declaring that
! if dilatOry motions could not be cut off the
minority could prohibit the majority from
| passing an appropriation bill or dispOsing
of any other question, great or small, at the
whim-not merely Of minority, but OF
| little over one fifth of the whole number.
| Was It possible that any legislative body of
a civilized community could be placed IN
that condition. If so the House would be
fitnctlts CficiO. Its power would be dead,
and nothing would be left for 1t but to ad-
| iourn and leave the government to perish.
Mr. Kenna asked Mr.. Kasson whether the
minority had ever been refused the right to
make such motions as the majority had
made in the present case.
Mr.. Kssson replied that dllstory motions
had not hitherto been made IN election
cases. In those cases the House sat judi
cialy, not legislaiiVely.
Mr. KennR further inquired whether the
constitutional duty of the House was higher
In elec ion cases than In cases of revenue or
pressing appropriation bills.
Mr. Kasson replied that It was because
IlG EOuSb mubb uTeb uA Ou buc uCu 10 De
entitled to pass on such measures.
Mr.. Robinson, of New York, suggested
that a simple remedy was by a motion on
Monday to suspend the rules.
Mr.. Kasson said he could not admit the
bonafideness of that suggestion, coming
from men who refused TO vote so as to de-
prive this House even of a majority vote.
In conclusion, he stated that this Obstruc-
ton became revolution not legislation. 1t
was not rule of proceeding, but of non
proceeding. II the Speaker did not at some
point refuse to allow dilatory motions, then,
of course, the hands of the House were tied
up, and could not perform its functions.
Mr. Carlisle, of Kentucky, spoke on the
side Of the minority. The House had estab
lished rules and was bound by them in all
its proceedings. If the House could disre-
gard them for one purpose it could disregard
them for other purposes. He would not
characterize this proceeding as 1t 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
~ its Drocaadinps that he claimed for his