The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1882-05-31
ARBITRARY AND REVOLUTIONARY.
Speaker Keller Attempts to just dy REs
Rulings in the House Yesterday The Pro-
test from the Democrats.

Rulings in the House Yesterday The Pro-
test from the Democrats.
WASHINGTON, May 29.-ln his decision on
Reeds point Of order, Speaker Keifer says,
in explanation: at could net be disputed
the Committe on Rules had right to report
at any time such changes of the rules as it
might decide to be wise. The resolution on
the 10th of December, 1881, adopting the
rules for the present Congress, also express
ly gave the Comm ittee that right which
carried with it the right of consideration.
1t would be obs erved that the rules had
only been ';onditionally adopted and
the right had been expires ly re-
served to the House to order them
all set aside. The question for
the Chair to decide was: Are the rules of
this House to be so construed as to give the
minority of the House the absolute right TO
prevent a quorum and majority from max
| ing any new rule, or, in the absence of any
provision in the rules providing for any
mode of proceeding in the matter of con-
siderauon, whether, when the question Of
changing the rules was before the House,
the rules should be SO construed as to yir-
! tually prevent their change? 1t would be
well to keep in mind that the Constitution
said that each House might determine
the rules of its proceedings. The right given
| to determine the rules of proceedings was
never exhausted, but at all times continued,
and gave each House the right to make OF
alter the rules, independent of any rules IL
might have adopted. Dilatory motions TO
| prevent the consideration of business were
comparatively recent expedlents, and should
not be favored in any case. save where abSo-
lutely required by some clear rule or prac-
| tice."
There seemed to be abundant precedent
/ for the view which the Chair took and in
this connection the Speaker read the state
ment of Speaker Blaine, referred to in Mr..
Reeds remarks. During the Forty fourth
Congress his distinguished predecessor Mr..
| Randall) had decided the principal point
involved here. The Constitution and law
we higher than any rule, and when they
were in conflict with any rule the latter
| must give way. there was not a word in
the present rules that prescribed the mode
of procedure in changing the present rules.
except the provisO, no standing rule or order
should be,TeScinded or changed without one
lday's notice There IS nothing revolutionary
in holding that properly dilatory motions
could be entertained to prevent action, or q
-proDOsition to amend the rules of the
House, as this proposition is one essential
10 be exercised preliminary to the orderly
transaction of business in the House.
The proposition was TO so amend the rules
in the contested election cases as TO take
! away the right to make and repeal dilatory
motions. To allow these would be to hold
the rules superior not only to the House
that made them, but to the Constitution OF
the United States. The Chair had tried
and would try to give full effect to all rules,
and especially would endeaver to protect
the rights of the minority to their u mostex-
tent. The Chair had been unable To find
that any dilatory motion had been made 10
prevent final consideration on any contested
election case until this Congress. He felt
tnat, on principle and sound precedent the
i point of order must be sus aimed to the ex-
| tenn of holding that the motion made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, which was in
| favor of dilatory motion, was not now in
order.
THE DEMOCRATS PoTEsT.
The protest, read by Representative Cox,
lsas follows:
Whereas. the minority OF this House have here
tofore, under the rules of the House. successfully
| resented the onfOrts of the majority TO consider
the of Mackey VS.. O'CoHnor, because a proper
hearing has not been granted to the contester by
the Committee on Elections as To the allegations
/ of forgery and fraud III the evidence submitted
by the eontes,ant and,
whereas the majority, In oroer 70 prevent and
avoid such investigation have proceeded to change
| the rules in manner not provided for in the
rules in which aloae they can or ought to be
| changed, and,
| Whereas, the Speaker has made
ruling which justifes proceeding unknown to
the principles OF constitutional ana parlamenta-
~ law, aud subversion of the rights of the minor
| lty,
Therefore. the undersigned representatives Of
| the people hereby protest against the proceeding
of the majority and rulings OF the Speaker as un-
| justfable. arbitrary and revOlut onary and ex-
presley designed TO deprive the minority of thai
protection which has been established as one oi
the great monuments of the represen tative system
by patriotic labOrers and advocates of parlismen
4 tary priviliees aud civil liberty.
| (oignedO
i Cnr. III L D. oil A hrar 9