Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1882-06-13

And innocently answered.
That's what the fellers say"
tiOn of the Republicans OF the House
in Regard to the Election Cases.
[From the Washington Correspondent OF the
Richmond Dispatch
As little else is talked of here now ex-
cept the outrages perpetrated in the
House against the South by the Repub-
licsns, sought Mr.. Tucker to'day and
asked his views in regard to the situa~
ton. He said:
The deadlock in the Mackey- Dibble
case arose from this cause:
The Democrats refused to obstruct the
decisions in the Chalmers-Lynch case
because they conceded the right OF the
House to determine case when heard
upon legal and well-authenticated ties
timony All the evidence in that case
was duly taken and authenticated.
But in the Mackey-Dibble case there
was sworn statement of forgery in
the testimony. We objected to trying
the case before the evidence on which
we were TO try it was authenticated as
genuine If plaintiff or defendant
III a CAUSE Cdll6u lOI U11a1 OOJCCLo oOO@uoO
he alleges that deposition filed by the
opposite party is forgery, or has been
tempered with by him, that question is
one always decided as preliminary to
swearing the jury for trial. That is
WHAT DEMOCRATS WISHED DONE
in this case-not to take up the case for
trial until it was settled whether Mackey
had forged the evidence he relied on.
The Republicans insisted on trying the
case upon evidence the authenticity OF
which was to be looked into while try
ing it. This we thought all wrong,
Hence the deadlock. The Republicans
then determined to adopt a rule to pre-
vent our dilatory motions. They in
troduced it, and forced it through by
trampling on the rules then in exist.
ence.
The House makes rules for its gov
eminent in the beginning of the SEES
sion, before conflicts arise. They will
then more probably be fair; for no par,
ty can foresee what it may wish to be
the rule when special case arises.
BUT REPUBLICANS TAKE ANOTHER
COURSE.
They adopt rules, and W hen they found
they chafed and checked their action in
this case they changed them by disre
gard of all existing rules. If man
can change law when it checks his
action there is really no law to control
him. A party which changes the rules
of the House just at the time their re-
straints are inconvenient violates all
principles of good government.
NOT A DILATORY MOTION.
But when the rule was introduced,
Mr.. Springer, of Illinois, moved to lay
it on the table. The Speaker declared
that motion out of order because it was
dilatory motion. This was absurd
It might delay final action. but was not
q dilatory motion. A motion to lay on
the table is a proceeding to dispose
finally OF the pending question on its
merits A dilatory motion is one made
not in reference to the pending ques-
tion-nnt operating upon it--not dis
posing of or amending it--but to evade
action on it.
THE OUTRAGE ON MIR. SPRINGER.
But this absurd decision was followed
by greater outrage. Mr.. Springer ap-
pealed, and the Speaker refused to allow
the House to decide whether he was
right or wrong in his decision. His
decision was thus made absolute law
for the House by his own arbitrary de-
cision, from which he would allow no
appeal. This despotic power assumed
by the Speaker struck blow at the lib
erty of the people by destroying the
liberty of their representatives in the
House. The outrage was repeated when
Springer moved to recommit the rule
with instructions. This was ruled out
of order. and an appeal to the House
was refused by the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER ARRAIGNED.
The Democrats determined to arraign
the Speaker for his despotic rulings
after the case was decided. In the mean
time the case came up for discussion.
The case was briefly this: Dibble had
the seat. Mackey claimed it upon dep
ositions. When asked who wrote them,
the answer was "They were written by
Mackey and those who acted with him
were copied from originals" When
asked where the originals were, the an
Mackey." The Democrats said, ION
such evidence we will not give Dibble's
seat to Mackey."
MR.. M'LANE, OF MARYLAND,
moved resolutions of censure on the
Speaker. When he did SO, and had not
yielded the floor, the Speaker mot leav-
ing the chair when question invOlv-
ing bis own action was considered) re-
cognized Mr.. Reed, of Maine, to move
the resolutions of censure be laid on the
table, thus doing Mr.. McLane the I'M
parliamentary discourtesy of taking
him off the floor in favor of Mr.. Reed.
The House tabled the resolution of CEN
sure by a party vote, thus sustaining
the arbitrary and despotic course of the
Speaker.
The struggle has been the most excit-
ing one of the session. The arbitrary
power assumed by the Speaker, con-
firmed by the vote of his party friends,
is one of the dangerous symptoms of
our times, which tend to show how the
rights of the people are being subjected
to the rule of dominant faction, and
through it to the one-m man power, so
fatal to the liberties of the people.