Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-05-30
House of kepresentatsves.

WASHINGTON, May 29.-As soon as the
reading of the journal was ended Mr.. Reed
called up for consideration the proposed
amendment to the rules, prohibiting dilatory
motions on the contested election case. The
question Of consideration was instantly raised
by Mr.. Randall, and that was followed by q
motion OF Mr.. Kenna to adjourn, and one
by Mr.. Blackburn that when the house adjourn
it be to Wednesday, stating as the reason that
Tuesday was Decoration day. On the latter
motion the yeas and nays were ordered, and the
tactics of obstruction thus put in operation.
The vote on Mr. Blackburn's motion was az.
nOunced-yeas Q, nay 147, and the speaker de-
ciared the motion lost.
ThereupOn Mr. Randall moved that when the
house adjourns to-day it be to Thursday next.
On that Mr.. Reed made a point of order
that on the proposition to amend the rules,
dilatory motions cannot be entertained.
Mr. Randall denied the right of the speaker
to put any such construction on his motion.
M. Reed proposed to discuss the point of
order and suggested that a limit be put on
that discussion.
No agreement to that end, however, was
made and the speaker said he would not
make the limitation less than an hour on each
side.
Mr.. Reed then opened the dscussion-he
claimed the house had under the constitution
certain powers, expressly conferred upon it;
powers which it could exercise without
let or hinderance of any other body; powers
which it could not surrender; which it could
not trade away, which it must perform, and
the first OF these powers Was to judge of cleo
ton returns, and the qualifications of its own
members. This house has been endeavorlne 2.
for the last ten days to perform that duty but
had 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.
He maintained that the proposition that
whenever there is duty imposed upon
congress to accomplish certain work it is 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
filibustering against the execution of the
electoral count law and when obstruction was
attempted by Mr.. Springer to the effect that
he (Randall) had allowed this, and had al
lowed that, and had allowed the other in the
way of motions, but the house was now
brought to point where it must act.
Mr.. Reed referred to the decision by Mr..
Blaine, to the effect that the pending propo-
sition to change the rules on dilatory motions
cannot be entertained. He closed by stating
that the minority had no right further to de-
lay the action of the house.
Mr.. Randall proceeded to reply to Mr.. Reed,
He admitted that the rules of legislative
body were first for orderly conduct OF bust.
ness, and next for protection of the rights of
the minority. In this latter point he quoted
from the ruling of the speaker of the English
house of commons. He argued that just as
the constitution presented the manner in
which it should be amended, so the rules pre-
ecribed the manner in which they should be
oh Ac IN his sv,t In olo
toral count, he put 1t on the ground that
the law under which the house was then act
ing was greater than the rules and cut off dIla-
tory motions. In the present case, however,
there was DO law interfering with the rules.
As to Blaine's ruling or rather dictum, Ran.
dali asserted that it had never been pressed
nor advantage taken of it, but that on the
contrary efforts had been made on that occa.
sion when the civil rights bill was under con.
of dilstory motions, but without success: SC
that after Blaine's dictum it had been conceded
that only by two-thirds vote could dilatory
motions be cut of. In conclusion he justified
the action Of the minority in the contested
election.
Mr.. Kasson argued on the Republican side
OF the question, declaring if dilatory motioni
could not be cut of the minority could pro
hibit the majority from passing any appro
prlatlOn Dill or 0iepOelDg OF any Otner queS
ton, great or small, at the within, not merely
of the minority, but of little over one.fiftt
of the whole number. Was it possible thai
any legislative body in q civilized communit y
could be placed in that condition? II 80, The
house would be .functus o61cio, its power
would be dead and nothing would be left fol
it to do but to adjourn and leave the govern
ment to perish.
Mr.. Kenua asked Kasson whether the mi
norIty had ever been refused the right to
make euch motions as the minority had made
in the present case. Mr.. Kasson replied that