Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-05-30

members. This House has been endeayol
ing for the last ten days to perform thai
but were prevented by dilasory motions
The best and most orderly way to put
stop was to amend the rules, and that wa
the object now. He maintained the propo
sition that wherever there is duty impos
ed upon Congress TO accomplish certain
work, il is the duty OF the Speaker to carr,
out the rule of law or of constitution. HI
cited the ruling of Speaker Randall, wher,
there was fillibustering against the execu
tion of the .H = a".
Electoral Count Vote,
and when an obstruction was attempted by
| Springer, to the effect that he, the Chair
had allowed this, and had allowed that, and
had allowed the other, in the way of mo.
tions, but the House was now brought to q
point when it must act. Mr.. Reed quoted
the decision by Mr.. Blaine to the effect
that pending a proposition TO change the
rules, dilatory motions cannot be entertain
ed. He closed by stating 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 leg
islatiye body were first for the orderly con-
duct of business and nA~t Co. - -.
latter point he quoted from the ruling OF
Speakers of the English House OF Com
mons. He argued that just as the Consti-
tuition prescribed the manner in which IT
should be amended, so the rules prescribed
the manner in which
They should be Changed.
As TO his own decision in the electoral
count case, he put it on the ground that
the law under which the House was then
acting was greater than the rules, and cut
off dilatory motions. In the present case,
however, there was no law interfering with
the rules. As to Mr.. Blaine's ruling, or
rather dictum, Mr.. Randall asserted 1t had
never been pressed nor advantage
~, efforts had been made on that
occasion when the civil rights bill was
under consideration 10 suspend the rules
as to cut off dilatory motions, but without
success, so that after Blaine's dictum ii
had been conceded that only by a two
thirds vote could the dilatory motions be
cut off. In conclusion, he justified the &C.
tien of the minority in this contested elec'
tion case.
Mr.. Kasson argued on the Republican
side of the question, declaring that II
DiIatory Motions
could not BE- cut off the minority could
prohibit theMajority from passing the ap-
preparation 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 or civilized COM
munity could be placed in that condition?
If so the House would be functus officlo.
Its power would be dead, and nothing
would be left for it to do but adjourn 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
minority had made in the present case.
Kasson replied that dilatory motion had
not hitherto been made in election cases..
In these cases the House sat judicially not
legislatively.
Kenna further inquired whether the
constitutional duty of the House was higher
in election cases than ia cases OF raising
revenue or passing appropriation bills.
Kasson replied it was, because the House
must first fix upon the men to be entitled
to pass on such measures.
Robinson, of New York, suggested SIM
pie remedy was by motion on Monday to
suspend the rules.
Kasson said, he could not admit as bona
nqe h Una ,nd' rsfgseS 10 vote SO as to deprive
the House even of q majority vote. In
conclusion he stated this obstruction
became revolution, not legislation. 1t was
not rule of proceeding, but OF non.pro-
ceeding. If the Speaker did not, at some
point,
Refuse to Allow DiiatOry Motions.
then, of course the hands OF the House
we're tied up, and it could not perform It's
functions.
Mr.. Carlisle of Kentucky, spoke on the
side of the minority The House had estab-
lisbed rules, and was bound by them in all
its proceedings. If the House could disre-
gard them for one purpose, it could dlsre.
gard them for other purposes. he would
not characterize this proceeding as struck
his Judgment. He would credit the other
side with the same desire to preserve the
honor and dignity of the House, and the in
tegrity of its proceedings that he claimed
for his side. If the House were not bound
by its rules now, il would not be bound at
any other time. II the majority could, IAN
attempt TO take up a.contested election case,
change the rule in order to esta6lish new
method of proceeding, it could stop IN
the midst Of an appropriation bill and
change rules that govern the proceedings
of the House in the consideration OF that
measure, and so it would 60 on and on,
until the rules were frittered away and
there would be nothing to govern the pro-
ceedings of the House but the
Arbitrary will Of One Man.
or the arbitrary will of a majority. lAp-
plause on Democratic side.
That was where the House stood this
morning, and the country ought to under
stand it. He proceeded to quote the re-
marks of Garfield in defense of the rights
of the minority, and Welded to Mr.. Will
iams, of Wisconsin, to read some further
remarks of Garfield on the same occasion,
in which the action OF the minority was
characterized as revolutionary.
Mr.. Carlisle asserted Garfield had. SUB
seGuently to these remarks, engaged In
lust such proceedings as the minority now
was engaged in. Cries of never from
Republican side. ,o.
In the closing periods OF the the 4Oth
Congress, this fillibustering policy has been
resorted to by
The Republican Majority
TO prevent action on the apportlonment
bilI. He had not considered that action as
revolutionary, although he had considered
il questionable. The right OF the
minority to protect itself by resort to
parliamentary process was an unquestloned
right in this country. In conclusion he
defended the action of the minority in the
present case, declaring there was not al
enlightened court of justice in this chrls
tendon that would not suppress the tesu
mOny WnlCn was OOJeCteu W III NhS NOH
| tested election case.
Mr.. Haskell, of Kansas. made an argu
ment on the Republican side OF the ques
ton. He declared that, for the first tim'
| in the history OF the country, parliamen
tary revolution had been organized to pre-
\ vent a constitutional majority and quorum
| from discharging a clear and undispute'
| constitutional duty.
Mr.. Blackburn, of Kentucky, submitted
an argument in opposition the point OF or
! der. He insisted that while asserting anC
granting the right of the House to chang
its rules, the change must be made accord
ing to terms and conditions which the
Rules Themselves Imported.
! He showed the inconsistency of requiring
the Speaker to exclude dilatory motion
on the question of amending the rule;
while allowing (for at least ten days sue
motions on aquestion OF the highest priv
lege-the right of a member to his seat !