The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1882-05-30

cluding, he stated this observation by reso-
luton is not legislation; it was not duty
of proceeding, but proceeding.
Speaker did not, since the point referred
| to, allow dilatory melton, of course. The
hands of the House were tied, and
it could not perform its functions
Carlisle, of Kentucky, spoke on the side
OF the minority. Discussion was continu
ed by Reagan, Randall, Hazleton, Wis,
and Robinson, and closed by Reed.
THE SPEAKER SUSTAINED
Reeds point of order that dilatory motions
cannot be made to prevent change of
rules. Randallappealed from the decision
and Reed moved to table the appeal, which
was dene-yeas $50, nays none. After
announcement of the vote, Cox presented
protest signed by over one hundred dem
cratic members against the ruling of the
speaker The protest was not received to
go upon the journal but was received as
part of Cox's remarks SO as to ap-
pear on congressional record Re-
port of committee on rules
adepted-150 to 2. At Gas the house
determined to proceed to the consideration
of the contested election case. Mr.. Miller
took the floor to open the debate, and then
the House adjourned until tomorrow.
Speaker Keifer in deciding Mr.. Reeds
point of order, said the Committee on
Rules clearly had the right to report at any
time any changes of the rules which they
might deem wise. It would be observed
that the right had been reserved to the
House TO order them all set aside The
question was ttAre rules to be so construed
as to give to the minority of the House the
absolute right to prevent a quorum and a
majority from making new rules or provid-
ing for those made" Proceedings in the
matter under consideration, when the
question of changing rules was
before the House, the rules should
be so construed as to yertually prevent
right to make or alter their rules indepen-
dent of existing ones; dilatory motions
should never be favored save when abso-
lutely by some clear rule or practise of
custom and law clearly took precedence
over any rule. There was not word of
the present rules that prescribed mode of
procedure in changing pending rules ex
cept a promise that no standing rule
should be rescinded or charged without
one days notice.
The proposition was to so amend rules
in contested election cases. as to take
the right to make and repeat dilatory
motion To allow these would be to hold
tue rules superior to the constitution of
the United States The chair would try
to give full effect to ali rules and especial
ly to protect the rights of the minority,
The chair felt the point of order must be
sustained to the extent, thus holding that
the motion now made by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, which was in fact a
dilatory motion, wasn't in order.
Protest read by Cox recites, whereas the
minority has successfully resisted
the efforts of the majority
to consider the case of Mackey VS.. O'Con-
nor because a proper hearing has not
been granted contestee by the committee
as to allegations of frauds and whereas
the majority. in order to avoid such inves
tigation, have proceeded to change the
rules in a manner not provided for in the
rule in which alone they can or ought to
be changed, and whereas the speaker has
made ruling which is unjustifed, uncon-
stitutional and unparliamentary proceed
ing subversive,o of the rights of the minority,
therefore the undersigned representatives
of the people hereby protest against the
proceeding of majority as revolutionary
and expressly designed to deprive the mi
nority of that protection which has been
established as one OF the great monuments
of the representative system by the patriot
ic labors of the advocates of parliamentary
privileges and civil liverty.
(SigneO S. J. RANDALL,
A. S. HEwETT,
ID ERMENTRoUT,
HENRY S. HARRIS,