The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-05-30


United States the House had the right 10
change It's rules at any time, that no mem
Der or set OF members had any right
10 use the rules which are TO be
changed 10 prevent the change which
the House desired 10 make. There
was no such thing rs suicide In any
provision OF the Constitution. He then
quoted the decision by Mr.. Blaine-whom
he spoke OF rs one OF the greatest parlia-
mentarians who ever sat in the Speaker :
chair-to the effect that pending PROPOSE
ton 10 change the rules dilatory motions
cannot be entertained. This ruling was
made on the 9th OF January, 1910. lie
closed by stating that the minority had no
right to further delay the action OF the
House.
MIR. Randall proceeded to reply to Mr..
Reed He admitted that the rules OF a
legislative body were first for the orderly
conduct OF business, and next for the pro-
lection OF the rights OF the minority. On
this latter point he quoted from the ruling
OF one OF the Speakers OF the English
House OF Commons. He argued that
Just as the Constitution prescribed the
manner In which IL should be amend
ed. so the rules prescribed the manner
in which they should be changed. As to
his own decision in the electoral-count case
he put II on the ground that the law under
which the House had been acting was
greater than the rules, and cut of 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 that IL had never been
pressed nor advantage taken OF II, but
that, on the contrary, efforts had been made
1 cfxsil pio
was under consideration, TO suspend the
rules so as 10 cut oil dilatory motions with
ont success; so that after Mr.. Blaine's die
tum IL ad been conceded that only by u
two-.hirds vote could dilatory motions be
cut of. In conclusion, he justified the
action Of the minority in this contested
election case.
MIR. Kasson. Of Iowa, argued on the Re
publican side OF the question, declaring II
motions could not be cut of the minority
could prohibit the majority from passing
the appropriation bills or disposing OF any
other question, great or small, at the whim
OF the minority. Was it possible that any
legislative body OF civilized commu-
nity could be placed in that condi-
ton? II so, the House would be
funct,iS oficio, its power be dead, and no.
Government to perish.
Mr.. Kcnna asked Mr.. Kasson whether
the majority had ever been refused the
right 10 make such motions as the majority
had made in the present case.
Mr.. Kasson replied that dilatory motions
had not hitherto been made in election
eases. In those the House sat iudicially,
not legislatiyely.
Mr.. Robinson, OF New York, suggested
that simple remedy was by motion on
Monday 10 suspend the rules.
Mr.. Kasson said he could not admit the
bona fde Of that suggestion, coming from
a man who had refused 10 vote, so as to de-
prive the House even of a majority OF the
House. In conclusion, he stated that tins
obstruction became revolution, not legiSla-
ton. 1t was not a rule OF proceeding. but
of non-procceding. III the Speaker did
not at some point refuse TO allow dilatory
motions, then the hands Of the House were
tied up and could not perform is iunc-
tiOns.
Mr.. Carlisle. OF Kentucky, spoke on the
side of the minority. The House bad
established rules, and was bound by them
in all It's proceedings. II the House could
disregard them for one purpose, ii could
| disregard them for other purposes. lie
would not characterize this proceeding n
il struck his judgment. lie would credit
the other side with some desire % preserve
the honor and dignity OF the House and the
integrity OF its proceedings. II the House
was not bound Icy its rules now, il would
not be bound at other times. II the ma
iority could, in an attempt 10 take up con-
! tested-electiOn ease, change the rules i'm
| order TO establish a new mode Of pro-
ceeding, il could stop in the midst
Of an appropriation bill and change
rules that govern the proceedings OF the
House i'm the consideration Of that measure,
and so it would go on until the rules fritz
tered away, and there would be nothing to
govern the proceedings Of the House Tut
the arbitrary will OF one man. or the arbi-
trary will of the majority. Applause on
the Democratic side.l That was where the
House stood this morning, and the country
ought 10 understand it. He proceeded 10
quote remarks Of Mr.. Garfield in defence
Of the rights Of the minority, and yielded
10 Mr.. Williams, OF Wisconsin, 10 read
some remarks Of Mr.. Garfield on the same
occasion. ia which the action of the minor
itv was characterized as revolutionary.
Mr.. Carlisle asserted that Garfield had
subsequently remarked 20 those engaged in
lust such proceedings aS the minority was
engaged in. lCries Of "Never" from the Re-
publican side.l In the closing periods OF
the Forty-siXth Congress this filibustcring
policy had been resorted 10 10y the Repub-
lean majority TO prevent action on an ap-
portionment bill. lie had considered that
action revolutionary, although he had con-
sidercd il unjustifable. The right Of the
minority 10 protect itself bya resort 20 par
liamentary process was an unqucstiOned
right in this country In conclusion, lac
defended the action Of the minority in the
present case, relating that there was moi an
enlightened court OF justice in ChriStend0m
that would not suppress the testimony
which was objected to in this election case.
Mr.. Haskell, of Kansas, made an argu-
ment on the Republican side OF the ques-
ton.
Mr.. Blackburn. OF Kentucky, followed
on the Democratic side. He insisted that
while asserting and granting the right OF
. the House TO change its rules, the change
. must be made according 10 the terms ano
, conditions which the rules themselves i'm
, posed. He showed the Inconsistency Of
, requiring the Speaker TO exclude dilatory
! motions on a question amending the rules
| while allowing for the last ten days sucl
: motions on question OF the highest priyi
lege-the right Of member to his seat
: 1t required two thirds to suspend any
rule for an hour. Now, after one day
E notice a majority Of one could change Of
abrogate all the rules. In the future thu
: precedent now sought TO be set would no
: he restrained to contested-election cases
The same process might be res0rted TO II
+. order TO abrogate the rule that guards tn
) Treasury from "riders" on appropriation
bills. He pleaded with the Speaker &