The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-01

|
rules so as to cut OIL dilatory molons, with
out success; so that after blain's diclum !
had been conceded tina. by two-th' 9
vote could dilatory motion be cut oil
In conclusion he justified the action OF thu
minority in this contested election ca.e.,
Rasr on, of Iowa, argued on the renublt
can side of the question, declaring tnat /
dilatory motions could not be cut OIL tht
minority could prohibit the majority ron
Passing 1he appropriation bills o; disposine
Of any other question great or small Was
1t possible that any legislative body OF Il
civilized community could be placed IN
that condition? if so. the houae wo1'd oe
deiunctus officio, its power would be dead
and nothing would be LETT for IL to do but 10
adjourn, and leave the government 10
perish.
+ Konna asked Kasson whether the minor
ity had e, er been refusedthe right to make
such motion as the minority had made in
| the present case.
Kasson renlied that di'atory motions had
not hitherto been made in election cases.
In those cases the house sat Judicially, not
legislatively.
kenna further inquired whether the con-
election cases than in The case OF raising
, revenue or passing appropriation bills.
, Kasson replied that IL was; because
the house must first fix upon men 20
be entitled 10 pass on such measures.
! Robinson, of New York, suggested that a
simple remedy was by the moCion on Mon
/ DIV TO suspend the rules
Kasson said he could not do that. The
suggestion come from men who had refused
! to vote SO as 70 deprive the house of even
majority vote. In conclusion he stated
| that this obstruction became revolution,
not legislation. 1t was not The rule OF pro-
ceedng but of non-proceeding. If me
speaker did not at some point refuse 10 al
low dlatory molons, then of course tbe
| hands of the house were tied up and IL
| would not perform It's functions.
/ Carlisle, of Kentucky, spoke on the side
of The minority. The house. he said, had
established rules and was bound by them
in all its proceedings. If The house could
disregard them Tor one purpose it could
disregard them for other purposes. He
would not characterize this proceeding
the other side with the same desire 20 pre-
serve the hooor aud dignity of i;s p'o-
ceedings that he claimed for his side. il
the house were not bound by its Jr'e" now
it would not be bound at other times.
II the majority could, in attempting TO
alike up the conteated election case,
change a rule in order 10 establish new
method of proceeding it could step in the
midst Of the appropriation bill and change
the rules that govern the proceedings OF the
house III The consideration of that measure,
and so it could go ON and on until the rules
were Uttered away and there would be
no,hlLg 70 govern the proceedings of the
house ! ut The arbitrary will of one man or
The arbitrary will of The majority: lap
plause on the democrats s'de.I That is
where the bouse stood this morning and
the countiv ought to understand IL.
He proceeded 10 quote the remarks
of Garfield in defense of The
rights of The minority and yielded TO
Wyliams, OF Wisconsin, to read some fur
ther remarks Of Garfield on the same occa-
sion in which the action OF of the minority
was characterized as revolutionary.
Carlisle asserted that Garfield bad subse'
quently 10 those remarks engaged in just
such proceedings as the minoii%y now was
engaged in. TCries of "Nevel!" from The
republican sioe In the closing of the 46th
congress the fIibustering policy had
been resorted TO by the republican majority
to prevent.aciion on The apponionment bill
ary. although he did consider il unjust
ifed. For the minority TO protect
itself by resort to parliamentary
powers was an unquestioned right in this
country. In conclusion he defended tle
action of the minority in the present case,
declaring that there was not an enlight'
ened court of justice in Cbristendom that
would not suppress the testimony, which
was objected TO in this contested elcc ion
case.
Haskell, OF Kansas, made an argument
on the republican SIDE of the question.
Blackburn, of Kentucky, followed on the
democratic side. He insisted that while
asserting and granting the right of the
house 10 change It's rnles, The
chanGe must be made accord
ing to the terms and conditions
| IL Al. ali INN "a
showed The inconsistency of requiring the
speaker TO exclude dilatOry motions on the
question of amending The rules, while al
lowing 0or the last ten davs) such motions
on question of the highest privilege, the
right of member to his seat. II required
| a majority OF two-thnds TO suspend any
rule for AN hour, but now il is claimed thPl
on one day 5 notice malontv OF one could
change or abrogate all rules in the future
The precedent now sought 10 be set would
not be limited or restricted 10 contested
election cases. The same pro
cess might be ,resot.ed 20 in order
to abrogate. tue RUE that guards the treas
uly nom ".uers on appropriation, bll,s' h'
pleade Il with the speaker 10 weigh the con
| ser .uences ofwhat he was asked 10 DO az,
10 CONSIDER Inc power which such a declsloi
would give TO the unbridled majority lt
. act outside of the rules. Ii would be th,
q.
amentaIv government, and would opei
the treasury TO thieves and plundeiers,,
The discussion was continued by isoDin
| son. OF New York: Cox, Of New YORK
Hooker, of Mississippi Reagan, OF Texas
, McLane, of Maryland; Hazletongf W.scon
sin: Robinson, of Massachusetts and Han
dall, of Pennsylvania.
THE sneaker made a decision sustainin
, Mr.. Reeds point Of order that dlllator.
motions cannot be made TO prevent -
change Of rules.
Pnndall appealed icom the decision Of th
chair ana Reed'moved TO Law the appeal o.
the table. The appeal was laid ON the tabl
, yeas, $50; nays, none.
, After the announcement OF the vote, Coz
of New York, presented protest signed b
over tea members, against the rulings {
p the speaker. The protest was not allowc
! 10 no upon ile journal, but was read as Dar
of Coxs remarks. so as to be printed in Il.
. Congressional Record.
Tie repoi. OF the committee on Jules wa
Sdopyed-yeas, $50 nays, 2:
Al 6:s5 the house uetc mined 10 prOcec
Ia .Se consideration Of the contested elc,
A ion c.7se. Milier, Of Pennsylvania, look "a
aoor 10 oven debate. and at O'CLOCK I'll
house adjourned uutii tomorrow.
, HOUSE.
v,suxc1,,s. Nav 3O.-fbe rerular lou'
4 ,oi of vesierday having been rea1, Spring
: cr OF illinois. objected 10 iis approval Q
a tbe GROUND tnat Il omitted al rife rnoe
3 tJvo veiy in pOitant motions Whlc1 be ha
J, sUbmitie ed. and 10 appeals which he ha
= made from the speaker ~ psll 10 Cnte
d tain them. The ofbcll report on the SUI
= iect was read lrurl ihe Congressional lie
y ord, and he then moved ID have tie 1Or
p nal cnrrecl ed 50 as 90 inci noe those "
a moiions. y sicil wers iO Jay On The ta0le, u
}. eether with tle SPEAKER refusal 10 ente
81 lain bis (5pfingei'sl appeals rom such .
% fusai 1he speaker dlreCild ihe clefk
e read TIE rule governing the case, % tne
= fect that every motion inele I'D q
st house enfef.ained by the speak
- snail be entered on the iourni
e ard he aid that If the clerk bad iOurHi
ie ired those motions and appeals be WCu
H. hare .f-if1 fwuruuerlr.