The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-05-30

the propriety and necessity of making further
provisions for sufferers by the Mississippi over
flow.
Mr.. Plumb reported favorably from the com
mittee ON agriculture with amendments the
House bill to enlarge the powers and duties q
the department 0of agriculture. Inc amend
ments elaborate details and add new section
providing that so far as is consistent with the
efficiency of the service officers and employs
os the department not appointed by the presl-
dens shall be selected without reference tc
party applications from the industrial classes
CT the various sections of the union.
The Japanese indemnity fund bill then came
up and Mr.. Van Wyck advocated an amend
ment allowing payment from the fund of a
claim for property destroyed by fire belonging
to Col. Fisher, United States consul at Japan.
Without action on the bill the Senate adj
joulned till Wednesday.
HOUSE.
Tie House opened this morning with many
Indications of bitter parliamentary conflict.
The two sections contained fewer vacant
chairs than usual and the galleries were well
filled.
In the chaplain's prayer request was made
in behalf of the members that the path oil
right and duty might be made plain to them.
AS soon as the reading of the journal was
ended, Mr.. Reed of Maine, called up for con-
sideration his proposed amendment to the rules
prohibiting dilatory motions on contested cleo
tion cases.
The question of consideration, that is "Shall
tho House now consider it," was instantly
raised by Mr.. Randall of Pennsylvania, and
that was followed by motion of Mr.. Kenna OF
West Virginia, to adjourn, and by one by MIR.
Blackburn of Kentucky, that when the House
adjourned it be to Wednesday, stating that
Tuesday was Decoration Day.
On the latter motion the yeas and nays were
ordered and the tactics of obstruction were
thus put in operation.
The vote on Mr.. Blackburn's motion was an
nounced at 11.40-yeas 2, nays 145, and the
speaker declared the motion lost.
Thereupon Mr.. Randall moved that when
the House adjourned to-day it be to Thursday
next.
On that Mr.. Reed of Maine made point of
order that on proposition to amend the rules
dilatory motions cannot be entertained.
Mr.. Randall denied the right of the speaker
to put any such construction on mis- moJion.
Mr.. Reed proposed to discuss the point OF
order, and suggested that limit should be put
on that discussion. No agreement to that end,
however, was made, and the speaker said that
he would not make the limitation less than an
hour on each side.
Mr.. Reed then opened the discussion. He
denied that the House had, under the constitu-
ton, certain powers expressly conferred upon
it, power which it could exercise without the
let or hindranee of any other body, powers
which it could not trade away, which it must
perform. and the first of those powers was to
judge of election returns and qualifications OF
its own members. The House had been en-
deavoring for the last ten days to perform that
duty, but had been prevented by dilatory mo-
tions. The best and most orderly way to put a
stop to that course was to amend the rules, and
that was the object now. The series of motions
made to-day were for the express purpose of
delay and of preventing change of the rules.
there is a duty imposed upon Congress
to accomplish a certain work, it is the
duty of the speakers to carry out that
rule of the 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 obsbruc-
tion was attempted by Mr.. Springer of Illinois,
with that combination of physical ability and
intellectual acuteness for which he twas distln-
guished, to the effect that the (the chair) had
allowed this and had allowed that and had al
lowed the other in the way of motions. But
that the House was now brought to point
when it must act.
Mr. Reed laid down the proposition that in
asmunh as by the organic law of the United
States the House had right to change
its rules at any time, and that no member or
set of members had any right to use the rules
which are to be changed to prevent the change
which the House desires to make. There was
no such thing as suicide in any provision of
the constitution. He then quoted a decision
by Mr.. Blaine whom he spoke OF as one of the
Speakers chair, to the effect that pending
proposition to change the rules dilatory mo-
tions cannot be entertained This ruling was
made the 9th of January, 1875. He closed by
stating that the minority had no right further
to delay action of the House.
Mr. Randall proceeded to reply to Mr.. Reed.
He admitted that the rules of legislative body
were first for the orderly conduct of business
and next for protection of the rights of the mi
nority. On this latter point he quoted from
rulings of the speakers OF the English House
of Commons. He argued that just as the con-
stitution 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 laws under
which the House was then acting were greater
than the rules and cut off dilatory motions In
the present case, however, there was no law in
terfering with rules. In conclusion he justified
the action of the minority in this contested
election.
Mr.. Kasson of Iowa argued on the Republican
side of the question, declaring that If dilatory
motions could not be cut off the minority could
prohibit the majority from passing an appropri-
alton bill or disposing of any other question
great or small at the whim not merely of the
minority but of little over one-ffth Of the
whole number.
Mr., Kenna asked Mr. Kasson whether the
majority had ever been refused the right to
make such motions as the minority had made
in the present case.
Mr. Kasson replied that dilatory motions had
not hitherto been made in election cases. In
the cases the House sat judicially not legisla-
lively.
Mr.. Robinson of New York suggested that
the simple remedy was by motion on Mon
day to suspend therules.
Mr.. Kasson said he could not see the point
of that suggestion, coming from a man who
had refused to vote so as to deprive the House
nlx I,n
stated that this obstruction became revolution
not legislation.
Mr.. Carlisle of Kentucky spoke on the side
of the minority. The House had established
rules and was bound by them in all its pro-
ceedings If the House could disregard them
then, for one purpose 1t could disregard them
for other purposes.
The debate was continued by Messrs. Car
Isle and Blackburn on the Democratic side,
and Haskell and Robson for the Republicans.
Mr.. Cox followed on the Democratic side
and at the close of his speech the Speaker
stated the two hours originally contemplated
as the limit of discussion had been extended
to three hours and he thought about time to
have the discussion closed.
Mr.. Randall inquired who had SO contem-
plated the limitation OF discussion
The speaker replied the chair had, but he
would recognize the gentleman from Missis-
sippi (Hooker) who was seeking the floor, ask
ing him, however, to make his remarks brief.
Mr.. Hooker thanked the Speaker Sarcastic
ally) for the privilege accorded him and pro-
ceeded to argue on the Democratic side Of the
question.
Mr.. Hazelton answered Hooker and he was
followed by Reagan on the Democratic side.
Mr.. Robinson followed on the Republican
side of the question. The gravity of the pres
ent situation, he said, could not be over-esti-
mated. The House was brought to the conSid-
GRAFTON of a question which it ought to have
met and settled many years ago. 1t was
claimed on the other side that fifty defeated
candidates, if they were falsely certified by
Governors of States, might hold seats
through the whole congress and that other
members who were here by the authority OF
the people could only hang their heads in
shame while the fifty asked with utmost COM
placency "What are you going to do about 1t. !"
He did not believe the constitution left the
House in such stripped and helpless condi-
tion. Rules were for orderly proceedings. not
for disorderly obstruction or for resistenoe.
The gentleman from Maryland had talked
about the tyranno of the majority. Tyranny
was bad enough anywhere, but tyranny that
came from a majority was not half as adious as
that which came from minority. applause
on the Repu ,lican side). He was glad the
house had been brought to meet this difficulty
and to provide against it in the future. He re-
ferred to the situation in the house for the