Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-05-30
motions had not hitherto been made

sat judiciously, not legislatively.
Mr.. Kenna further inquired whether the
constitutional duty OF this house was higher
in election cases than in cases of raising reve-
nue. or passing appropriation bills.
Mr.. KassOn replied that it was because the
house must first fix upon men to be entitled
TO pass on such measures.
Mr.. Robinson of New York, suggested that
simple remedy was by motion to suspend
the rules.
Mr. Kasson said he could not admit bona fide
that suggestion coming from man who had
refused to vote, SO as to deprive the house
even of majority vote. In conclusion he
stated that this obstruction became revolution,
not legislation. It was not a rule of proceed
ing but OF proceeding. II the speaker
did not at some point refuse to allow di]atOry
motions, then OF course its hands were tied
up and it could not perform its functions.
Mr. Carlisle, (Ky) spoke on the side OF the
minority. The house had established rules
and was bound by them in all Its proceedings.
II the house could disregard them for one
purpose it could disregard them for other
purposes. He would not characterize this
proceeding as it struck his judgment he would
credit the other side with the same desire to
preserve the honor and dignity of the house
and the integrity of its proceedings that he
claimed for his side. If the house were not
bound by its rules now it would not be bound
at any Other time. The majority could in an
attempt to take up contested cleo
ton case change the rules in
order to establish new method of proceed
ing. 1t could step in in tine midst
of an appropriation bill and change the 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 frit.
tered away and there would be nothing to
govern the proceedings of the house but the
arbitrary will of one man or the arbitrary will
of the majority. [Applause on Democratic
side.] That was where the house stood this
morning and the country ought to under
standit. He proceeded to quote the remarks
of Garfield in defense of the rights of the
minority, and yielded to Mr. Williams Owls }
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 that Gen. Garfield had
subsequently, to those remarks engaged in just
such proceedings as the minority is now en-
gagged in, ferries of "never," from the Repub-
lican side] in the closing periods of the Forty.
sixth congress. This filibustering policy had
been resorted to by Republican minority to
prevent action on the apportionment bill. He
did not consider that action revolutionary al
though he had considered it uDjustifable.
The right of the minority to protect itself by
resort to parliamentary process was an I'M
questioned right in this country. In cOnclu-
sion ne defended the action of the minority in
the present case, declaring that there was not
an enlightened court of justice in Christendom
that would not suppress tie testimony which
was objected to in this contested election
ease.
Mr.. Haskell (Kas.) made an argument on
the Republican side of the question. He de-
clared that for the first time in the history of
the country parliamentary revolution had
been organized to prevent constitutional
majority and quorum from discharging its
clear and undisputed constitutional duty.
Mr.. Blackburn (Ky.) submitted an argu-
ment in opposition to the point of order. He
insisted that while asserting and granting the
right of the house to change its rules. the
change must be Eaade accordisg to terms and
conditions which the rules themselves i'm
posed. He showed the inconsistency of re-
curing the speaker to exclude dilatory mo-
lions on a question of amending the rules,
while allowing for the last ten days such
motions on q question of the highest priv
ilege-the right of member to his
seat; it required two-thirds to suspend any
rule for an hour, but now the claim was that
on one days notice a majority of one could
change or abrogate all rules. In fixing the
precedent now Sought to be set, it could not
be limited or restrained to the contested cleo
ton cases. The same process might be re-
sorted to in order to abrogate the rule that
guards the treasury from Orders" on apprO-
priation bills. He pleaded with the speaker to
weigh well the cOnse quences of what he was
asked to do and consider the power which
such decision would give to an unbridled
majority to act outside the rules. 1t would
be an entering wedge for the abolition OF all
parliamentary government and would open
the treasury to raids, robbery and plumber.
Mr.. Robson N. j followed on the Repub
lican side. He laid it down as principle that
where the constitution gives to the house the
right of providing rules of proceedings, it
did not contemplate either single rule of OBJ
structlon, or collection of such rules, or
practic under them. The right of filibu,ter-
ing had been used in the past, but never on
the Republican side, when the other side had
a majority, or were present. He quoted
Speaker Randall's decision on the Oath Of
February, 1877, refusing to entertain motion
because he should not recognize 1t in any
other light than as dilatory motion He
argued that it was always better'tO repeal
bad law than to break it, or avoid it, and if
the rules contained anything which authorized
obstruction of the business, that thing should
be swept away. The majority was proceeding
in this instance to change the rule in the
regular and orderly way.
Mr.. Cox IN. reminded the Republicans
Of how they had filibustered against the ap-
portionment bill, against the tariff bill, and
against the attempt to impeach George Sew
ard for corrupt practices in his mission to
China.
At the close of Mr.. Cox's remarks the
speaker stated that the hour originally con-
templated as limit 10 the discussion had been
extended to three hours, and he intimated that
he would soon have to bring it to close.
Mr.. Hooker (Miss sought the floor and the
speaker recognized him, suggesting, however,
that he must be brief. Mr.. Hooker thanked
the speaker ironically for the privilege, AMI
proceeded to argue on the Democratic side of
the question.
Mr.. McLane (Md.) followed on the same
side.
The discussion was continued by Messrs.
Reagan, Randall, Hazleton wis and Robin
son, and closed by Reed.
The speaker then made his decision sustain
ing Reeds point of order, that dlatory mo-
lions cannot be made to prevent a change Of
rules.
Randall appealed from the decision of the
chair, and Reed moved to lay the appeal on
the table. The appeal was laid on the table.
Yeas $50; nays none.
After announcement OF the vote Mr.. Cox
IN. ~ presented a protest signed by over 100
Democratic members against this ruling by
the speaker. The protest was not allowed to
20 upon the journal, but was read as part of
Mr.. Cox's remarks, SO as to be printed in the
Congressional Record.