Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-27

ana Aeld pretended Lrlal DeIOfo Inc Br1I-
ish consul, within the territory of the United
States, before allowing said immigrant to
land. Also a JOINT resolution for
the relief of England, the benefit of Ire
land, and the glory of the United States.
Laughter. 1t recites at length the pres
ent condition of Ireland, declares her peo-
pie are painting for republicanism, asserts
that Ireland is more necessary to the Uni
ted States than much of her present terri
tory, and would rival the great state of
New York in wealth, intelligence and cul-
ture, and requests the president to open
communication with the government of
Great Britain to obtain its consent for the
cession of Ireland to the United States by
purchase or otherwise.
Notwithstanding the fact that this was
the last Monday in the session, there were
ninety four measures introduced under
the call of states.
Under special order, two unimportant
bills were passed and the speaker then
recognized Mr.. Reed, who called up the
resolution, reported by him Saturday from
the committee on rules.
Mr.. Blackburn raised the point of order
against it.
Mr.. Carlisle raised the question of con-
sideration, and Mr.. Randall demanded the
yeas aud nays.
The house determined, yeas 1874, nays
1875, to consider Mr.. Reeds resolution.
This was party vote except that Bayne,
Brumm, Darrell, Miller, Jargerson, Pres
colt and Scranton voted in the negative
with the Democrats. Before the announce
ment of the vote, Campbell, Fisher, Winner
and Robinson, of Ohio, who had voted in
the negative, and Hardenberg, who had
voted in the affirmative, changed their
votes. Tucker also changed his vote to
the affirmative for the purpose of moving
reconsideration. These changes made
the total vote as above stated.
Mr.. Reed moved to lay the motion
to reconsider on the table,
and the yeas and nays were ordered. pend
ing which Mr. King moved to adjourn.
| The motion to adjourn was lost, yeas 81,
nays ia, and the question REQUIRED on
tabling the motion to reconsider the vote
| by which the house determined to consider
the Reed rule. The motion was tabled, 136
to 121.
Mr.. Reed demanded the previous ques-
ton.
! Mr.. Blackburn raised the point of order
against the resolution, and prefaced his
argument with discla inner of addressing
his remarks in futile effort to describe
and fifty characterize the effort
which the committee on rules had en-
bodied in this resolution in order to
escape the strait into which the majority
had been driven. That question would
come up if the majority saw fit, in its oft
employed magnimity, to allow discussion
| of a proposition as radical and revolution
airy as the one now presented. At that
time he would ask to be heard upon the
merits of the arbitrary proposition. The
first paragraph of the proposition had the
effect of suspending the rules by bare
majority vote. 1t was a proposition to
take away from the house the power of
suspending the rules by a two
thirds vote. The proposed
majority vote should suspend the rules for
the purpose of taking up one bill, and linn
iting action on the bill to one motion--a
motion to disagree to the senate amend
ments. 1t gave power to ask for confer
ence on the bill, not one sentence, one
line or one syllable of which had ever
been in the house before. The majority
was unwilling to trust to a count which, if
common rumor was to be cited, had been
carefully made-a count made on written
agreement signed by members. Though
the rule was that the majority had mar
shaled its forces, yet it dare not
allow a vote to be taken on q resolution tC
concur in the senate amendments. He
denied that the proposition could be con
sidered, construed or denominate, a rule.
If it were adopted what happened if it
went into the manual as standing rule
to become.!SGin all probability, nnnceuS
oficio within thirty minutes after its en-
actment. It was an absurdity on its face
Was it rule of the house representatives
or did it not practically constitute legis
lation itself? Could any one
tell him the difference between the
proposition submitted and motion made
by any member of the house, when ht
lacked unanimous consent to take up and
pass a certain bill; or to make an analogy
close and almost identical, could any ONT
state the difference between this PROPOSE
ton and that of member of the commit
tee, who under authority from that com
mittee moved to suspend the rules an(
; pass the measure indicated by him? Thi:
was simply an order from the COMMITTEES
on rules of the house which inquired
| WQ0bn0r, uLu6r tu0 poAOlItS iOovluGlO1
motion to non-concur nigh
be made. Suppose that one member O
the house voted to non-concur and 200
against it, did the gentleman mean to say
that one man could overruls the 200?
Mr.. Blackburn-I do mean to say jus
that, and nothing more nor less. l NEAR
to say that when the motion to non-c oncu
is made, if there be not a single man tt
vote for it, and 1913 members vote agains
it then the vote is not counted simply be
cause the gag feature of this resolution re
fuses to allow the bill to be considered
1t is what Blackstone demon
mated not rule. not
} law, but sentence pronounced and that
without hearing. Continuing, he said he
, did not know he had any authority to OK
press an opinion as to what was or NIGH
be the purpose of any member of the
house except himself; but sincerely, he
declar ed he had no purpose of offering an.
obstruction or intsrposing any i'm
proper difficulty in the path way of the
house. If it meant to make effort toward ta1
tariff legislation, he did not want to MAKE
any threats, for he had no purpose of put
ting them into execution. He came to asl
that the house, if it was to be stripped O.
its constitutional prsrogatives to originate
: tariff legislation, should at least have thu
privilege of concurring in what the senate