Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1884-09-18
Hon. Edward Mop Pherson's
LETTER.
WASHINGTON, D. c., Aug. 20, 1884.

"ASHlNOION3 ~ ~, mug. ZSs 1904
Hon. T. d. Taylor, 9SS G. ST, " w.:
DEAR SIR-In reply to your note of yes
terday, inquiring respecting the rules and
practice OF the House of Representatives,
have the honor to say, first, that it is the or
binary practice in the House for members to
ask, and the House to grant, leave to print
remarks not delivered. 1t is also not un-
usual for members, having outlined their ar
guments in the few minutes snatched for
debate, to ask and get permission to extend
their remarks and print them in the Con-
gressional Record as if delivered as printed.
This practice grows out of the necessities of
our parliamentary life, and is increasing
with the growth of the membership of the
House.
l had occasion recently to examine the
Congressional Record for the proceedings of
an evening session devoted to the debate on
the Morrison" tariff bill, and found that
seventeen speeches purported to have been
delivered in the four hours devoted 10 the
sitting. Not one of these speeches was de-
livered in full as printed, and of some no
portion was delivered. | have not taken
the trouble to ascertain, but have no doubt
that at least two hundred speeches will ap-
pear in the Congressional Record of the
last session, which were not actually de-
livered in full in the House.
Some criticism has been made upon this
practice; but, on the whole, the House has
steadily adhered to it. for the reason that if
nothing was printed except what was de-
livered, the House would lose the benefit of
much of its talent, there not being time
in the actual hours of sitting for the House
to listen to the speeches prepared upon the
various public questions.
In the last session of Congress the ques-
ton arose as to the practice, and after de-
bate which extended over parts of two ses-
sions, the House laid the subject on the
table, without dissent.
In reply to your second inquiry, have to
say that the rules prescribe no limit as to the
right of the member to revise his speech
after he has spoken FIVE, ten, twenty or more
minutes.
Third, have examined with consider
able care your speech printed in the Record
of the lst of August, and do not think there
is ANYTHING in it which violates the rules or
practice of the House. If you had incor-
porated in your speech anything personally
offensive to a member of the House it would
have been an abuse of the privilege to print;
but a criticism, parliamentary in terms, of
the action of any portion OF the House, OF
any member of the House, is always per-
missible, whether in the absence or presence
of the person affected. If this were other
wise, all that would be necessary for men,
Der who desired to avoid criticism on his
public acts would be to absent himself from
the sitting until the opportunity for making
the criticism had passed.
OF course, pass no judgment upon the
accuracy of your criticism upon either
the Democratic majority or upon any men,
Der of it. find further, that you are es-
pecially fortified in your right to print in
the circumstance that at the sitting OF July
7th you asked and obtained unanimous con-
sent to extend the remarks made by you on
the Mexican war pension bill. This gave
you ample authority to prepare and print a
discussion of the pension bill, the Senate
amendments thereto, and all proceedings Of
the House connected with that subject.
The question of the proper method Of
controlling debate has repeatedly been con-
sidered, In debate in 1880 on this subject, |
Gen. Garfield, then 4 member of the House,
went to the extent of holding that members
of the House are at liberty to speak in verse |
or prose as they may choose. Beyond pro-
htbiting the placing upon the Records, un-
der the guise of debate, 4 copyrighted vol
ume, or a British volume on an economical
question, the House has never gone.
A remarkable illustration of the liberal
disposition of the House on this question, |
in the interest of publicity and information,
occurred near the close of the last session OF /
Congress. If you will turn to the Record /
of July s, 1884 mo. I6s), you will find in it,
and occupying seven pages OF II, speech on
"Salt in Politics." which purports to have
been delivered in the House By the Hon.
Samuel S. Cox, of New York, well known
in Ohio, on the 9th day of June, 1884, on an