Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-04-10
Giant in Fetters.

tirety the viciousness OF the rules where
with they have bound themselves, and 10y
way Of compromise agree smongst them
selves not 70 do as badly as their rules
provide they may do. For example,
Mr.. BRrcKINRIDGE, of Arkansas, de-
clined to exercise his right to
move to excuse from voting first
one and then another Of the
members until he had moved to excuse
all of them, and to call for vote by
yeas and nays in each case. The Speaker
decided that fHbustering III that way
was according to the rules. And nobody
appealed from his decision. This de-
cision may be styled " filibusterlng
made easy" Under it, one fifth OF
the members might flibuster from now
until the time for the next Congress to
meet. In fact, no legislation of any sort
can hereafter be done in the House OF
Representatives to which one fifth Of the
members present are opposed. This Is
q new discovery-this power to flibuster
by moving to excuse members from
voting. One Of the members remarked
the other day that it was a discovery
made after working under the Consiitu-
ton hundred years without having dis
covered it.
Four ffths Of the members are power
less in the hands Of one fifth. The
Mills bill cannot he passed, nor any
amendment to it be adopted, without the
consent of more than four fiftns of the
members, one fifth having the right to
block the way to all legislation. Let us
say, in a word, that 10 bill can pass I'M
less four fifths Of the members at least
connive at its passage.
The Federal Constitution provides
that "the yeas and nays Of the mem
bees OF either house on any question
shall, ct the desire Of one fifth OF those
present, be entered on the Journal A
motion to excuse a member from voting,
so the Speaker ruled, was "a question "
within the constitutional meaning Of that
word.
What is the remedy? A temporary
remedy is in the hands of the House Of
Representatives itself, which, On appeal,
may reverse the Speakers decision. But
this ruling Of the Speaker, even ii over
ruled now, Is liable TO repetition ct any
time, and to sustentation by the House.
The new ruling has frightened the House
itself. There is no doubt on that point.
This ruling, destined to be rs cele-
brated as the decision in the Dartmouth
College case or the rule in SHELLEY's
case, was rendered pending a ILL 20
creditand topay to the Several States aud
Territories and the District OF Columbia
all moneys collected under the direct
tax levied by the act of Congress APP
proved August 5, 1861. This act was
passed almost at the very beginning of
the war between the States. II assessed
a direct tax of twenty millions Of dollars
upon the people Of the several States
and Territories. This was apportioned
amongst them according TO population,
as the Constitution provides One pro-
vision of the law was that any State as
suming the payment Of this tax for its
people should be entitled to 10 per cent.
commission upon the whole sum due by
the people Of that State. Under this
provision. said Mr.. HOPKINS of Illinois,
the loyal and "patriotic States at the
North assumed the responsibility and
paid outof their own treasures this large
amount of money, and in order to do
that they were compelled, many of
them, TO borrow money, and several OF
them have now large indebtedness
which can be traced directly 10 their ef-
forts at that time to sustain the arm OF
the Government in It's hour Of trial"
The "disloyal" southern States never
paid up in full, and some Of them scarce
ly anything. "The States that did not
see fit 10 take advantage Of this proyi-
sion Of the act have from time TO time
had collected from the citizens living
within their territory sums of money
ranging from few thousand up to hun
dreds OF thousands of dollars. Wherever
the Government has sought to collect
the unpaid balance of this twenty nil
lions it has been found that individual
hardships resulted, and TO such an ex-
tent that the Congress of the United
States by various acts suspended the
operation Of the law in the 50 called Con-
federate States, and for nearly twenty
years this law has renrined practically
dead letter on the statute-book."
This is the bin that the flibusters are
opposed to; and Mr.. HoPKISs said that
under the circumstances flibustering
came with bad grace from southern
members However, Mr. OArEs retorted
that the southern States had paid more
than sixty millions Of dollars in the shape
OF az unconstitutional exporttax on cot
ton, which had never been refunded to
her.
This ruling hangs over the House OF
Representatives, let that body do what il
may. We write without knowing what
was done in the House yesterday by way
OF compromise. This, however, is not
material. Whatever may have been
done or may be done in the case of the
bill to refund the direct tez, the dam
gerous weapon lies In sight Isady to be
rsed and surely destined to be used by
every sggrieyed minority in the House
sf Representatives