The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1889-08-02
Mr.. eLAlNs.s DECISION.

Mr.. eLAiNE's DECISION.
| 70 Shuts shs Door In the Face q IN On.
prinsipled Minority.
Since the existing rules OF the Ma
honal House Of Representatives per.
nit few obstructionists to bring
Sbout deadlock and stop the prog
ess Of legislation whenever they
Iease, it is claimed by the Democrats
hat the filibustering device can be
used to prevent any amendment of the
rules. and the abuse thus be made to
foster and perpetuate ITSELF As soon
As a change is proposed in the rules to
DO away with the abusive obstruction
list practice the Democrats intend to
begin filibustering and deny the ma
iority the right to vote on the amend
ment The Republicans should at
once raise the point of order that dill
atory motions can not be entertained
when the question is on the amend
ment of its rules Several decisions
show that such is the correct doctrine
even under the existing rules. Mr..
Blaine. when Speaker of the Forty
third Congress. decided such q ques-
ton as follows:
The chair has repeatedly ruled that, pending
q proposition to change the rules, dilatory res
olutions could not be entertained, and for this
reason he has several times ruled that the
right of each House to determine what shall be
its rules 10 an organic right, expressly given by
the constitution of the United States. The
rules are the creature OF that power, and of
course they can not be used to destroy the
power. The House is incapable, by any form
Of rules, OF divestng itself Of its inherent con-
stitutional power to exerc Sc its function to de-
has always announced, upon q proposition to
change the rules of the House, he would never
entertain dilatorv motion.
Mr.. Blaine stated the question with
characteristic clearness and force. and
the precedent he established was after
ward approved and followed by Speak
err Randall, and will constitute an in
valuable precedent if the Democrats
attempt by filibustering to cut the
House off from the exercise of the
right to amend its rules. The power
to adopt rules comes from the consti-
tuition and belongs to each House and
can be exercised at any time. But
while one House of Representatives
may adopt such rules as it sees fit it
can not make them binding on its sue
cessor an hour longer than the latter
sees fit to accept and adopt them. The
House of the Fifty-first Congress gets
its power to make rDles from the same
source as each preceding House-from
the constitution. While each House
may adopt its own rules it can not per-
form that function for its successor or
throw obstacles IN the way of the lat
ter's exercise of constitutional right
Any such doctrine would put the rules
above the constitution and give one
House power to extend its authority
into the term of another and defeat the
rule of the majority
In England, where sovereign legisla-
tive powers are vested in the Lords and
Commons. it is said the one thing the
law-naking body can not do is to boldly
StdtutC dlothCE
ment may not repeal. A Parliament
may do almost any thing except to
bind future Parliaments and usurp
their authority. Each Parliament has
precisely the same power. 1t can per-
init the acts of its predecessors to
stand or repeal or amend them as it
sees fit 1t is precisely the same with
the rules in the American House of
Representatives. Each House has ab-
solute control over it's rules. and
can make such regulations as it sees
fit, but can not compel its successor to
accept them against the will of the
majority. The Fifty-frst House has
the same right to make rules as the
First the Tenth. the Fortieth, the
Fiftieth or any other House. No rules
made in preceding Congress and
which permits filibustering to dead
lock House and control the majority
should be permitted to interfere with
the right of the Fifty first House to
adopt its own rules unhampered by
any regulations made by former
Houses. The Republicans should ad-
here strictly to Mr.. Blaine's ruling and
be satisfied with nothing less.-Chi-
cago Tribune.