St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-09-17
The House Gives It a Large
Part Of a Days At
tentiOn.
Most of the Members Shocked
at the Remarks Of the
Fiery Buckeye.
The Whole Matter Finally Re-
fePred to the Committee
on Judiciary.
Speedy Passage Of the Anti
Lottery Bill by the
Senate.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16.-The house
this morning proceeded to the consid-
Grafton of the Enloe resolution relative
to the Kennedy speech. The resolution
is as follows:
Resolved That the clerk of the house of
representatives be, and he is hereby directed
to communicate to the senate the fact that
the house reprobates and condemns the un-
parliamentary language of Hon. Robert P.
Kennedy, representative from the state OF
Ohio published in the congressional record
OF Sept IA, $780, purporting to be a speech
delivered Oh the floor of the house Sept. 3,
1890, i'll which revised and amended speech
he repeats his impeachment of the honesty
of senators individually and of the senate as
a body.
The pending question was on point
of order against the resolution, raised
by Mr.. Grosvenor, of Ohio. Mr.. Blount,
of Georgia, in arguing the point of
order, recalled the Brooks-Sumner epi-
sOde, and cited the action of the house
in that case. The gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kennedy had been SO indig-
nant at the action of certain senator
that he had proceeded to denounce him
in vigorous language. The senator had
been denounced as felOn and as a
traitor. He had been charged with
conSpiring with another senator to be-
tray an obligation he owed to the coun-
try. Whenever member of this body
arraigned senator as
Felon and a Traitor,
by reason of his conduct in regard to
to legislation, there could be no question
but that the character Of the house was
assalled. If there were any question
about it here, the public interest mani
tested throughout the country showed
the public conception of the attitude of
the gentleman from Ohio and duty of
the house He (Mr. Blount) was not
here to vindicate the character of the
senator from Pennsylvania. He was
not here toinvestigate whether OF not the
charges made by the gentleman from
Ohio were true or not. These were
matters with which no member had
anything to do, but the question of the
character and dignity of the house was
one with which members had something
to do and for which the people would
hold them to rigid responsible
ity. Here was case where member
of the other body was deliberately,
carefully and SOlemnly denounced for
"
it be said that the gentleman had spoken
OF the chairman of the Republican ma
tional committee?" What had the chair
man of the Republican national commit
tee to do in the senate chamber? The
gentleman had referred to the senator
from Pennsylvania. and the designa-
tion of him as the chairman of the Re-
publican national committee was merely
device to escape responsibility. The
speaker in rendering his decision said
that there could be no doubt that the
legislative proceedings of the two CO.
ordinate branches of the legislature
would be very much impeded if
Improper Reflections
were allowed by the members of the one
body upon the members of the other.
This was so plain, so well established,
that it seemed Unnecessary to say a
word in regard TO it. 1t was founded on
that principle which caused members of
the house to speak of each other by
phrase, rather than by name. 1t was
intended, as far as possible. to keep
personal feeling out of legislation, and
the chair was very glad, not only for the
advantage of the relations between the
house and the senate, but for the adj
vantage of the relations among men,
bers of the house, that this question
should be passed upon in such man
ner as would make an impression upon
all. The chair therefore overruled the
point of order. Mr.. Bayne, OF
Pennsylvania. offered resolution
referring the Enloe resolu-
speech, to the committee on judiciary,
with instructions to that committee to
examine the speech and the rules and
practice regulating debate, and report
its findings to the house within three
days. Mr.. Enloe thought there was no
occasion for sending the resolution to
any committee. The facts were before
the house, and there was no judicial
question involved. Mr.. McMillln, of
Tennessee, thought that the house
should purge its records of such cal
umny as found in the speech of the
gentleman from Ohio. There was but
one thing fol, the house to do. 1t could
not cenSure the gentleman; it could not
eXpel him, and it could not afford to let
its record be encountered with
Vile Calumnies.
He (AIr. McMillin) was not here to
defend the senator who had been at
tackled. He was not here to say whether
the charges against the senator were
true OF false. The question was
whether the rules of the house should
be observed. Referring to recent disor-
derby scenes on the floor of the house.
he said that he spoke of them with
bluShing and in shame. Language had
been used which he would not repeat
here or elsewhere; and the scenes had
eliminated in fist fight. Was this
thing to have no end? Was the pugi-
list and not the statesman to be in chief
requlsition? For one, he thought that
the house should act, and act
| at once. Mr.. Dalzell. of Pennsyl-
vania, said that the speech of
| the gentleman from Ohio had been de-
| livered while an election case had been
under consideration. The floor had
been accorded him on consideration
| that he speak after the usual time for
adjournment. This accounted for the
| fact that there were no Pennsylvania
members present. Upon reading the
| report of the Speech In the press dis
patches, the Pennsylvania delegation
had drawn up a resolution substantially
similar to that offered by the gentle
man from Tennessee; but it had ar
rived at the conclusion that such a
resolution would not be in order with
out citation of the language COM
planned Of. The delegation had there
| upon decided that the resolution could
not be offered until
| The Speech Was Printed
! in tie Record. This was the reason
why no notice was taken of the speech
until yesterday. He did not believe
| that there was any difference of opinion