Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-12
bill was discussed until . O'clock and then


failure OF the northern States 10 provide
sufficient school facilities, aud referred
tneeringly. TO the New York Ere,,i,o Post
as maintaining a bureau OF rnendacitv To
spread abroad Misrepresentation in regard
Mr.. FRYE put the question to Mr.. Blair
ns 20 whether the State Of Texas with n sur-
plus Of over $4,000, 900 and co. 0Co e0o acres
OF pubic lands, making q grand total of
5000 600 that could DO used Ger educa-
uonal purposes, required any helm from
the General Government 70 educate her
children.
=. MIR. Blair declared his disbelief in Mr..
frye's statement and said that II did moi
represent anything like the actual condi-
ton OF lexas. He did not know what tho
State of Texas might not do. but he did
know that not half Of the children of
Texas attended school al ali
without concluding his openino gpeech
Mr.. Blair yielded to motion 10 rroceed Ia
executive business, and, after session for
that purpose, the Senate at $40 adjourned.
House of Representatives.
The Journal Of yesterdays proceedings
containing the yea and nav vote upon
Which the Speaker counted a quorum, the
Democrats would not by their silence ac-
quicsce in approval, and a roll-call was
rendered necessary. IL was approved
yeas $50, nays ] (Mr. Buckalew)-the
speaker counting quorum.
hr. Cannon, of Illinois, called up for
consideration the proposed code of rules.
ana ne offered q resolution providing that
The general debate shall close at O'clock
tomorrow, and that after the debate under
the hve-mnute rule the previous question
shall be considered as ordered at 4 o'clock
tomorrow.
vigorous protests against cutting of the
discussion IN SUCH short order were made
by Messrs. McMillin, Hooker, Springer.
McCreary, and Flower, but they were OF
no effect, aud Mr. Cannon demanded the
previous question. But tho House would
not sustain this demand, and many Repub-
hcans voting against IL. the demand was
rejected by the overwhelming vote OF IS
to l49.
MIR. Springer Immediately claimed the
floor, but Mr.. Cannon declined TO Yield il.
lie proposed either TO lose the previous
question or ut least TO get some indication
at what time this year the gentlemen on
the other side were willing to close the de-
bate. lie demanded the yeas and nays on
ms demand for the previous question. But
not sufficient number Of members arose
20 enforce this demand and (amid applause
ron the Democratic side) the speaker SO
announced. Alr. Cannon then yielded the
toOr, recognizing az he said that his col
league (Mr. Springer) was in charge Of the
resolution. lLaughter.l The Democrats
were Jubilant over their victory. and as
Mr.. Springer rose TO make the motion he
was greeted by many OF his colleagues as
being in charge Of the proposed new code.
Mr.. Springer then offered a resolution pro-
ylding that the general debate shall pro-
coed until adjournment tomorrow, after
which the code shall be considered under
the fyo-minute rule until ) o'clock Friday,
when tho previous question shall be con-
sidered Us ordered. This resolueon was
adopted without objection, and Mr.. Can
non good-naturedly crossed over TO the
Democratic side and congratulated his col
league upon its success.
Mr.. GrOsyenOr defended the rule per-
hitting tho Speaker TO count q quorum,
and criticised the action of the minority
in breaking the quorum by a refusal 10
vote. Every member of the House has
been guilty OF this action. He confessed
that be himself bad been guilty Of joining
in this method of preventing legislation
on many occasions. aud he was ready to
stand hero and say, as his colleague (slr
Mckinley had said, that he had never
done 1t and prevented the action of the
majority that he had not felt that he was
guilty Of an unjustfiable and almost I'M
pardonable breach Of duty 60 his cODstitu-
euts. In his opinion the rights of the mi
noritv were ouded when the minority had
had recorded its votes against it, and had
protested TO the contrary. He knew. Of
no other GOd-givcn or Constitution
given rights of tho minority. He
contended that the proposed rules
instead of vesting power in the Speaker
would prevent the One-man power
from ruling over tho House, as had been
the case in the Forty-ninth and Fiftieth
Congresses, when the Speaker had declined
20 recognize motions COR the passage Of the
tobacco-tax bin, the Blair educational bill,
and the general pension bills. The Demo-
Gratis were here to-day to obstruct legisla-
ton. The whole purpose of the Demo
cratic party on this floor was TO obstruct
and impede the representatives OF the pco--
pie from going forward with the business OF
the people. Tho Republican party was on
the side OF progress. The Democratic
party stood as an obstructionist and ne
thing else The Republican party had maui
gurated every political reform IN the cOuu-
try since 1856. II was vain thing TO look
to the Democratic party to recognize the
existence of reform until il had been forced
upon it by the action of the people. HE
proposition now made was That the ma
iority should take possession OF the re
sponsibility which had been placed upon
it by the votes of the people OF the coun-
try.
MIR. Holman, of Indiana, characterized
the proposed Code Us being a complete
revolution in parliamentary procedure and
extraordinary in its character. He espe-
cially antagonized the clause proVlding
that one hundred members shall constitute
"A quorum in the Committee OF the Whole,
declaring that this provision would place
great appropriation bills at the mercy OF a
handful of the majority. He spoke OF yal1-
Gus occasions upon which q resort TO NIL
clustering methods had been OF bcneht 10
the country, and referred with much EN-
phasis TO the defeat of the force bill 10y the
minority under the lead of Samuel j. Ran
dali. and he declared that Mr.. Randals
course at that time would crown ms
memory with honor as long as the recorus
of Congress would survive.
Mr. Payson, of Illinois. defended the
proposed code and urged the necessity 81
rules which would give to the majority
power to take affirmative action. ;,
Mr. Hatch, Of Missouri, said he would
not attempt TO argue in detail the radical
and violent changes in the rules. tie
made war upon the report rs an entirely.
lie made war upon 1t as a change IN the
system of procedure of the House
because he thought that he could, see
through the veil the motive behind
it. lie was opposed to the report an
toto because it was q partisan question
because it came from the Republican SIDE
Of the House, representing the hepuoheah
party: because il came from the majority
If the Republican representatives, which
had whipped into the traces the minority
OF their party, and compelled them, under
the pains and penalties Of the party a lash Sa
loved in parties. He stood by his party.
lie was not complaining that the RepubllI-
can organization had been strong enough
to induce some of its strongest men to
support the rules But in that inducemens
IeY dancer TO the country. he deprecated
any am harsh language or epithets addressed
10 To- the Speaker that did not include
in their structures the entire Republican
party. The Speaker. bad as he VAS r, Wa 10
S %T1S' had time and time again sustained
the Speaker in his revolutionary ana uIl-
institutional cor rulings. The Republicans
had acted well in eecting Mr.. Reed a SP peSro
er. To-day Mr.. Reed represented more
cieorlv and fairly than any other man the
ocbs,oe and purpose and determination OF