Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1890-06-22

10 CultIl1lH Ills ilOilOn ~ ttthO NAlN DIV SA
bill from the Speakers table. He an
nounced that he desired TO withdraw his
appeal, but Mr.. Mckinley insisted on a
vote, so Mr.. Bland's motion to reconsider
was put and defeated-90 to l20.
The roll was called on Mr.. Mckinley S
motion to
TABLE MIR. BLAND's APPEAL,
and it prevailed-yeas 146, nays -. All of
the free coinage men, except Mr.. De Haven,
who did not vote voted TO table the appeal,
as well as the following Democrats: Messrs !:
Buckalew, Campbell, Dunphy, Fitch, Gels
senhainer, Lewis, McAdoo, Mutchler and
Tracey. A large number of Democrats re-
fused 10 vote at all.
Mr.. Forman, of Illinois, rising TO ques-
ton of privilege, said that the journal show
ed that he was present and refused to vote
when the administrative customs bill was
passed, when, as a matter of fact he was in
Springfield, Ills.
The regular order being demanded the
Speaker said that the question had been
discussed yesterday as to the condition of
the bill (the silver bilD which had been re-
ferred by the Speaker and the record of
which. in the Journal, had not been concur
red in by the House-had,been said to be eff
faced.
ut IulCS IOQuAANQ Ahob ouSA DAAAo " ~
ferred and a statement to that effect
should be put in the Journal and record.
The statement was made and the House
saw fit not to permit il to become part of
the Journal. That left a somewhat diff
cult question as TO the status of the bill.
Individually the Chair believed, as did the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Conger) that
the refusal to record fact did not obliter-
ate the fact itself. The action OF the
House might have its origin in another mo-
tive-that it would not
GIVE ITS SANCTION
10 a record, in the Journal of transaction
which il desired to subvert, and while it
might seem TO the Chair that some definite
action should be taken by the House, yet as
gentlemen might have noticed, parliamen-
tarv law did not seem to be an exact sci
ence. Laughter and applause on the Dem
ocratic side.
The Chair. however, desired to give the
House all proper transaction of business
which il might desire subject to the rules.
The reference was made in accordance
with the custom which had prevailed ever
since the establishment of the rules. The
Chair believed that the Senate amend
ments TO the silver bill came within the
purview of rule 20, which prescribed that
any amendments made by the Senate TO
any House bill must be considered first in
Committee of the Whole, if it would have
been so liable had it originated in the
House.
The Senate amendments TO this bill struck
out the first section and substituted another
section containing no words OF approprla-
ton, and proposing different line OF ac-
tion. to-wit, the fashioning of silver bars
and the coming of all silver presented, in
stead of the purchase of silver bullion.
This and other substitutions were plainly
new propositions requiring consideration
in Committee of the Whole. The Chair
was of the opinion that the Dill
SHOULD BE REFERRED
To the Committee on Coinage, from the pro
vision that all proposed legislation must be
referred to certain committees. Under
these circumstances, and in conformity
with the rules, the Chair announced that
the bill had been referred-was now re-
ferred-to the Committee ON Coinage,
WEIGHTS and Measures. An appeal could
be taken if the House desired to express its
Judgment upon the question.
Mr.. Bland. of Missouri, Immediately ap-
pealed and proceeded to argue that the ap-
propriatlng clause in the original House
bin and the bill as il came from the Senate,
were similar in terms and purpose, and
that the bill was not subject to reference to
Committee of the whole Besides, he held
that the point was made too late.
Mr.. Springer, of Illinois, declared that
the silver bill was the only one which had
been subjected to this kind of treatment.
Mr.. Peters, of Kansas, said that all gen
eral appropriation bills take same course.
Mr.. Springer denied the statement and
challenged the Speaker or any one else to
produce a single case. This was an
ATTEMPT TO REvOLUTIoNIzE
the rules-rules themselves revolutionary
in conception. The republicans and their
speaker were dodging the silver question.
Mr.. Crisp, of Georgia, said that IL was
evident that there was deliberate lnten-
ton TO prevent direct vote upon this
question.
The House should conform to the rules.
The rules were extremely vicious-they
did what they were designed to do. They
nut it in the power of the majority to do
prettv much as they pleased-to stiie the
voice of the minority. But, in this case,
the majority of the House had hanged to
his side. and when il sought, under the
rules. 10 do business, a way was found-a
discreditable way-to prevent 1t. This was
the only opportunity TO get vote upon free
coinage. If the Speaker was sustained ana
the bill went TO the Coinage Committee, II
IL ever came back again before the House,
il would come under a rule that would
keep il entirely within the control of the
gold men, who alone be recognized to move
amendment If the free coinage men
would do their duty they could get vote
upon the proposition before the sun went
Mr. Townsend, of Colorado, said that he
had voted as he had because he felt 1t was
his duty to his people to endeaver TO get
free coinage. The characterization oil silver
was an infamous crime and his people de-
sired TO reverse its effects. All that he
asked was that the matter should be con-
sidered.
opposition to the Speakers ruling that the
bin was on the Speakers table, and open
TO the disposition of the House.
Mr.. Herman, of Oregon, said the silver
question was the issue of the election held
four weeks ago in his State. He had
AGREED To SUPPORT
the Republican State platform declaring
in favor of free coinage. Those were ms
sailing orders .,.,
sentatives of the silver producing States
did not of course view this question from a
tecnical standpoint. They were mostly
new members and not trained parliamen-
tarians But he could read plain Englsh,
and when the rules said the bill must De
considered in committee OF the whole, IL
did not say and did not mean that IT was 10
the Coinage Committee.
Mr.. Clements, of Georgia, said that the
question ought not to be political or party
question. He warned the friends of free
coinage that if they passed this station the
probability was that they would not have
an opportunity to vote for free coinage in
connection with this bill.
MIR. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, held
that it was for the House by a fair and open
vote to determine whether the Speaker
should be sustained or whether the House
itself should dispose of the bill. He said
he snw no objection to the reference Of the