Telegram-herald., 1890-02-12
BEFORE THE HOUSE.
Debate on the Proposed Change
Ia tie Rules.
ARGUMENTS MADE Oh BOTH SIDES.
a Propesitsos - Ito4it ths DAsea-.s4s@
ga tas Ns~ Code Xotea Dosa
~ al overs hSlaDlDk
430rity.

wAsHINGToS. Feb III In TIE House
today ths jouFnsi Of Mondays proceed
inzs. containing yes and nav vote
upon which the Speaker counted
quorum. TIE Democrats would not BY
their silence acquiesee IN It's approval
and a roll-call Wss rendered necessary.
II vas sPProyed-yeas, 80, RAYS, l.
me Speaker counting quorum
Mr.. CannOa IN called up for con
sideratiOn the proposed code OF rules,
and be offered g resol Ution proving that
general debate shall close az o'clock
wednesday and that after debate
under the i've minute rule the previous
question shall be considered as ordered
at oclocb wednesday
Vigorous protests against cutting on
OF discussion in such short order were
made by MessrS McMllln, Springer
McCreary and Flower, but they were Of
no effect, and Mr. Cannon demanded
the previous question. But the House
would not sustain this demand, and.
many Republicans voting against II, the
demand vas rejected by an oyerwhelm-
ing vote Of IS 20 l49
" ArhANtrlONs GU Al INC tANN0o
Monday the new code % rules was re port
ed 70 the House by Mr.. Cannon Ill. from
the committee on rules. Proceeding 20
criticise the old rules. Mr.. Cannon said
that in the last Congress the business
OF the people had been piled up
on the calendars and not per
cent OF that business mad been
considered by the House. Almost as
much time had been given 10 the OBJ
struction Of the minority as had been
given TO the consideration of the bust
moss of 90, 600, 900 people. He defended
the proposed change prohibiting the
Speaker from entertaining dilatory
motions No Speaker would dare
20 refuse 70 entertain motion until il
was patent 20 all that IL was dilatory,
and then the Speaker should refuse
20 entertain IL. He denied that the
proposed rule was tyrannical; but If II
was then IL was tyranny sustained by
the majority Of the House. Discussing
the rule permitting the Speaker 20 count
a quorum. he said that il the Democrats
wanted TO go 10 the country as against
the principle contained in the rule the
Republicans were ready 10 meet them
and let the people choose.
Mr.. Mills TEX. said that the proposed
code would reverse legislative action
and run back on the track upon which
the Government had been running for
ward for century. 1t was founded
upon the proposition that the minority
had no rights; that the majority
was all-powertul; that it spoke by
inspiration, and that its action
was impregnable It was founded on
the principle that the King was divine
" appointed and that he could do no
wrong. That was not the theory upon
which the fathers had builded this great
temple Of liberty. The great object
Of thu Government as proclaimed
by the declaration Of independ-
ence was 10 secure the inalien.
able rights of the citizen The Gov
eminent was a Government Of checks
and balances. Rules were intended
not only 70 facilitate business but topro-
tect tho minority. and they had always
done so since the foundation of the
Government The minority had asked
for rules, but for rules which, while
providing for the procedure Of bust
ness. would preserve and protect the
rights Of the minority.
Mr.. Rsyne pa justified the com
mittee on rules in bringing in the pro
posed code, arguing that it would facili-
tate the transaction of business and
would prevent a small minority from
multiplying the will of the majority 81
tho epresentstives Of the people His
argument was largely devoted %
a defense Of the constitutionality
OF the Speaker permitting tho
counting Of mem bers present and not
voting 70 make quorum. and be cited
the practice Of many State Legislatures
and legal decisions in support Of his
view
Mr. Rlount GA , made an argument
in opposition 70 the proposed rules.
dwelling with especial antagonism upon
the clause making 100 mem bers quorum
in committee OF the whole.
Pending discussion The House a..
-or~-rI