The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-02-13
RULES OF THE GAG
FEATURES OF THE MAJORITY REPORT
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON RULES.
CHOKING OFF THE DEMOCRATS.
The Minority Report Signed by Carlisle
and Randall Shows the Revolution
ary Tendency of the Majority.

Ienuency Oh Uhe
WASHINGTON, D. c., February s.-Though
not formally presented in the house the
majority and minority reports upon the
new code of rules proper have been filed
with the journal clerk and ordered printed.
The majority report in great detail explains
the difference between the proposed code
and that previously in force, but in most
instances the explanation is unaccompa-
MED by any argument in regard TO the
rule authorizing the speaker to count a
quorum.
The report says: Clause of rule 10 di-
rects the method of ascertaining a quorum
when members present refuse to vote on
roll call. The process of ascertaining
the presence of quorum to do business
under the constitution would ordinarily be
under control of the speaker, who would
derive his information from his own sense,
or by aid of clerk, or in any way which
would satisfy his mind of the accuracy of
| the count Under our system of roll calls
| it has been deemed more convenient to as
| certain and announce the votes of mem
| bers and the presence of those who refuse
to vote at the same time and by the same
| means.
| Discussing the new clause to rule 26 that
| mo dilatory motion shall be entertained
| by the speaker" the report says: This
clause is merely declaratory of parliament
ary law. There areIno words which can be
framed which will limit members to the
proper motions. Any motion the most
| conducive to progress in public business or
the most salutary for the comfort and con-
yenience of members may be used
for the purpose of unjust and
oppressive delay. The majority
may be kept in session for a long time
against reason and good sense, sometimes
at the whim of single member and some
! times for still longer period at the will OF
one-fifth. who are misuslng the provision
of the constitution for the yeas and nays by
the aid of simple motions, proper in them
| selves, but which are improperly used.
In the early days such prostitution of
legitimate motions, caused by anger, will
fulness and party zeal, was not so much as
named among legislators. Today the abuse
has grown to such proportions that
parliamentary law which governs Ameri-
can assemblies has found it necessary to
keep pace with the evil and to enable the
majority by the intervention of the pre-
means the extraordinary abuse of power
on the part sometimes of very few men,
bers Why should an assembly be kept
from its work by motions made only to de-
lay and worry? Even if the original de-
sign of the motion was salutary and sen
| sible why should one-fitth even be entitled
to waste half an hour of them selves and of
the four other fifths by motion to adjourn
when the majority manifestly do not want
| to adjourpP
If the suggestion should be made that
great power is here conferred the answer is
that the approval of the house is the very
breath of the nostrils ofthe speaker, and as
nobody on earth is SO jealous of its liber-
ties and so impatient of control we may be
quite sure that no arbitrary interruption
will take place, and, indeed, no Interrupt
ton at all until such misuse of proper mo-
| tions, is made clearly evident to the
| world; but also such action has taken
place on the part OF the house as well in
sure the speaker of the support of the
body whose wishes are his law, so that III
the end it is power exercised by the
house through its properly constituted
| officer.
Considering the question OF providing
that 100 members shall constitute quorum
| in committee of the whole, the report states
| thatthls change was rendered necessary by
members refusing to vote when roll is
| called. and points out the fact that every.
thing done in committee has to be reported
to the house, and that nothing is i'll any
way final.
In conclusion the majority report says
I"Your committee have thus gone over
briefly, the proposed new code of rules
They believe, If followed out in good faith
| it will at once enable the house to have due
control over its business, and at the samt
time provide those safeguards of delibera.
| .ion to debate which will enable the houst
to act wisely.
| MINORITY REPORT.
The minority report signed by Messrs
Carlisle and Randall, reviews the proposed
| code and criticiZes many of its features
! The first change antagoniZed is that to rule
"a. On this subject the minority says:
Under clause 4 of rule "a no bill on the
house calendar can be reached for consid-
| Grafton unless called up by the committee
| that reported it, and under clause of the
same rule no individual member can make
an original motion for the purpose of con-
| sidering any particular bill in committee of
| the whole house on the STATE of the union.
| When, However, u motion has been made
| by direction of a committee to go into
committee of the whole on the
| particular bill an individual member
may have to amend by designating another
bill. This is the extent of his rights under
the proposed rule and it is evident that he
will be placed at great disadvantage. We
are unable to discover any sufficient reason
for this discrimination against members
who may not be fortunate enough to secure
the cooperation of committees in making
their motions. If majority vote is suih.
cient to suspend the rules and fix q
day for the consideration OF a
bill when the motion is made
by direction of a committee. certainly the
| same vote ought to be sufficient when
made by an individual member, upon his
responsibility and in behalf of his consult
uents.
The only reasonable explanation for thi:
discrimination is that it is the policy of the
proposed rules to suppress individual mem
bers of the house as far as possible, and in
crease the power of the committees. Ir
fact, under the proposed rules, individual