New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-02-10
V,LJORITF RULE.

The IDCmOCldtlC UllipilIf '"4''''N 49,
argue in their comments on changes OF rulings
propo,ed by the majority. they Pfo'eSD
onqIily. and use much cNtrayagani language
bu, they do not reason. The contrast between
tho strong statement on behalf of the majority,
showing the necessity for changes IN the rules
IN order TO get the business of the country
transacted at ALL and the feeble reply by the
minoIitv. i, like the contrast in the House
between the COOL strong and rcsolutc leader III
the Speakers chair and the excited, but IN
clfectual minority on the floor
Mr.. Crisp. Of Georgia. let the cat ont OF the
boc when he admitted that general public
fooling that the rules needed changing had I'M
Jonbtedly been produced by the too frequent
resort to iilibuStorug in the last Congress III
order TO defeat measures which the House might
Otherwise have passed. That is plainly true
and it is also true that this gross abuse at
tIactcd more public attention because the NIL
clustering was carried on almost always by a
SQUAD of Democrats mainly Southern who were
not wiling to allow measures TO be brought TO
q vote lest they should he passed by the aid OF
many OF their own party. That was me sole
cIound Of resistance TO the Direct Tax bill, and
Transferring was repeatedly rcSOrted 10, because
in no other way could direct action on removal
Of taxes on tobacco or other changes of revenue
be prevented. Appropriations which this squad
of Southcrners dislillcd they threatened to de-
feat. or did defeat 10y shameful abuse OF the
rules If they did some good in curhng the
proHicatc wastcfulne,s of the Democratic ma
ioritv. il can hardly hc denied that they pre-
vented much legislation which the country
sorcy needed. and for which a majority would
have voted even in the last Democratic House
if direct vote could have been reached.
Men who observed these proceedings
understood exactly what 1t meant when
these very Democrats threatened 20 fibuSicr.
If necessary. through the whole Of long sos
sion. in order 20 defeat a change Of the rules or
inst decisions i'm case, Of contests or measures
10 secure the freedom of elections II was
certain that, under the rules rs they stood last
year. a mere minority of q minority number
los than half the Democratic members OF the
House. would have had power to carry out
these threats II more iudicious or patriotic
leaders had opposed them il would have made
no difference as II made no difference at the
last session. But there WAS only too much
reason 10 believe that the entire Democratic
force i'm the House would uphold the rcyolu-
,ioni>ts in trying to deprive the majority Of
the power entrusted 20 il by the people The
ONLY remedy possible was such a change OF the
rule, a> 20 take from a minority the power
thu, to dictate t those entrusted by the people
with responsibility for the discharge Of bust
ness
The plea now sct mp that waStcful appro-
pria'ions have in times past boon prevented hy
flibu>.cring and that such appropriation, are
likely 10 be- made ia future if the minority l.
left unchccked is surely one of the most re-
mukahlc ever offered by people who profess to
believe i'm self government. There can he no
more manifest disregard Of the principles upon
which the Government OF the United states j.
la.cd than this ayowcd cudeayor to dcpriy"
a majority of the people, representatives, oil
power 10 decide in regard to expenditures of
tine peoples money, ON the ground that the ma
iority cannot he trusted and power 20 veto
IL, will must bc lodged with a minority. Such
is no' the intention Of the American form Of
government The people Of this country do
not believe in government by an ariStocracy.
even if II happens 20 be composed Of south
eincr> who rebel against the law, when the
laws d. not suit them.