Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-22


right. II was part OF the genius Of Ameri-
can institutions. and he who would tram
pie upon II must take the responsibility.
Mr.. Gear, OF Iowa, said that the custom
OF tollcrs grew up in tho House under u
special rule. There was no such rule now.
and therefore il was perfectly competent
for the Speaker 10 decide the result Of the
question as seemed boat TO him in his
Judgment.
Mr.. Crisp argued that as the decision de-
prived the minority OF n constitutional
right he contended that tho demand for
tclicrs was virtual questioning OF the
count Of the Speaker.
Mr.. Perkins, OF Kansas, said no one had
challenged the correctness of the Speakers
count
Mr.. Crisp replied that the gentlemen on
the democratic side undertook 10 be re-
spectful. They questioned the count Of
the Speaker under parliamentary law.
They had asked for tellers. That had not
necessarily reflected upon the Speaker. II
might be that they thought he bad counted
improperly or had made a mistake; and by
calling for tcllcrs they could have the mis-
take corrected IN respectful and decent
way.
Mr.. Cutchcon, Of Mchigan. said II the
argument Of the gentleman from Georgia
tMr. Crisp) was correct and that an attempt
was beng made TO throw tho constitutional
rights OF the minority the House was IA
the throes OF n revolution. But he contT0-
vcrted the argument and challenged any
one 10 show IN the Constitution any right
gwen TO the minority to demand tollers.
The constitutional right Of the minority
yeas and nays-was not interfercd with.
Mr.. Crisp quoted from the Record.
Mr.. Carlisle entered into discussion Of
what parliamentary law consisted in. He
went back 20 the rules OF the English
House ~ Commons, upon which the rules
OF previous congresses had been founded.
In constituting that parliamentary law the
gentlemen must construe II in relation TO
ITS notifications by the rules Of
former congresses. Those rules had been
the result Of experience. The members
must look back TO the manual, which was
printed from year 10 year. 10 find set OF
rules winch the experience Of members
had shown to be applicable to the orderly
conduct OF the business in the House, 30
that 10 had been held (and rightly held
that IN the absence Of conventional rules
IL must look 10 those rules and apply them
50 far rs could be IN the situation in which
the House found itself. From time lmme-
mortal it had been the law Of English
speaking legislative assemblies that no
presiding officer could make an absolute
final decision 10 bind the body over which
he presided. II the presiding officer de-
cided q question Of order it was in the
power OF any member TO appeal and take
the Judgment Of the body itself. In the
English Parliament il was in the power Of
any single member TO demand division
anu have tellcrs. Congress had placed a
restriction on that rule, and had provided
that counting tellcrs must be demanded bv
one fifth of Il quorum. What redress did "a
member have against a wrong count by
the Speaker if he could not have the yeas
and naysl The man who sat in the chair
might 10 all the legislative work trans
acted in this body. He submitted that tins
House, in the absence of any conventional
rules established by itself, was to be
governed by the general parliamentary
law rs modified by the rules heretofore
prevailing.
IN submitting the appeal to the House
the Speaker said: The CHAIR has always
been unable to sec how it is possible for a
house which has passed out Of existence
% bind by rules and regulations a house
which was 20 come into existence in the
future. The recent decisions by the
Speaker of the House have been to
the effect that the rules Of the
last House did not become the rules
Of the present House directly. Tho Chair
ls unable 10 see how they can become the
rules of the present House indirectly. The
very fact that they have been made as
-
cial enactment. Ii they become by ind
recti0n the rules of the next House, 1t
would not become necessary TO recnact
them. This House, then, is governed by
a general parliamentary law, such
rs has been established in the same manner
that the common law Of England was es-
tablshed-by decisions and general
acquiescencc of the people in tho system
which governs ordinary assemblies.
Of laf oh MI 40 frn
ouently ordered tellcrs since the beginning
Of this session of Congress; but the ques-
ton has come up now as n question OF
right, and whatever the personal wishes OF
the occupant Of the chair might be he was
OBLIGED to decide in accordance with what
he regards as the unmlstakable parha-
mentary law Of the land.
Mr.. Cannon moved 10 lay the appeal on
the table.
Mr.. Mills raised the point Of order that
the parliamentary law recognized no such
The Speaker overruled the point Of
order and submitted Mr.. CannOn's motion.
II was agreed tO-1i9 to 1876.
The question then REQUIRED on Mr.:
Blaud's motion TO amend the journal, and
II was lost -l90 10 40. The journal was
then approved. -,
eetts. the Worlds Fair Committee was
granted leave to sit during the sessions OF
the House.
MIR. Grain, Of Texas offered resolution
directing the Committee on the judiciary
10 report within one week whether the late
Sergeant-at-Arms was % disbursing officer,
and II SO TO report bill providing Tor me
payment of the salaries of members. Re
fcrrcd.
The House then resumed. in Committee
Of the Whole. the Oklahoma town-site blll'
but made 40 progress. The committee
rose and the House adjourned.