New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-08-27

ING ADSENTEEs sTIRs UP VAST DEMOCRATIC
wRATH-'ICEMAN" TURNER TALKING
AGAINST TINE no PROGRESS
MADE WITH THE BILL.
fpY TELEGRAPH TO THE ThIBUNE.r
Washington, Aug. 2e.-Thc Lard bill madc no prog
in the House to-day. The opponents OF bhe piii
consumed several hours in the discussion Oh point
Of order, and when they were overruIei rcsOrtd 10
dilatOry tactics. Mr.. Mason OF Illinois, Who ie1 the
minority did it with much sl that the friends OF
the hill thought it would be better to resort to heroic
measures and Mr. Cannon, Of Illinois offered sweep
ing resolution concerning absentecs There were some
matters in the preamble to this resolution which set
the House by tie ears and called down storm OF
wrath-some Of which real, bat a good ccHi mcre
Of which was assumed-upon Mr. Cannon's devoted
head Perhaps the cheapest Of shectron thunder ever
heard In the House of Representatives was that OF
fered by man named Turner, who processes TO
represent enc Of the New York Congress disrc'S'
This particular Turner bids fair to be successful as
borc-a bore Of large dimensions. lie would be soou
for "one-nght stand" in the Bowery for example.
After the reading OF the journal MI Dros.us Vi
Pennsylvania, demanded the regular order, and con
tended that the unfinished business was the Conger
Lard BILL the vote upon the passage OF which saturday
was inconclusivc, owing to the absence Oh -oruu'
Mr.. Baker OF New.York, who was interested in
Siate bill the speakers table, argued that business
on the Speakers table must first be disposed or
Mr.. Blount, of Georgia, read the rule OF tie House
prescribing the order OF business, ana SAID
that it was clear to him that the
unfinished business could not be disposed of until
after the consideration of the business on the Speakers
table. But the speaker had minated that he would
rule not only this question: bnt also on the qcs
ton whether, under the special order, the Lard OH
was the unfinished business. His judgment was tiat
under the terms Of that order the House could not
Tho I ri any further
the terms that to-day and tomorrow were devoted 70
the consideration of the Option bill. The time as
signed to the Lard bill had expired yesterday ana It's
consideration could not be resumed at this time In
support of his position he quoted from the decision
mads by Speaker Reed upon the Copyright Dill IN
that decision the Speaker said "Ihe cEalr Is Oh ue
opinion that. the day having expired which was al
loted to that business, until another day Is allotted 70
that committee (the Committee on Judiciary II VIII
not be competent to act ON that motion" Ia mouoh
relative TO the Copyright BILL.
Mr. Brosius suggested that In that case TIE entire
special order had expired
Mr.. Cannon. of Illinois, inquired whether the gen
tenan from Georgia took the position that LII u'e
pending case, wheu there Yves continuous Speciai
order which expired tomorrow. with the previous
question ard tho yeas and nays ordered on bii liat
bill did not come UP as unfinished business ii nc
SO held what on expiration OF tbs specai oruor
became of tho matter III hand?
Mr.. Blount contended that In the special order
there was distinct time given to each bill meat ond
therein. and the time designated for the Lard bill h'i
expired.
Mr. Adams of Illinois. ar ued that the rule giving
certain number OF days 70 the Committee Oh AeIi
cu,ture was not a continuous order in the sense IN
which 1t was viewed BY his colleague Mr' Cannon)
Mr.. Hatch, of Missouri held the view that tie Lard
hin WAS unfinished business: the previous question
having been ordered and the yeas and nays haVins
been ordered on its passage. In support OF hS Wow
lie quoted from the decision Of Speaker Carlisle On ]e
Oklahoma bill In this case the specA or'l1 H"'i
expired and the Speaker had ruled that the bin came
I'M not by reason Of the special Order but py virtue
of tho fact that the previous question had oeen
ordered.
Mr. Crisp of Georgia argued that the Oil couia hot
.on M, he,ore the disposition bills the speakers
tabIe evcn II 1t had been considered In us Fgui'F
erdcr
Tie Speaker then rendered the following decision
aThe House will have by the discussion that thi'
and similar Questions have had q considerable variety
Of decision. and it would not be possible 10 recoo4e
with each other all the rulings and decisions winch
have been made. The Chair thinks, however, tha'
The decision which was cited by the gentleman iron
Missouri governs this case. AT the anlournmehV vi
Saturday the House had had the previous quesuon
ordered in accordance with the rule. The yeas anu
NAYS also had been ordered The taking OF the yeas
ard nays had been interrupted by the absence OF
quorum Thereupon the gentleman In charge OF INC
bill asked If the matter would come up again. ana
the Chair replied that it thought 1t would mat was
received without dissent on the part OF the HOUSE,
While the Chair does not think that TINS womb 10
controlling matter nevertheless he thinks the House
gh 10 have the opportunity TO pass the question
in the light Of decisions made in former Congresses
and under the intmati0n Of the Chair.
, "The Chair thinks 1t frank to that, as a resut
of this discussion, there Is very grave doubt III IFS
mind as 70 whether the decision With regard 10 ue
DOWNRIGHT bill was correct 1t was in accordance
NTH the decision made in the XLVIT1th Congress
that whenever committee had day, and It's work
vas mot done It's special power ceased. The attention
NJ the Chair had been called to the decision ceo
nv the gentleman from Missouri. II may be saio
tl,at the language of that ruling excepted case ike
this where the next day has actually been gwen 70 a
committee and ii is proper that this statement shouin
ha made in connection with the doubt expressed by
tho chair The Chair therefore thinks that the ques-
ton now before the House Is the roll call on the passage
Of the BILL
Mr. Mason. Of Illinois, appealed from the decision.
On sustaining the decision the vote stooo ieas'
,aa: uoys 23-no quorum-and a call OF the House
gas ordered one hundred and eighty-two members
-, r.snonded 10 their names, Mr.. Brosus moved
40 ospense with further proceedings under the call,
nnon which motion the opponents OF tho Lard DILL III
order TO consume time, ordered the yeas ana nays.
Tho motion TO dispense with further proceedings
WAS sQreed to-yeas, 1877 nays, Gland inc Voc TO
Cured on sustaining the decision OF the speaker fu'
the quorum had vanished and the vote resulted Yeas
100. NAYS 14-the Clerk being unable TO note a
qu):nn.
Another call of the House was thereupon ordered.
One hundred and fifty nine members having responded
TO their names and nineteen members having repotcd
their presence to the Clerk, the Speaker pro tom sr'
Payston) announced that there was quorum present
Mr. Morgan Of Mississippi, moved an adjournment
stating that he did in good faith believing that It
was possible to come to arrangement In regard
TO the Lard bill The motion TO adjourn was lost
yeas 46: nays, 1928
Mr.. Cannon of Illinois, then offered a resolution
recltlng that twice to-day the legislative proceed
lngs have been interrupted by want Of quorum :
that certain members lcnnmeratng them answered
10 their names under the calls, but did not re-
spond the regular roll calls, many OF thcm ieav-
Ing the han so that they could not be counted {:
and that there was large number Of members
absent without leave; and directing the Sergeant