The Portland daily press., 1890-01-22
THE HOUSE SuSTAlNs the SPEAKER.
Mr.. Reed on Disputed Point in Par
iiamentary Practice.
An Effective Reply to Messrs. Bland,
Mills and Carlisle.
Western Farm mortgages Given the
Attention of the Senators.

the House adjourn, and on division the
Speaker declared the motion lost Mr.. Bland
thereupon demanded tellers. According to
the record this morning, the Speaker re-
piled: "There is no provision for tellers.'
No record of this fact was made in the jour
nal this morning and Mr.. Bland moved tl
have the journal amended accordingly. The
Speaker stated he had made the reply in the
interrogative form and the gentleman from
Missouri seemingly acquiesced in it. The
Speaker was informed that such details were
not inserted in the journal. On division
he declared the motion lost.
Mr.. Bland demanded tellers and the
Speaker inquired whether the gentleman
from Missouri had discovered any ground
why tellers should be appointed. The Chair
last night suggested he would like his atten-
tion called to any provision regarding. the
tellers. fs-
MT. Bland said he had demanded tellers
under the general practice Of the
aSs ensestsu the ss@ana sspaaasf Cr asenea eers
and Mr.. Bland demanded the yeas and nays
and almost at the same moment appea led
from the decision of the Chair.
The Speaker said the appeal came rather
late, but he would entertain it.
l1t. WILLIS VI 1cAdcs dIButu tudL u tOL6 Uy
tellers was as much a part of parliamentary
law as motion to adjourn, and was the on
ly vote by which the House could correct
the decision of the Speaker. If the House
did not have the right to this vote, the Speak
er became mere car. When the Speaker
to verify his count, he simply refused to al
low the House to say whether his decision
should stand.
A long debate followed, in which many
members took part. Mr.. Carlisle of Ken
lucky, entered into the discussion of what
back to the rules of the English House of
Commons on which rules of previous Con-
crosses were founded. In constituting that
parliamentary law, gentlemen must construe
1t in relation to the notifications of 1t by the
rules former Congresses. These rules
bers must look to the manual printed from
year to year to find set of rules which the
experience of members has shown applica-
BILE to the orderly conduct of business in the
House. 1t had been held, and rightly, that
In the absence of conventional rules, they
them, as far as could be in the situation In
which the House found itself. From
time immemorial, by the law of Eng
lish speaking legislative assemblies. no
presiding officer could make an absolute and
final decision to bind body over h;, whiea he
question of order. it was In the power of
any member to appeal and take the judg-
ment of the body ITSELF In the English
Parliament 1t was in the power of any sim
gle member to demand 3 division and have
S rule Hensss snd ppoSd naS icsS @ Sq
tellers must be demanded by one-fifth of a
quorum. What redress did member have
against a wrong count by the Speaker If he
could not have the yeas and nays? The
man who sat In the chair might do all the
legislative work transacted In this body. He
submitted that this House. in the absence Of
any conventional rules established by itself,
was to be governed by general parliamenta-
ry law as modified by the rules heretofore
prevailing.
In The to the Hogse aa the
unable to see how it is possible for a house
which has passed out OF existence, to bind
by its rules and regulations, House which
was to come into existence in the future.
House have been to the effect that the. rules
Of the last House did not become tho rules
of the present House directly. The Chair Is
unable to see how they can become the rules
of the present House indirectly. The very
that they ~ have ssen made as rae
ment. If they become, by indirec-
tion, the rules of the next House,
1t would not become necessary
to re-enact them. This House then is gov-
erned by general parliamentary law, such as
has been established in the same manner as
the common law of England was established,
by the repeated decisions and general ac-
quiescence of the people in the system
which governs ordinary assemblies. The
United States is filed with people unusually
devoted to public meetings. These public
meetings have to be governed by a system of
principles discovered AMI acted upon by va
rious meetings, in great numbers, to such an
extent that we'll defined parliamentary law
is established. The suggestion Is made that
the matter is under the conclusive control of
the occupant of the chair and is, at this very
moment, receiving negative because an ap-
peal Is pending In this case, as 1t has in many
cases, against the decisions of the Chair. All
decisions from the Chair, made under proper
circumstances and good faith, are subject to
revision by majority Of the House. Conse-
quently there is not and cannot be any arbi-
trary control of this body against its will.
The Chair, fol- the time being, as matter of
convenience, arising from the nature Of his
office, makes ruling on the subject before
the House. That ruling Is always subject to
revision by the House itself, and no one can
take away that right on the part of the
House. The present occupant of the chair
has frequently ordered tellers since the
beginning of this session of Congress and Is
not unwilling to do so. but the question has
come up now as question of right. What
6Y6I tu6 p6ISOudl WISHES VI tuc OCcupdub Vi
the chair might be. he was obliged to decide
in accordance with what he regards as the
unmistakable parliamentary law of the land.
"It has been stated that tellers are usual
in the British Parliament. That is true.
That is one of their customs, but taking a
vote by tellers there is different ifrom taking
a vote by tellers here. 1t requires, those
who occupy certain attitude tow ards the
question to 20 into the lobby and be counted,
while the others are counted in another
place. The proceeding Is entirely unlike
that adopted here. 1t is a method of divis-
ion. Some fears are expressed as to the re-
suit of the occupant of the chair desiring to
wrest from the members their control. All
parliamentary law must be made on the sup
position that the man elected to preside over
the deliberations of body must be an honest
official and honestly performing his duties:
may. on question of ordering the yeas and
nays, miscount and If tellers can be ordered
the miscount can be corrected. 1t Is neces-
sarY, In order to have tellers, to have one
e h rOe O I last Hanse s ffs~ pee anGsr
must count that fifth. Ultimately, there
fore, the Speaker is the counting officer.
Any suPposition that he would betray his
duty Is not supposition on which parlia-
mentary law Is founded or the rules of the
as conceive it, that division may be had
whereby the Speaker may make count, fir
by sound of voice. and second by the mem.
bers arising, and his record may be COR
rected under the constitutional right by the
yeas and nays. l have been compelled to
make the decision have made."
Mr.. Cannon of Illinois, moved to lay the
appeal on the table.
Mr. Mills of Texas raised the point of Or
der that parliamentary lay recognized no
such motion.
The Speaker overruled the point of order
and submitted Mr.. Cannon's motion. which
was agreed to-yeas,- 149; nays, 1856. The
question REQUIRED on Mr.. BANDS motion to
amend the journal, which was lost-yeas,
.13O; nays, 40; and the journal was ap'
proved,
The House then resumed, in committee OF
the whole, the Oklahoma town site bill, but
made no progress. The committee rose and