The Washington critic., 1890-05-19
BYNUM AND BAYNE.


1t is interesting to note the comments
of the New York papers on the Bynum-
Bayne controversy of Saturday last.
The San contents itself with saying:
The Bynum- Bayne episode in the House
settled one important point. 1t is not par
liamentary to call member a sewer, but 1t
is arliamentary to call him a conduit pipe.
The Times deals with the episode
somewhat more seriously:
The censure OF MIR. Bynum of Indiana on
Saturday was a foolish and spiteful piece of
business. Taken by themselves, MI. Bynum's
words were unquestionably in bad parlia-
mentary form. To call person "liar and
forger,n and then say that one would believe
him as readily as specified member of the
House, was violent and unnecessarily in
sulting mode of speech. There are ways
of expressing exactly the same opinion
which would be equally severe and
yet be within the limits of the
law. But the majority could not
with propriety or deeency take Mr..
Bynum's words by themselves. They
knew what provocation he had, and that
Mr.. Bayne bad used toward him language
just as insulting and violent, and just as
contrary TO parliamentary usage and rules.
The majority, therefore, in permitting
Speaker Reed formally TO censure Mr..
Bynum, after letting Mr.. Bayne go unno-
ticed, were performing mean act of par
tisan hatefulness, and Mr.. Bynum was
quite justified in publicly accepting the
censure as a decoration. 1t is probable
ta. f,trf11 do +ba,
hahn politically, and so even the partisan
InPose of the majority will miscarry.
The World, in one of it's fortunately
rare bursts of irony, says;
In the interest of exact knowledge con-
Ccrninq the ethics of Congressional vitupera-
ton we draw attention TO an important dis
tinction In Mr.. Bynum's case which hurried
readers Of Saturdays excited debate might
otherwise overlook.
1t was for intimatiDg his conviction that
fellow-member was a forger and perjurer
that Mr.. Bynum was censured by vote of
the House, and not for calling that member
a conduit-pipe. Here is where the distinc-
ion comes in. When Mr.. Bynum called
his brother Congressman a sewer, the word
was declared to be unparliamentary and
otherwise highly improper. Thereupon
Mr. Bynum withdrew 1t and called the
gentleman conduit-pipe instead, and the
substituted phrase was accepted by the
House as parliamentary and proper.
1t appears, therefore, that a member of
Congress may not apply the word 'sewer"
TO a fellow-member, but may call him a
''eonduit-pipe'' at will and without offense
IN ho nc An =
pears further that IL he desires to Indicate
the kind of conduit-pipe meant he may do
so by first saying ''sewer'i and then with
drawing the word and substituting the
less precise but more parliamentary ex-
preston.
Congressional guarreling is fine art in
which careful technical training seems to
he necessary to conspicuous success.
The Star treats the incident in very
dignified fashion as follows:
In the lively altercation' in the Houst
of'Representatives on Saturday the blame
of aggression does not rest on Congressman
Bynum. The difficulty had its origin in
the unusual and ungracious course of Mr..
Bayne of Pennsylvania, who sent to the
Clerks desk and had read in hearing of the
Congressman a letter not connected with
Congressional proceedings, which charged
Mr.. Bynum and his colleagues Mr.. Wilson
and Mr.. McMilin, with expressing in po
litfcal discussion sentiments, the holding ol
utterance of which they indignantly denied
Mr.. Bynum's disclaimer was not ac
eepted. On the contrary, the Pennsylya
mia member repeated the injurious charg
in a realty aggravated form. 1t was un
der these circumstances that the Indian
Democrat firmly refused TO qualify hi
contradiction of report declared to be ut
terly false.
The resolute support given to Mr.. Bynuu
uy all the Democrats Of the House prevented
action going beyond a reproof, which
ordered by purely partisan vote, Mr.. By
lum accepted asa compliment, not as a re
Iule. Mr.. Wilson and Mr. McMillin ar,
likely o have their say to-day. Democrats
throughout the country will uphold thel
members in standing up against an unpre
cedented tyranny that Ignores both persona
and public rights in pursuit Of corruptinl
and usurping policy.
TWAS reserved for the Tribune to dis
cover in the event conclusive evidence o
Mr.. Bynum's violent and vicious rowdy
ism and, at the same time, of Mr.
Bayne's purity of purpose and courtes,
Of manner After lndulgiug itself in
vigorous denunciation of Mr.. Bynum'
course, and taking a brief, but feryen
survey of the material for punishment
the Tribune concludes with these sig
nifcant words
There is no partisan object 10 be serve
by sending Mr.. Bynum back to bis const
tuents. The district is Democratic. II
diana Democrats bOastfully uphold leader
who have been convicted of crimes con
mitted for the sake Of that party. 1t ma
be expected that they would glorif
Nj, Bynum as a champion, and elect hiI
again. The expenses would fall, not upo
the man or the party responsible, but upc
Taxpayers OF whom large portion are
DO way blameworthy. Nevertheless it is
question not to be lightly set aside or al
swered, whether the House can affol
TO refrain any longer from making an e,
ample Of those who have insulted /
broken its rules and dIsregarded 4
authority. In England the fear
temporary suspension from participation
The proceedings Of Parliament has some r
straining influence. Here the neeessal
remedy has not yet been applied. But the
would be less waste Of time in disgustiI
personalities II il should become the esta