The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-06-20


that the Journal he corrected by striking
therefrom this entry.
Cannon Of Illinois argued that the sem
ate amendments would require 10 be con-
sidered I'm committee of the whole. That
being so 1t was the speakers duty tn refer
IL to the committee on coinage, weights
and measures. The resolution sought TO
strike out n recital of fact.
Mills OF Texas characterized Cannon's
position as the boldest, most reckless and
absurd position he ever heard maintained
i'm a Legislative body. Under the constitu-
ton the Journal was kept by the house.
not by the speaker, or his clerks. He
charged the republican party with being
false TO its pledges on the matter of sill
yer. The democratic party would give
the people free and unlimited coinage Of
silver. The people would ask the repub-
licans why, when they were sent here as
friends of silver, they voted to the death
To prevent the consummation OF the peo-
piles, wishes and the fulfillment OF their
promises.
Peters Of Kansas, though declaring him
self a free coinage man, sustained the
speakers action, contending that under
the rules II was the speakers duty to refer
the bill as he did.
Mills of Texas said the point he made
was that under the xisting rules the sill
yer bill should have been allowed To re-
main upon the speakers table to he dis
posed of as the house pleased, and that II
was not for the speaker TO determine.
Breckenridge of Kentucky argued that
the speaker went beyond the scope OF his
authority in the reference OF the bill. His
action was not erroneous, but illegal and
void.
The speaker in rendering his decision
said he desired the members OF the house
to divest themselves OF the idea
that any unusual procedure had
taken place in connection with this bill.
n: sl.... Ii. n sI.,as
way had been OF daily occurrence since
the adoption of the present rules. The
chair desired also that the house should
know that this particular transaction did
not take place in corner. In the regu-
lar course of business the journal clerk in
formed the speaker that among the list OF
bills To be referred under the rules TO the
appropriate committees was the silver
bill with senate amendments. The
speaker had been asked whether he had
any particular direction to make in re-
gard TO IL. Knowing the bill 10 be one OF
grave public importance, and, anxious
that he should have all possible light on
the subject, the chair had consulted the
| democratic members of the committee
on rules (Blount and McMillenl and the
gentlemen from Missouri and Illinois
| bland and Springer)-not for the pur-
pose of throwing any responsibility upon
| them but in order that he might benefit
by any light they might be able To give.
| After conversing with those gentlemen IL
seemed clear To the chair that the rules OF
the house covered the question and that
| his duty was TO treat the bill as he would
| treat any other. Accordingly the clerk
| was not directed to make any change i'm
| regard to its reference. The house must
bear i'm mind that this was not a question
Of politics or currency. II was a question
| of parliamentary law, and on the deci-
| sion OF the house depended the carry
| ing out of the system of rules
the house had adopted. IL not
satisfied with the reference directed by
the speaker under the present system Of
rules. the house could change the refer
| euce. Did this bill contain provisions
which under the rules ought 10 be corisid-
| cred i'm committee of the whole? There
| was n proyisiou i'm the original house bill
| by which certain bullion was to he pur-
| chased and certificates issued thereon.
| The senate amendment was an amend
appropriation was made. IL anything
was clear i'm parliamentary law il was
| that this hill was one OF those which,
| would properly he considered in commit
| Tee of the whole. and. this being So, il was
the obvious duty of the chair TO refer il in
the same manner in which hundreds
and thousands of bills had been referred
during the present session. The point of
order raised by the gentleman from H.
linois lCannon put the chair in an EN-
barrassing position. because the proposed
action of the house was declaration that
am error had been made in parliamentary
law. II was proposed TO erase from the
journal a question of fact: While the
chair might have some doubt about the
points OF order, lie telt II was questioi,
the house ought To determine. ne woulG
therefore over-ruie tne Ioiiits Oh orhera anu
submit the question To tue mousse; ,
cannon OF limos moved TO table Miiis
resolution. On standing vote this was
carried by ioto iio.
Morrow oi Caiifornia; bartine OF Ne,
vada, ana towns ehn OF toiorauo, No'eo
with the democrats. lhey were OVERLOOKED
by the speaker IN the hrst count, bu
Mo row called attention to the omission
ana u was rectihea.
on vote py teiiers the ih0.ioh 10 taDie
was lost; yeas lls, nays ID. Inc quesuoi
tnen recurreu OH tne Miiis rcsoiutioii uuu