Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-02-13

WASHINGTON, February 12.-The House
met at II o'clock this morning in continue
ton of Yesterdays session. The debate on
the proposed code of rules was continued by
Mr.. DOcKery of Missouri in the vein OF
earnest criticism. The proposed rules, he said,
would relieve Congress of the necessity of
repeating taxation, at least as far as the sur
plus was concerned. He predicted that at
the end of the session the surplus would
have disappeared, by reason of the prodi-
gality which the rules invited. Discussing
the question of permitting the Speaker to
count quorum, he expressed his profound
regret that any conceivable party interest
could have induced the Republicans. to
abandon constitutional grounds for the un-
explored region either of parliamentary law
or of the new power sought to be conferred
upon the Speaker.
THE SPEAKERS POWER TOO GREAT,
The proposition to allow the Speaker to
decide what dilatory motions were, was
based upon the idea of the infallibility, incor-
ruptibility and impartiality of the Speaker.
Such powers were more in harmony with the
character of the Gar of all the Russias than
with the spirit and genius of our free
institutions.
Mr.. Morse, of Massachusetts, defended the
proposed code, and then said:
It has been repeatedly stated on the other side
during this debate that the present Republican
President did not receive majority of the
popular vote OF the country. What that has to
do with the question under consideration am
not able to discover, but how would it have
been If there had been free and fair election
and an honest count in the Southern States Of
the Union? Away with this nonsense about
Cleveland having a majority of the popular
vote nf the country when there is no such thing
as free and fair election in several of the great
States of the Union.
DELAYING PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Mr.. Allen, of Michigan, supported the
rules, and especially that which permits the
Speaker to refuse to recognize diIatory mo-
tions, and eulogized the recent action of
Speaker Reed in this respect. The dilatory
motions had not been made to further pub
lie business, not to prevent raids on the
Treasury, not for the purpose of settling
some great question, but had been made for
the purpose of preventing the consideration
of the question whether Jackson had right
to seat on this floor. He ridiculed the ex-
citement which had prevailed on the Demo-
cratic side, but said that it had quieted
down when the Democrats and the country
had seen that the Speaker was not reed to
be shaken by the wind.
The House adjourned at 1:55 and at noon
the session of Wednesday began. The
journal having been read, Mr.. Boutelle, of
Maine, asked unanimous consent for its ap-
proval, but objections came from the Demo
cratic side and a roll call was made neces-
sary. The journal was approved-yeas 119,
nays (Mr. Buckalew) 1.-THE Speaker count
ing 70 Democrats as present and not voting.
PRECEDENTs SET AT NAUGHT.
Mr.. McCreary, of Kentucky, entered his
emphatic protest against the new code, and
criticised the recent decisions of the Speaker.
That officer had defed all precedents and
had reversed the parliamentary decisions of
nearly all the Speakers who had presided
over the House. He had not only overruled
Blaine, Garfield, Hawley and Conger, but
he had overruled his own utterances when
on the floor of the House. The time had
come when the House needed rules instead
of ruler and dictator; fairness and justice
instead of communism and Cesarism.
Mr.. Cutcheon, of Michigan, supported
the proposed rules, declaring that they
tended to facilitate business instead of to
obstruct it. and to give the control of the
majority, and not leave it at the mercy of
the minority. The rules substituted action
for inaction, legislation for obstruction.
And to that extent, and that extent only,
they were revolutionary.
A SOLITARY DEMOCRATIC VOTER.
Mr.. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, the one
Democrat who has voted when present upon
every question, criticised the proposed rules
because they tended to stiae adequate and
necessary debate.
Mr.. Kerr, of Iowa, presented an argument
in support OF the proposed code and Mr..
Hooker, of Mississippi, made a constitu-
tionaI argument against it.
Arguments in support of the proposed
code were made by Anderson, of Kansas;
Henderson, of Iowa; Buchanan, of New
Jersey; Walker, of Massachusetts: Moore,
of New Hampshire: Dunnell, of Minnesota;
Houck, of Tennessee, and J. D. Taylor, of
Ohio, and against it by Cummings, of New
York; Carruth, of Kentucky; Mansur, OF
Missouri; Lane, of Illinois; Rogers, OF Ar
kansas. Springer, of Illinois; Snively, of
Indiana; Wike, of Illinois; Brookshire, of
Indiana, and Pierce, of Tennessee.
BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION.