Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-06-21


the bill, and that his action was not void,
able. but void. The fact was that the Dill
was upon the Speakers table.
Mr.. Brewer. of Michigan (sotto voce)'
"1'll bet you dollar and half 1t isn't
A PARLIAMENTARY FICTION.
Mr.. Morrow, continuing, said that the
mere physical fact that the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Conger) or his clerk had the
actual possession of the bill made no differ
ence in its parliamentary position.
MIR. Butterworth, of Ohio, declared that
the House, BY adopting Mr.. Mills resolu-
tion, had declared that the bill had not
| been referred.
Mr.. Henderson, of Iowa, asked 1t Mr..
Morrow would contend that if the House,
being under Democratic management Tor
the time being. should burn up the record o.
the passage of a Senate bill, that the bill
would fail9 Mr.. Morrow insisted that there
was material difference between the tact
and this supposition.
Mr.. Butterworth declared that there were
not % men under the dome of the Capitol
who believed that the bill was incorrectly
referred, upon their oath. Republican ap-
plause. Mr.. Morrow replied that the ma
jority of the House had declared otherwise.
He was here to carry out the wishes of the
peeple-the majority of the people.
TYRANNY OF A MAJORITY.
Mr.. Butterworth said that there was no
tyranny like the tyranny of the majority
that acted in disregard of the law. lGreat
Democratic applause IF gentlemen acted
in conformity with their applause they
would not stand trying to place the bill be-
fore the House in violation of the plain Iule.
Mr.. Williams, of Illinois, said that yes
terday, while the motion to reconsider was
pending and the resolution had been adopt
ed, the chairman of the Committee on Coin
age had walked up to the Speakers desk,
taken up bill that he (Mr. Williams) had
every reason to believe was the silver bill,
had handed it over to the clerk of the Com
mittee on Coinage, who had refused to an
swer his (Mr. WilliamsO question as to
whether or not it was the silver bill, and
had carried it away. Why had this thing
been done? 1t required an explanation. 1t
looked like a conspiracy to obtain physical
possession of the bill, and deprive the
House oil an opportunity to pass upon it.
coNGER Has THE BILL.
Mr.. Conger, of Iowa, said that the bill
had been delivered to his clerk before IL
o'clock yesterday morning and had been re-
ceipted for. During the afternoon, upon
the request of the Journal Clerk, it had
been put in his possession for a short time,
in order to make some clerical Endorsements,
but he (Mr. Conger) had again taken it
back to the Committee Clerk.
Mr.. McCreary, of Kentucky, maintained
that under higher law than the rules of
the House-under the Constitution itself
the bill had never been properly in charge
of the Committee on Coinage. The Consti-
tuition required the House to keep journal.
Until that journal was approved it was not
To
entry made in the journal was not voidable,
but void. He held that the bill was on the
Speakers table and should be placed before
the House for action.
The Speaker-In due order.
Mr.. McCreary insisted that the bill was
upon the Speakers table.
sUPPosING A CASE.
The Speaker asked whether, supposing
that the bill was found to be upon the
Speakers table, it did not then come up
only in the regular order of precedence. Mr..
Bland replied that he had demanded the
regular order when he introduced his reso-
lutiOn-that regular order involved the con-
sideration of the Senate bills on the
Speakers table.
The Speaker said that he did not so un-
derstand the gentleman's motion. Mr.. Can
non asked that the Speaker rule upon the
motion. The Speaker said that he did not
think that the resolution was in order now.
Mr.. McMillin, of Tennessee, maintained
that there was no authority for Mr.. Conger's
action in taking possession OF bill which
the House had declared had not been re-
ferred to his committee.
Mr.. Bland modified the language of his
resolution SO as to direct that the Speaker,
under rule "a, lay matters on his table, in
cludIng the silver bill, before the House for
action. The Speaker saiu that perhaps he
could simplify the matter little, and sug-
gested to Mr.. Bland that he understood his
wish to be simply to get at this matter when
it would naturally come up, supposing that
it was upon the Speakers table (not passing
upon the matter at this time). What the
Chair proposed to do was that when the bill
or its hi atus, whatever it might be- was
reached, it should be brought before the
House. But the gentleman did not seem to
consider that this was Friday-private bill
day-and that private bills alone were in
order.
PERTINENT INQUIRY.
Mr.. Bland asked whether the bill would
be laid before the House tomorrow morn
ing. The Speaker declined to decide that
question until the proper time. Mr.. Nc
Comas, of Maryland, demanded the regular
order. The Speaker said that the regular
order was private bill, which he passed to
the reading clerk. Mr.. Springer. of illinois,
wished to know when the Chair might be
expected to decide where the bill was.
The Speaker-Whenever the bill would
be in order, providing that the views OF the
other side were correct (about which the
Chair presents no opinion, because he does
not think it is the proper time.)
As Mr.. Bland and Mr.. Springer finally
insisted on a specific ruling, the Speaker
finally ruled that Mr.. Bland's resolution Ito
proceed to the consideration of the silver
bill) was not in order under the rules.
Mr.. Bland appealed from the decision.
Mr.. Mckinley moved to lay the appeal on
the table. The yeas and nays were ordered.
pending which Mr.. Crisp moved that the
House adjourn. This motion was defeated.
but the hour OF o'clock arrived and the
House, under the rule, took a recess. the
evening session to be Tor pension business.
Nothing was accomplished at this session
either, and the entire day passed without
any legislative work, except the adoption of
the conference report upon the antitrust
bill.