, 1890-10-31

TIE CASE PLAINLY PUE.

THE CASE PLAKNLY PUT.
General Palmer in his inst Chicago
speech, delivered a few days z eharao-
teriEed the Reed usurpation in such tenn
perSte vet adequate language that it is
well worthy of reproduction:
Lately Mr.. Reed was here, who has
Obliged US and has rendered = service to
the country by making himself an issue in
American politics" said the veteran
Democrat. He Is the embodiment Of
modern Repubhcauism. For example,
Mr. Reed at the beginning OF the last
congress subyerted the parliamentary Law
of this country as il has existed for a
century. II was bis act. it was that sub
version of parliamentary. law not dictated.
bnt executed by him. He does not pre-
tend that he had any authority from the
people. He says that he found that the
representatives in the American congress
had for lO) years adopted methods OF
business that were supposed to give to the
minority certain advantages, and that he
determined that the law, the pArlismen-
tary law. should be abolished, and he
abolished IT,
$50 when Mr.. Reed argues that the
system that he proposed and established
is better thar the old system. the question
comes up, Where did you acquire the
right to subvert the the parliamentary
law of the century, WHARF did you 40.
quire that right You say it is best, but
who submitted the question Of the better
or best rule to -FOUR authority? Mr.. Reed
says l asked nobody. l found that the old
parliamentary law of a century was not
suited to me: found that it conceded TO the
minority greater rights than the minority
had a right to demand; | discovered a bet
ter rule and l BY my own authority es-
tablished that rule and asserted it and en-
forced it. That is Republicanism-snd
the result was that the house Of represen
t%atives, the only department Of the gov
IN over which the people have d.
rect control, ceased to be a deliberative
body; it became subservient to the will of
tho speaker.
1T is true that after hat was done.
after the speaker had subverted the par
liamentary law Of the century and had de-
nounced the Democrats for not submitting
TO it. there was 4 faction. a portion Of the
Republican party, that was not satisfied.
The old rule was this: That the minority
might call for the yeas and nays, and by
refusing to vote when their names were
called they threw upon the majority the
entire responsibility Of that particular leg
i~slAtion. This rule finds Its place in the
constitution OF your state. where no bill
can become n law until it receives a ma
jority Of the votes in both houses Of the
general assembly, and those votes must
be recorded, which was regarded as a
great reform in state legislation.
The old rule which existed from the
foundation of the government was this:
That the minority might call for the yeas
and nays and, by refusing to vote, if there
was not a majority for the measure, there
would be NJ quorum and il there was no
quorum the vote failed of effect The
old parliamentary law which had been es-
tablished for acentury was in the line Of
throwing upon the majority the entire
responsibility for legislation. Mr.. Reed
Was dissatisfied with that rule. What
did he do? Did he consult the people2
Was the question submitted to the people
at an election for members Of conEress2
No. When congress met Mr., Reed de-
termined that his party had not power
enough. He subverted the parliamentary
law Of the century and he established n
new law as l have just said. That was
not SO bad. but the deplorable TACT exists
that the whole protection party without a
word sustained him in that daring
usnrpation. the most uGfavorable indi-
cation, as | have observed. in the history
of American politics, and that was done
for what purpose? 1t was done IN the in
terest Of this doctrine Of protection"