New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-02-05
MIR. CARLISLES CONSISTENCY.
AN ANALYSIS OF HIS ADDRESS TO THE
COUNTRY"
THE TYRANNY OF THE RULES OF THE LAST
CoNGRESs-BAsELEss CHARGES IN RE-
LATIoN TO THE CONTESTED
ELECTION CASES.
fBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TaIBUSEI

ELECTION CASES.
fBr TELEGRAPH THE TRIBUsE1
Washington. Feb. AIN preparing the address TO
the country" which published today. without
signatures, but to which every Democratic Repre-
sentative is expected to subscribe test OF his
party fealty ex-Speakcr Carlisle evidently labored
under the delusion that all of the American people who
are not fools have phenOmenally short memories. lie
also found it convenient to forget many things lie
chides the Committee on Rules for its failure to re-
port on matters referred TO it,"
Has Mr. Carlisle forgotten. or does he think that
every body else has forgotten that during one entire
session Of the Lth Congress the Committee on Rules, OF
which he chairman. did not hold single meet
ing. or make single report although scores OF mat
ters were referred TO tl Does he remember peti-
ton, which signed by all the Republican men,
bers of the House, praying him. as chairman OF that
committee, to call meeting, and make report Or
as Speaker. to recognize some member to move the
consideration of certain which were favored
by large majority Of the House, and that he con-
temptuously ignored said petition Does he rcmem-
Der how he throtled the Educational BILL and sranged
every bill to reduce repeal the tobacco taxes, re-
fusing even to allow the House to consider them
Has he forgotten that the House not allowed even
10 consider bill for the relief of disabled and de-
pendent Union veterans, and the means adopted to
prevent such consideration
The consideration of the measures indicated, as we'll
of other important matters. all Of which majority
cratic" action of Dictator Carlisle and prevented
too, when code of rules in existence which he
and his party associates demand shall be adopted by
this House Little regard there then for the "ights
Of the minority or the majority either, when III
conflict with the wishes Of Caesarn Carlisle and his
" Premier" Yet, after making history so modern
history OF legislative obstruction and strangulation
the Kentucky "eXDicator.' In this address," which
is expected TO hoodwnk the country solemnly writes
"No measure can get before the House for consider
alton unless the Speaker chooses 10 allow 1t 10 DO
presented"
The favorite plan OF the Democrats whether they
majority minority OF the House. to prevent
the doing of business is to prevent It's consideration
When they the majority, aud had :" Dictator
Carlisle in the Speakers chair, the plan was easily
executed with the help of code of rules deliberately
framed and carefully administered with the sole view
of preventing business from being DONE except by
what virtually amounted to unanimous consent Being
in the minority, they insist that the DID, OBJ
strucve code of rules shall be re-enacted 1t seems 10
have escaped attention. and the author OF the ad-
dress" is careful not TO make the fact obtruslve that
the recent Democratic called to consider that
subject we'll the matter Of contested seats deter
mined TO fllibuster TO the end against every sub
stanal proposition offered by the Republicans and
designed TO facilitate legislation and allow majority
OF House TO control the order and conduct OF bust
ness.
That decision was reached aft6r an explanation ny
Mr. Carlisle of the nature and Of said PROPOSE
lions. The Democratic purpose I'm that regard was
clearly and firmly defined 1t was In regard to the
contested election case. The Democratic minority In
effect said to the majority a. No contested election
cases shall be tried decided until after a code OF
rules has been adopted, and code of rules shall
be considered adopted to which we
are opposed, which will not enable US, whenever
the number of Republicans present falls below
IN he NJ
case or the doing of any other business"
In other words, the minority resolved to rule the
majority, and, according to the address," the ma
orty" Of the House is composed OF Republicans, ana
Republicans only. That the situation, according
to the Democrats when the Elections Committee moved
to consider the West Virginia Four days they
fought for-what To maintain that Jackson was
fairly elected No. To prevent discussion OF the
PEELED to yield the DEMOCRATS, with one or two ex
ceptions refused TO argue the case but spent Their
time in denounclng the Republicans, because the lat
ter insisted that the House should exercise its highest
constitutional function, that of settling the disputed
title OF q Representative to his seat.
The author Of the address says: awe became
convinced that 1t the deliberate purpose OF the
speaker and his supporters TO proceed without rules
to GUST the Democratic members whose seats are con-
tested and admit their Republican opponents whether I
elected not 1t would be Interesting to know the
ground Of this "conviction' In the most positive
terms il can be said not only that the Republicans
WISE to proceed TO oust Democratic members whose
seats contested" etc; but that no such course
has been considered or proposed Dy tntln
| is absolutely no foundation for any part Of Mr..
Carses assertion in regard 10 election cases
| Does Mr. Carlisle, any other Democrat In the
| House believe, for example, that Jackson, of
West Virginia. who was unscatcd last night, was
elected II is safe 10 say that not dozen
Democrats read the testimony in the case
Certain it Is that not one Democrat in the House
voted against awarding the seat 10 the Republican
contestant. All Of them sat mute. Even the Demo
cratic members of the Elections Committee, who
presumably had studied the case did not vote against
seating smith. II IS natural that Mr. Carlisle. re.
| membering the practices Of his own party when in
power should expect the Republicans 10 Gust Demo
| Gratis ard admit their Republican opponents,
whether elected not but his assertion is none the
| less sanderous, well untrue
| The tone OF the address," which might be more
iustIy STYLED an apology" is mild when compared
with that taken BY the Democrats in the House, as
| 10 jnstify the belief that the paper was given TO
tbe public In advance Of signatures In order to
commit them that they could not insist upon adOrn-
| ing ii with a few dozens of the bilngsgate express
| sions used by them in the House last week, when
they not participating In the proceedings to