Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-11
FIrTY-FiRsT CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON. February 10, 1890.
senate.

n
ferred were petitions from Mississippi and
Georgia, praying for the passage OF
national law 10 secure the right of suffrage
and for the enforcement of the fifteenth
amendment TO the Constitution.
On motion of Mr.. Gibson. Senate bill APP
propriating $500 900 for a site for public
building at New Orleans was taken from
the calendar and passed. -,
The Senate resumed consideration of the
bill TO provide a temporary government
for the Territory Of Oklahoma.
Mr.. Plumb offered an amendment to in
clude within the boundaries of the Terri
tory all that tract of land bounded on tue
east by the Tooth meridian on The south
by the State of Texas. on the west by the
Territory Of New Mexico, and on the north
by the States of Colorado and Kansas, and
known as the public-land strip Cor No
Mans Land).
Objection was raised that the country
described in Mr.. Plumbs amendment was
not contiguous to that described III the
bill.
After a long debate tho question was
taken on Mr.. Plumb's amendment. and the
vote Was: Yeas, IA nays, ls-no quorum.
After q call of the roll and the ascertain
ment Of the presence of quorum the bill
was LAID aside without final action on Mr..
Plumb's amendment, and the bill TO aid IN
of common schools was taken up as I'M
finished business.
After several bills Of local interest were
disposed of the Senate went into executive
session. and at 4:45 adjourned.
House of Representatives.
The journal of Thursdays proceedings
was read, and although the Democrats did
not demand the detailed reading of that
document they insisted upon the yea and
nav vote upon its approval. 1t was APP
proved-yeas 149, nays (Air. Buckalew)-
the Speaker counting quorum.
The journal Of Fridays proceedings
containing no ruling by the Speaker on
the point of counting quorum was ap-
proved without demur.
Mr.. Cannon, of Illinois. from the Com
mittee on Rules, reported back the new
code Of rules. and the House proceeded to
the consideration of the same. 1t was I'M
derstood that for to-day debates should be
carried on without limitation. and no ar
rangement was arrived at as TO when the
discussion would terminate,
In explaining the provisions of the code,
Mr.. Cannon stated that Of the forty-seyen
rules which governed the last House
twenty-nine were reported without ma
terIal change. The changes were such as
would enable the majority TO be ascer-
tanned and expressed with accuracy and
with the utmost eXDedIenCy consistent
with fair and due debate and considera-
ton He defended the proposed change
prohibiting the Speaker from entertaining
dilatory motions. No Speaker would
dare to refuse to entertain motion
until it was patent to all that
it was dilatory and then the Speaker
should refuse TO entertain it. He denied
that the proposed rule was tyrannlcal ; but
if il WAS then IL was tyranny sustained by
a majority of the House. If he had TO
choose between the tyranny of q constitu-
tional majority, responsible To the people,
and the tyranny of aA irresponsible mi
nority he would stand by the Constitution
and SO act as to let the majority rule.
Discussing the rule topermit the Speaker
TO count, no said that if the Democrats
wanted to go TO the country as against the
principle contained in the rule the Repub-
licans were ready to meet them and let the
people choose. But as sure as the Repub-
1icans remained in the majority they would
perform the functions that the Constitu-
tion and the people made it their duty TO
perform.
Mr.. Mills said that the proposed code
would reverse legislative action and run
back upon the track upon which the Gov
eminent had boon running forward for
century. 1t WAS founded upon the PROPOSE
ton that the minority had no rights; that
the majority was all-powerful; that 1t
spoke by inspiration. and that ITS action
was impregnable. 1t was founded on the
principle that king was divinely APP
pointed and that no could do no wrong.
That was not the theory upon which the
fathers had builded this great temple OF
liberty. 1t was not the theory upon which
any government on this continent had been
founded.
Mr.. Bayne, of PENNSYLVANIA, justified
the Committee on Rules in bringing in the
proposed code His argument was largely
devoted to the defence of the constitu-
tionality of the Speaker permitting. the
counting of the members present and not
voting TO make a quorum, and cited the
practice of many State legislatures and
legal decisions i'll support OF his views.
Mr.. Blount. of Georgia, made an argu-
ment i'll opposition to the proposed rules,
dwelling in especial antagonism upon the
clause making 100 members q quorum in
Committee of the Whole.
Pending the discussion the House, at
5.35 adjourned,