The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-01-22
REED A VERITABLE GAR.
THE MINORITY REFUSED THE
RIGHT OF TELLERS.

Recognize Precedent.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2L.-In the House
Yesterday, just previous to adjournment.
Mr.. Bland moved that the House adjourn.
and upon the division the speaker declared
the motion lost. Mr.. Bland thereupon de-
nlanded tellers, and according to the Record
this morning the speaker replied: "There
was no provision for tellers." There was no
record of this fact made in the journal, and
this morning Mr.. Bland moved to have the
journal amended accordingly.
The speaker stated that he had made his
reply in an interrogative form and that the
gentleman from Missouri had seemingly ac-
duesced in it. The chair was informed that
such details were not inserted in the journal.
The chair submitted Mir. Blauds motion to
amend the journal, and on the division de-
clared the motion lost by a vote of IS to 95.
BLAND MAKES ANOTHER DEMAND.
Mr.. Bland demanded tellers.
The speaker inquired whether the gentle
man had discovered any ground why tellers
should be appointed. The chair last night
had suggested that he would like to have
his attention called to any provision regard
ing tellers.
Mr. Bland said he had demanded tellers
under the general practice of the House.
The speaker declined to entertain the de-
mand.
Mr.. Bland demanded the yeas and nays,
but almost at the same moment appealed
from the decision Of the chair.
The speaker said that the appeal came
rather late but that he would entertain it.
Mr.. Mills argued that a vote by telIers
was as much a part of parliamentary law as
q motion to adjourn. 1t was the only vote
by which the House could correct the de-
cision of a speaker and if the House did not
have the right to thus vote, the speaker be-
came mere czar When the sueaker re-
fused to permit the House to have tellers to
verify his count he simply refused to allow
the House to say whether his decision, right
or wrong, should stand.
BLoUNT PROTESTS.
Mr.. Blount said that if the gentlemen of
the majority wished to indorse the speakers
decision, they must take the responsibility.
But that would not be the end. He had
known this thing done before, and reversed
by the popular mind and by the popular
vote. For one, as an American representa-
tive, he proposed to make issue on every
point on the rights of the minority 1t was
an American right. 1t was part of the
genius of American institutions, and he who
would trample upon it must take the re-
sponsibility.
Mr.. Gear of Iowa said that the custom of
tellers grew up in the House under special
rule. There was no such rule now, and,
therefore, it was perfectly competent for
the speaker to decide the result of a ques-
tion as seemed best to him in his Judgment.
Mr.. Crisp argued that as the decision de-
prived the minority of a constitutional
right, he contended that demand for tellers
was virtual questioning of the count of
the speaker.
Mr.. Perkins of Kansas said no one had
challenged the correctness of the speakers
count.
TRIED TO BE RESPECTFUL.
Mr.. Crisps replied that he gentlemen on
the democratic side undertook to be re-
spectful. They questioned the count of the
speaker under parliamentary law. They
bad asked for tellers. That had not nee
essarily reflected upon the speaker. 1t
might be that they thought he had counted
improperly or had made a mistake; and by
calling for tellers they could have the mis-
take corrected in respectful and decent
way.
Mr.. Cutcheon of Michigan said if the
argument of the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Crisp was correct, and that an attempt
was being made to overthrow the constitu-
tional rights of tne minority, the House was
in the thross of a revolution. But he con-
troverted the argument and challenged any
one to show in the constitution any right
given to the minority to demand tellers.
The constitutional right of the minority to
yeas and nays was not interfered with.
REED ON RECORD.
Mr.. Crisp quoted from the Record a
former statement of the speaker that the
House was entitled to tellers.
Mr.. Carlisle entered into discussion of
what TqrllQmnnfQFU la consisted of Ha
went back to the rules of the English House
of Commons upon which the rules of pre-
vious congresses had been founded. In
constituting that parliamentary law, the
gentlemen must construe it in relation to
It's notifications by the rules of former
congresses. Those rules had been the result
of experience. The members must look
printed from year to year to
find a set of rules which the experience of
members had shown to be applicable to the
orderly conduct of business in the House.
So that it had been held, and rightly held,
that in the absence Of conventional rules it
must look to those rules and apply them 80
far as they could be in the situation in
which the House found itself From time
lmmemorial it had been the law of English
speaking legislative assemblies that no pre-
siding officer could make an absolute
final decision to bind the body over which
he pregided.
RIGHT OF APPEAL.
If a presiding officer decided question of
order, it was in the power of any member
to appeal and ts Ike the judgment Of the body
Itself. In the English parliament it was in
the power of any single member to demand
division and have tellers. Congress had
placed a restriction on that rule and had
provided that a count by tellers must be de-
manded by one-fifth of a quorum. What
redress did a member have against a wrong
count by the speaker if he could not have
The yeas and nays9 A man who sat in the
chair might do all the legislative work
transacted in this body. He submitted that
tnls House, in the absence of any conven-
tion al rules established by itself, was to be
governed by general parliamentary law as
modified by the rules heretore prevailing.
REED SUBMITS THE APPEAL.
=, In submitting the appeal to the House,
the speaker said: THE chair has always
Deen unable to see how it is possible for
mouse which has passed out Of existence to
olnd by rules and regulations House
Wnlcn was to come into existence in the
tuUure. Recent decisions by the speaker OF
One house have been to the effect that the
rules OF the last House did not become the
Lules OF the present House directly. The
ehalr is unable to see how they can become
NJ, S,e rules OF the present House indirectly.
Ane very fact that they have been
made as TIllag eh0xva CLEARLY the me-