Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-01-21

MR.. HOPKINS QUESTION AND Mr.. NILS ANSWER
Mr.. Hopkins Qll.) inquire eth re
was any parliamentary au,h0rit, 5-' lers.
Mr.. Mills replied bv riug vl .ther par
hamentary law reor dtvr,i.a. was there
any general pariialsut y lea t,E a motion TO
lay on the tau, MNs .atge Iny general par
llamentar- .lw Tor no..on to adjourn to a
day hy Gcnerfl parliamentary law should
- CO llch governed former Con-
grcsses
o AULE AUTHoRIzINa TELLERs
- osnnon QL) contended that it was not
proper to lumber up the journal with details.
4e knew of no rule authorizing tellers. There
was in the Fiftieth Congress a rule authorizing
tellers; but Speakers Randall and Carlisle had
repeatedly ruled that the rules of a former
Congress did not survive that Congress- 4 de-
mand for yeas and nays was a constitutional
right, but demand for tellers was not.
Mr.. Bayne pa upheld the decision of the
chair and called attention to the fact that the
correctness of the Speakers count had not been
challenged.
PROTEST FROM ARKANSAS.
Mr. Breckinridge (Ark.) protested against
the decision. If the House could not have tell.
ers 1t was at the mercy of the Speaker. 1t
could not secure the yeas and nays,
because if the Speaker, either by mis-
take or design, should say that
the yeas and nays were refused, what test could
the House apply except the demand for tellers.
which here had been arbitrarily ruled
out. The House was brought to the
position that il could not choose for itself
whether it would have the yeas and nays In
fact, 1t was absolute despotism, and if there was
man in the chair disposed to exercise it he
could decide every question.
Mr.. McMillin (Tenn. said that the present
occupant of the chair had himself held that
the right existed to have tellers to
determine whether the Speaker was accurate
IN his count. On previous occasion
and the Speaker had appointed them. Why
should the House have one code OF rules one
day and another code another?
THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY.
Mr.. Blount (Ga.) 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
Dy the popular mind and by
representative, he proposed to make the issue
on every point on the rights of tie minority.
1t was an American right. 1t was part of the
genius of American institutions, and he who
would trampie upon 1t must take the RESPONSE
bility.
CUSTOM, NOT A LAW.
Mr.. Gear Qowa) said that the custom Of tell
ers grew up in the House under special rule.
There was no such rule, and, therefore, it was
perfectly competent for the Speaker to decide
the result of question as seemed best to him
In his judgment
MIR. Crisp Ca argued that the decision de-
prlved the minority of a constitutional right
He contended that demand for telers was a
virtual
QUESTIONING OF THE COUNT OF THE SPEAKER.
Mr.. Perkins (Kan.) said that no one had
challenged the correctness of the Speakers
count
Mr.. Crisp replied that gentlemen on the
democratic side undertook to be respectable.
They questioned the count of the Speaker
under parliamentary law. They had asked
for letters. That had not necessarily
reflected upon the Speaker. 1t might be that
they Thought he had counted improperly or
had made mistake and by calling for telers
they could have that mistake corrected in
respectful and decent way.
Mr.. Cutcheon mich. said that if the argu-
ment OF the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Crisp) was correct and that an attempt was
being made to overthrow the consti-
tutional rights Of the minority the House
war in the throes of revolution. But he con-
troverted the argument. and he challenged any
one to show in the Constitution any right given
to the minority to demand letters.
The constitutional right of the minority to
the yeas and nays was not interfered with.
Mr.. Crisp CGa.) quoted from the Record a
former statement of the Speaker that the House
was entitled to tellers.
GOING BACK.
Mr.. Carlisle (Ken.) entered into discussion
of what parliamentary law consisted in. He went
back to the rules of the English house of
commons, upon which the rules of previous
Congresses had been found. In constituting
that parliamentary law, gentlemen must
construe 1t In relation to its notifications
hU he rs1l. nf
Those rules had been the result of experience
Members must look back to the manual
which was printed from year to
year to find set of rules
which the experiences 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 SO
far as could be in the situation in
which the House found itself. From
time immemorial it had been the law
Of English speaking legislative assemblies
that no presiding officer could make an
absolute final decision to bind the body
over which he presided. If the presiding Off
Ger decided question of order it was in the
power OF any member to appeal and take
the judgment of the body itself In the
English parliament it was in the power of
any single member to demand a division
and have letters. Congress had placed a re-
striction on that rule and had provided that
count by tellers must be demanded by one
fifth OF quorum. What redress did member
have against wrong count by the Speaker if
he could not have the yeas and nays? The
man who sat in the chair might do all the
Legislative work transacted in this body. He
submitted that this House, in the absence of
any conventional rules established by itself
was to be governed by the general parliament
tary law as modified by the rules heretofore
prevailing.
THE SPEAKER SUSTAINED.
The appeal from the decision Of the Speaker
declining to recognize a demand for tellers)
was laid upon the table-yeas, I49; nays, 1885,