Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-01-31

| he did not hear the quesuon, u snoulu 10 Ie'
| Mr. Grain. of Texas. replied sarcastically
that there was no sounder general parhamen'
| tary law. ,.
tary law, which involves always the preserva,
ton of order in an assembly by the united
| order of every individual member.
The Speaker then re-stated the question: Aa ana
Speaker declared the motion carried, and
| directed the Clerk to enter on the journal the
following names OF menDe1s a. ptHSgs, Dot ~
| Arkansas; Carlisle, Clements, Compton, Grain,
Crisp and CuIberson. of Texas: Goodnight,
Hayes aSoker McAdoo adoo iTsI ncRas Ma Mona
gomery, Morgan, oFerraIl and Tillman,
COULDN'T SHUT HIM UP.
Mr.. Springer raised the point of no quorum.
| but the Speaker declined to recognize him,
/ and instead recognized Mr.. Mckinley, Of
Ohio. to discuss the appeal taken from the de-
cision of the Speaker yesterday. Mr.. McKin-
ley attempted to proceed, but Mr.. Springer was
1 not to be silenced, and amid much confusion
| continued to address the Chair. He insisted
| upon his right to be heard. declaring, amid
| much noise and confusion, that the speaker
must recognize him when rising to a point of
| order that no quorum had voted. Ire Speaker
| replied that that was the question which was
about to be ascertained
| it requires quorum to approve the journal.
The Speaker-The gentleman from Ohio will
proceed.
tertain a question of order in this House?
The Speaker-The gentleman from Ohio will
proceed.
The Speaker-The gentleman from Ohio has
| the floor.
Mr.. Springer-But I rise to a question Of
order, which, if good, will take the gentleman
The Speaker-The gentleman from Illinois
will be Kind enough to take his seat.
Mr.. Springer-There are no rules recurring
| me to take my seat. can stand up If desire.
| 1 stand up, and assert my constitutional rights
| as against an arbitrary ruling of the Speaker,
and, in the name of my constituents. 1 protest
| against it.
Mr.. Mckinley again attempted to proceed,
but Mr.. Springer held his ground. and finally
secured recognition. He then proceeded to
| argue that eyen though the journal had been
approved. it was in order for him to move to
correct it. and he, therefore, moved to correct
it by striking out the list of members present
and not voting.
MR.. M'KINLEY's ARGUMENT.
The Speaker stated that that was question
of recognition, and that he had already recog-
nized the gentleman from Ohio. Mr.. Mckinley
then proceeded with his argument. This ques-
ton, he said was important in every aspect, not
only TO the majority, but to the minority. 1t was
of sufficient importance to demand that men,
bers pause and consider it. unmoved by passion
and unbiased by prejudice. 1t was, as the gen.
tleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carlisle) had said,
a constitutional rather than parliamentary
question. The Speaker had right he con-
tinued, to proceed to note that 30 or 30 members
who had refused to vote on roll call were pres
ent in their seats. All that was involved in the
| appeal was simply question of fact. Was moi
the Speaker correct? Did any gentleman whose
name was disclosed by the count rise in his
| place and declare that he was not present? Not
one. The Constitution did not declare that ma
| jOrity of the members who answer to their names
should constitute a quorum. 1t was decided
how the question of majority should be deter
| mined. That was left to the House, and the
House left it to the Speaker. Under general
| parliamentary law the Speaker had the right
| to count the members, and if there was nc
quorum. to stop all business. The principal
| was distinctly established that the presiding
officer might count, and it was his duty tc
count the number of members who might be
present to constitute quorum, ,,. The gentle
clared that under the Speakers decision one
Representative could pass bill with 167 mem
bers sitting in their seats in silence. So he
could, and so he ought to- If 167 members sal
| in silence and refused to vote when their vote:
would defeat the proposition. then the vote Of
a single member ought to pass the bill And th1
was done over and over again in every week OF
every session of Congress that had been helC
| in the last century.
HOW vEToES ARE TREATED.
Mr.. Carlisle suggested that the Constitution
provided that, when the President vetoed ;
measure, it should not become law unless re
passed by a vote of two-thirds. He understood
the gentleman to contend that, if 165 member
were present, any part of that number voting
(the others remaining silent) might pass thu
bill. Did the gentleman hold that one mai
could pass a bill over the Presidents vetO2
Mr.. Mckinley replied that he was not dis
| cussing the question as to what the Houst
could do on bill sent back by the President
| That was Constitutional provision.
| Mr.. Carlisle said that no bigger quorum wa
required than when any other measure was be
fore the House.
that under the very provision of the Constitu
ton, a yea and nay vote was required 1t il
not required on the passing of other bills.
Mr.. Carlisle-But one-fifth of the member!
have right to require that the yeas and nay
under the Constitution be imperative as tht
other. IApplause on the Democratic side.l
Mr.. Mek1nley-When gentlemen SIT in thel
seats and refuse to perform public duty. the!
are repudiating great public trust. Zap
plause on the Republican side
HOW IT HAS BEEN DONE.
Continuing, Mr.. Mckinley said that Mr.. Car
Isle, as Speaker, had repeatedly signed bill
and resolutions which had never received thu
constitutional majority. He had done it owe
and over again, and done it, too, when the pub
lie record of the House, as announced by him
House had voted. The action of the Demo
Gratis, yesterday, had never been dreamed O.
by the fathers Of the Constitution. They haC
never dreamed of sullen silence as states
manship way of destroying a quorum. He wa
not saying that the Democrats were doing diff
ferent from what the Republican party had don,
for years. He, himself, had had stood here ant
filibustered, day after day, in silence. refusing
to vote but he could not now recall that HI
had ever done it with high or noble or worth!
purpose; [APplausel, and there had had never beel I
|. time that he could remember that he SO fel
ashamed of himself. [Applause.] Not onl.
had that been his feeling in the past, but
gentlemen would be honest with themSelve
and others they would remember how com
monty filibustering had been carried on on &C
, count of personal gique. They had no bushes
to turn upon the Republicans, who were her
and ready to do business, and call them revo
lutionists. The gentlemen on the other sid
wanted to perpetuate fiction which declared
that although members we're present in thei
eeats they should be held to be constructivel
absent The Republicans were contendtng tina
, this should be tact ana a truth and not
! fiction, and that members who sat in their seat
should be counted as present, because the
were reseut. [Applause on the Republical
side.
TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH.
The Democrats wanted the journal to declar
! lie, said the speaker. The Republican
wanted the journal to declare the truth Lar
E plause.1 1t was about time to stop this legs
fiction. Let members be honest with eac
other. Let them defeat bill in Constitu
tional way by debate, by amendment, by ye
and nay vote, expressive OF their judgment
This controversy was to determine whether
majority should rule and govern, or be subjec
to the tyranny of a minority. Talk about tn
:. tyranny of a majority The tyranny of tn
i | minority was infinitely more odiOus. The posi-
I tion of the gentlemen on the other side mean
.sSk vY1fr1 rr1lo