The Washington critic., 1890-02-05
CHAInmAN RowELL's VIEWS.
Prima Facie Evidence wantipG-Th
House Not without Rules.

Prinna Facie Evidence WnntinE-The
House Not without Rules.
Chairman Rowell of the House Com
mittee on Elections when asked to-day
to explain why IT was that the majority
had reversed The old order Of doing
things and had reported contested
election before the rules covering the
House were received, said. The ques-
ton of membership Of Legislative body
is the highest question that can be con-
sidered. 1t comes before the rules. 1t
is Illegal and unjust to keep men out of
their seats till after the disposition of
such an important question as the re-
port from the Committee on Rules.
Before legislative body proceeds to
any business the question of who is en-
titled to seats and who shall be per-
mitted to vote ought to be settled. With
seventeen contested elections in the
House, they. accompanied by 1900
closely printed pages Of testimony and
1900 pages of attorneys briefs, any
man who understands the situation
cannot for an instant question the pro
priety OF an early consideration of the
membership of the House. There is
not the slightest doubt that Smith, the
Republican contestant in the case now
before the House, is entitled to his seat.
There was no prinlG .fdcis evidence
upon which the Governor of West Vir-
ginia could issue to jackson, the Dem
ocrat, q certificate of election. Yet
that certificate was ISSUED; and issued
by Governor who was held over in the
office he occupied twelve months be-
yond the term to which he was elected.
The Smith jackson case was argued
before the committee early in January,
and was placed upon the calendar to be
taken up in the House on the 9th OF
January. 1t did not come up till last
week, more than two weeks after the
time set for its disposition by the House.
Considering the large number of con.
tests before the committee, and the fact
that the contest was not taken up till
more than two weeks after the time
when notice was given that it should
be taken up, is it any wonder that We
insisted finally upon the consideration
of the case at the time we did? Is il
any wonder that we should give this
man his seat before we take up the re
port from the Committee on Rules
when the committee is not yet ready tC
report, and when everybody acknowl
edges that the Democrats intended tc
enter into a prolonged deadlock over tn,
question of the adoption of code Of
rules.
Would it have been right to hav,
kept this man. out of the seat, which hi
should have taken upon the convenins
| of Congress, till dreary weeks of dead
lock were passed in the fight over
code? think not, and | am sure tha
none who understand the question will
say TO the contrary. In point of fac
every contested election should be dis
posed of before the question of adopt
ing code of rules is taken up, evel
though the Committee on Rules i
ready to report and there is to be no de
lay in the adoption of the code. If
has been the custom TO adopt ney
code before the question of membershi
is settled, the custom is wrong an
the order should be reversed as it is a
present. AS matter of fact the Hous
is not without rules. 1t Is proceedin
under general parliamentary law whic
governs deliberative bodies generally i
the absence of specific code"