Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-03-27
RULINGS OF the SPEAKER.

RULINGS or THE SPEAKER.
lGr. Carlisle Points out the Dangers q
Reeds Arbitrary Methods.
The trainers Of the constitution were
familiar with the law and practice of
the British House of Commons, the
great legislative assembly of their
mother country, and it is not unreason-
able to suppose that when they provided
for the election Of Speaker. they had
in contemplation a presiding officer
with substantially the same powers. du-
ties and responsibilities as had be-
longed for many centuries to the pre-
siding officer ia that body.
While the right to enlarge or restrict
these powers, duties and responsibility
ties by its own rules was expressly con-
ferred upon the House OF Representa-
tives it can not be supposed that the
authors of the constitution intended
by this clause to authorize the
exercise of a power which would de-
stroy or impair the free representative
character of the body itself. Like all
other powers delegated by the constitu-
ton. the authority to make rules must
be construed and exercised in harmony
WIN WIG kOACAo4 oPAHAt oh0 pldn VI
our republican institutions, and there
fore any rule which confers upon the
Speaker arbitrary power and allows
him at his own will and pleasure to de-
prive members of the right to make or
binary parliamentary motions and have
them voted on by the House is an inex-
cusable surrender of the privileges of .
free constituency and gross perversion
NJ q which 70 L,
very purpose of promoting and preserv-
ing the independence of the representa-
tive. Members of the House do not act
for themselves, either in making rules
or passing laws; they act for the people
whom they represent, and whenever
they put letters upon their own limbs or
stifle their own voices they infiict a
grievous injury upon their constituents.
Arbitrary power can exist nowhere in
. free government, and if it be true, as
now claimed, that the popular branch
of the legislative department has been
authorized to confer such power upon
any one man, no matter what his Off
cial title may be, it is clear that there
is = defect in our system not hereto
fore detected by the most careful and
intelligent observers. The constitut ton
begins with the declaration that "all
legislative power herein granted shall
be vested in Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of Senate
and a House of Representatives" The
power to legislate necessarily includes
the right to hear and determine all
such motions and propositions as are in
cidental to the consideration of bills
and reso1 utions, and the transaction of
other legislative business, and this
power given expressly to the Senate
and House of Representatives can not
be delegated by either of them. 1t
must be exercised by the members
chosen by the people and States to
speak and act for them. If they can
rightfully delegate to their presiding
officers the power to decide finally and
conclusive1y upon all motions made in
the course of legislative proceedings it
is difficult to see why they can not also
confer upon those officers the power to
decide in the same way upon the merits
of all bills proposed. There is certainly
nothing in the mere name or title of the
presiding officer to qualify him for the
constitutional exercise of such power,
and it could as we'll be conferred upon
the clerk or the sergeant-at-arms, or the
doorkeeper.
The only justification that has been
offered for the revolution that has been
made in the practice of the House of
Representatives, and for the extraor-
binary powers conferred upon the Speak
er, is that certain motions and proceed
ings heretofore allowed have been mis-
used for the purpose Of obstructing or
delaying legislation. This is true to
certain extent. and if proper remedy
for this evil had been proposed rem
edy consistent with the constitution and
the freedom of parliamentary proceed
ings-there would have been little, if
any, opposition from the minority. But
there was no necessity for such radical
changes as have been made, and moth
ing but the most imperative necessity
could furnish an excuse for them.
These new rules go far beyond all pre-
cedent here or elsewhere, and confer
upon the Speaker the absolute power to
refuse to entertain any motion what
ever if he chooses to consider it dilatory,
although the motion itself may be clear
ly in order and expressly authorized by
the very rules under which he is acting.
For instance, when a motion is under
debate, the following motions are ex-
pressly provided for: To adjourn, to lay
on the table. for the previous question,
to postpone to day certain, to refer, to
amend and to postpone indefinitely.
These motions are always in order when
any matter of legislation is under con-
and yet by the new clause
inserted, it is understood, at the in
stance of the Speaker himself-he is
authorized to refuse to entertain all or
any Of them upon the ground that in his
opinion it is made for the purpose of de-
from his decision, unless he may see
proper to permit it, because he can hold
that the appeal itself is dilatory pro-
ceeding. One of the rules which has
existed ever since Congress was organ
lied provides that the Speaker shall
ssdecide all questions of order subject to