New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-02-05
.TUSTICE DUNE.

The House has turned out a person who SAT
nv virtue OF a certificate fraudulently gwen
nv the Governor of West Virginia, and has
seated Mr.. Charles B. Smith, who was elected
by the people. This act OF justice was per-
formed by the votes of 1GG Republicans more
than a majority of all the members elected, so
that no question can possibly be raised as to
tbe legality Of the decision. 1t was TO prevent
this restoration of stolen property that Demo
Gratis have flibustered for weeks, and would
have flibustered throughout an entire session
had not the Speakers rulings deprived them
of power to prevent transaction OF business
by the House. ,.
II 10 now more than six months since distin-
guished Democratic leaders, in published let
ters or authorized interviews, openly avowed
their intention to resist, if necessary by ILL
clustering throughout an entire session, hrst'
any essential change of the rules taking from
the minority power to block any legislation at
ifs Measure. and second, any decision adverse
70 Democrats in regard TO the seats which had
been stolen by Democratic Governors. There
was no privacy about these declarations. They
were even made with obvious concert OF
action. as if to warn Republicans that the steps
ing legislation for an entire session. Nor were
these threats made by unimportant PERSONS
whom the majority had right to disregard Dut
by leaders who had again and again proved
their power in the House to block legislation.
Republican members of the House did not
answer with threats. They considered care
fully their duties and their power. They con-
cluded that it was their duty to recover for the
majority the power to legislate. 1t was also
their duty to seat the Representatives whom
the people had elected. TO reach either OBJ
iect it was necessary to put an end to that ylo-
lation of parliamentary law by which, only in
recent wears. minoritics have been able to be
both present and absent at once. The most
absurd thing in the lawmaking record of any
civilized land was the spectacle of lawbreak-
ing member defying both Speaker and House
to reckon him present so long as he saw lit to
violate the rule.
II was judged, and wisely, that the issue
might best be met and fought out before any
of the vital questions had been reached. Had
the struggle been postponed until rules were
pending, it would have been confused in the
public mind with the justice or injustice OF the
rule proposed. Had it been postponed until
final vote was reached on contested case, IL
would have been confused with the conflicting
claims of contestants. Then the sickness OF
few members might have given pretext for
litigation in either case. 1t was highly i'm
portant that the public should come to know, by
a test OF Democratic conduct in the House, ex-
actly what the abuse was which needed rem
edy. The Democrats were kind enough to show
at the first opportunity. 1t was essential that
the question should be presented by itself, apart
from any doubt about the election of a par
ticuIar member or the justice of particular
rule. The Democrats by their impotence
to domineer and to ruin If they cannot
rule. have brought the issue before the country
in exactly the right way. Their conduct has
answered precisely to the threats OF Demo
cratic leaders months ago.
1t will not be forgotten that Democratic re-
bellion against parliamentary law was intend
ed to prevent an act Of justice. The people OF
the WITH District of West Virginia had been
robbed of their rights, and lawbreaking was
employed by Democrats in order to prevent
redress Of the wrong. Justice prevailed in the
decision of the Speaker, and now prevails in
the action of the House, and the people will
not fail to uphold those who have preserved
TO constituents their right to elect Repre-
sentative and to the House its right to do the
will of the people.
-