The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-02-13
THE SPEAKER CAN NOT TAKE PART.
His AssaIIants In the Debate Aware
of the Fact.
Mr.. Henderson Thinks IL Accounts
for Their Attacks.
Another War Of Words Waged over
the New Rules.

WASHINGTON, F6DruaIy L. Inc House
met at II o'clock this morning in continual
tion of yesterdays session, and debate on
the proposed code of rules was continued.
Mr.. Allen of Michigan, strongly supported
the rules. especially that which permits the
| Speaker to refuse to recognize dilatory mo-
| tons. He eulogized the recent action of
| Mr.. Reed in this respect.
At 11.55 the House adjourned and at noon
the session of Wednesday began. The jour
nal having been read, Mr.. Boutelle of Maine,
asked unanimous consent for its approval.
| Objections came from the Democratic side
and a roll call was made necessary. The
| journal was approved-yeas, 49, nays, /;
| [Mr. BuckaIewl the Speaker counting ~
Democrats present and not voting
Mr.. McCreary of Kentucky, entered his
emphatic protest against the new code. He
criticized the recent decisions OF the Speak
er. That officer had defied all precedents,
and had reversed the parliamentary de-
cisions of nearly all the Speakers who had
presided over the House. He had over
ruled Blaine, Garfield, Hawley and Con-
ger and had overturned his
own utteranees when on on the
when the House needed rules, instead of a
| ruler and dictator; fairness and justice, in
stead of communism and C@sarism. The
speaker inveighed against the new rules,
asserting that their effect would be to make
the Congress of the United States consist of
the Senate Of the United States and Speaker
Reed.
Mr.. Cutcheon of Michigan supported the
proposed rules, declaring that they tended
TO facilitate business instead of obstructing
it, and give control of the business of the
House into the hands of the majority, and
not leave it at the mercy of the minority.
Mr.. Buckalew of Pennsylvania 1.-THE one
Democrat who has voted, when present, up
on every question: criticised the proposed
and necessary debate. Bad practices, which
had grown up under the old rules, had
grown up. not under their use, but under
their abuse. The proper way to remedy
these abuses would have been for the lead
ing and fair minded men on each side Of the
House to meet, confer and recommend judi
ci0us and wholesome changes in the
rules, which would be adopted almost
unanimously. After protesting against that
relative to dilatory motions as being inde-
finite in its terms, he argued that che clause
making 100 quorum in committee of the
whole was not only obnoxious to the cons IT,
tuition but would encourage absenteeism.
Mr.. Kerr OF Iowa presented an argu ment
in support OF the proposed code, and Mr.
Hooker of Mississippi made constitutional
argument against the r0de
Mr.. Anderson of Kansas, while support
ing the proposed code, acknowledged that he
udu bdhOu dutdutdSC VI Olu IultotlO Qlt-
buster against the consideration of the
Union Pacific funding bill. He thought the
time had come
WHEN FILIBUsTERING SHOULD BE ERADI-
GATED.
The question now was whether filibuster-
ing was the right of the minority He did
not think SO, though, when he had the right,
he had filibustered. He defended the rulings
of Speaker Reed and said that history
would accord to Mr. Reed honor and glory,
because he had in the present eXigency the
nerve to mark out a new line, which would,
in the main, be followed out in all time to
come. He favored such changes in the code
as would increase the membership of the
committee on rules, and abolish the sIspen.
did not think the House oohld aA pFd 60 ioi-
low the course it had been pursuing.
Mr.. Cummings of New York, said tnat up
to the present session, no person occupying
the Speakers chair in the House of Com
mons or House of Representatives ever pre-
in advance by the House. Whenever the
presiding officer used his eyes, it had been
after rules we're adopted. Instead of utter
ing the voice of the House, as its Speaker,
the presiding officer had invoked that voice
from silent members. No sanction of the
rules could make this anything but an act of
tyranny. No vote could change its complex
ion. Every vote taken in its support only
stamped it with deeper damnati0n. The
Speaker, instead of acting as the presiding
officer and declaring the voice of the House,
invoked that voice with his eyes and uttered
what he did not hear, in defiance Of
parliamentary law. The Speaker took it up
on himself to declare his own will as the
will of the House, and made his own ruling
good despite the fact that the yeas and nays
should he was sustained by minority. The
recent rulings were to be sanctioned by the
new code of rules. If they were constitu-
tlonal there was no need that they should be
Incorporated in the rules If unconstituti0n-
al, such incorporation could not make them
constitutional. Wandering from the beaten
track, the Speaker had Strayed into the
wilderness. he ordered tellers one day, and
refused them the next. The Speaker mad
well said, at the outset of his usurpation of
authority, that the American people were
parliamentary body. They held school meet
lngs at nearly every cross roads; held church
meetings In nearly every house of Goo; held
political primaries in nearly every block In
the city, and held mass meetings on every
occasion. In the smallest hamlet OF the
most obscure county, of the least populated
territory, somebody could be found who had
some knowledge OF parliamentary law. Ihat
person knew that motion to adjourn was
always in order, and an appeal from. the de-
clSlon of the chair was always III order. Yet,
under this dispensation,
THE SPEAKER REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE
either of these motions. The Speaker as
sumed to question the motives of members.
That was violation of the rights OF their
constituents. The representative from the
first district of Maine took it upon himself
to determine the motives of the representa-
tive from the third district of Georgia in
making the simplest parliamentary motion.
If he had this right, why had not the gentle
man from Georgia the right to determine tne
motives of the gentleman from Maine? lie
appealed to the House not to remove the
buoys and tear down the lighthouses which
had made parliamentary navigation safe in
the American Congress for 100 years
Mr. Chapman Of Michigan warned the
new members that one of the greatest faults
of the old rules was that they gave too much
1t was now proposed to give to the Speaker
a larger control, and the committees larger
latitude. The old saying, ''kissing the gods
by favor" would find strong illustration
under the proposed code.
Mr.. Caruth of Kentucky said he and his
Democratic colleagues had discovered that
general parliamentary law" was an auto
crat, a tyrant, a god. The Speaker was om-
nipotent, yet lacking !so.dnoo in one of the
not the same yesterday, today and forever.
TLaughter1 When he had found that the
gentleman, who occupied the Speakers
chair had such mighty powers he had begun
to grumble Not Gnly gyut aad Sad the Speaker voted
pronounced his name. [Laughter.] He had
arisen to protest and found his protest in the
record as follows:
MIR. Caruth-Mr. Speaker.-[Laughter.]
He had felt like the member of the Society
of Stanislaus who
"Smiled sickly smile and curled upon the floor
The subsequent proceedings interested him no
more."-[LaughterJ
He had thought there must be some defect
in the Speakers vision which enabled him
to see a Democrat when he sat iu his
chair, but which would not permit him to see
a Democrat when he was standing TO his full
height and claiming recognition. He had
come to the conclusion that the Speaker
should be dosed with
COL, MULBERRY sELLERs's EYE WATER
externally, internally and eternally
Laughter. He had seen the same Speaker
recognize Republican before he had risen
from his chair or raised his voice, and had
been reminded of the lieutenant governor of
| a Western State who, calling to the door
| keeper. said ''Go out and find Senator
| Gunson. He is somewhere about the cant
| toll Tell him he is recognized and has the
| floor" Laughter He Mr.. Caruthl had
| become anxious that this arbitrary general
| should be superseded. The gentleman from
| New York mfr. Cummings had offered a
resolution for the printing OF 1000 COPIES of
| General Parliamentary Law" The gentle