The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-03-08
And Rides Rough-Shod Over the Anti
Free-Coinage Democrats of the House.
An Order Fixing Day for Consideration Of
the Bland Bill Rushed Through Before the
Journal Was Read, Despite Protests.
Spirited Speeches by Reed and Williams
DenOuncing the Speakers Rulings.
Crisp Handled Without Gloves by Some of His
Brethren-A Large Majority in Favor of
Silver, the Vote Standing 100 to 81
VICTORY FOR BLAND.

Aided by Speaker Crisp the House Quickly
Decides I'm Favor of Free Coinage.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON. March CRISP played the
Gar to-day, to the chagrin and discom-
future Of his anti-free- coinage Democratic
brethren in the House. Speaker Reed may
have seemed arbitrary in some of his rul-
ings in the last Congress. but he had q
united party of obstructionIsts to deal
with. To-day Mr.. Crisp had but q mere
handful of gold men to deal with. but he
applied the screws with great vigor at the
dictation of Bland and other silverites.
The trouble began as soon as the House
was opened. This was the day designated
for considering the order from the commit
tee on rules setting apart March %. % and
"a for consideration of the Bland silver bill.
The discussion was prefaced by q lively
parliamentary controversy upon the ruling
OF the Chair as to the priority of the order
over the reading of the journal. Messrs.
Tracey and Fitch of New York objected to
immediate consideration of tho order, sup
porting their position In vigorous ad-
dresses in which the Speaker was severely
criticised.
Mr.. Bland said he was approached by
Mr.. Cochran of New York and Mr.. Andrew
of Massachusetts, on last Tuesday to agree
to postponement of the vote on this ques-
ton, they proposing to have their asso-
ciates present and proceed to vote with
out filibustering Now, upon q ruling of
the Speaker. made in strict accordance
with the rules, which say that a resolu-
tion from the committee on rules is always
in order, the opponents of the silver bill
proceed to filibuster in violation of the
agreement made.
controversy then ensued between the
Speaker and Mr.. Tracey over the right Of
the latter to have an hour for discussion of
his appeal. and yield such portion of that
time as he desired to other members. Mr..
Tracey warmly resented the attempt of the
Chair, as he expressed it, Ito take him off
the floor" and said he did not want to be
looked at in that way. whereat there was q
great laugh.
Mr. Cochran stated that his recollection
of the conversation between himself and
Mr.. Bland was widely different from that
stated by the latter gentleman. He said
he had appealed TO the gentleman to con-
sent to vote being taken to-day. and MIR.
Bland had refused to give consent. ana
ran disclalmed any intention of tilibuster-
ing.
CALLED THE RULING ARBITRARY.
Mr.. Tracey again raised the point of con-
sideration. This was promptly declared
ont of order by the Chair. This precipi-
tated a sharp debate on what was termed
by Mr.. Tracey the arbitrary ruling Of the
Speaker. Mr.. Tracey then moved to re-
commit the order to the comm ttee on rules
with instructions to amend by changing
the date for consideration of the Bland bill
from March % to Dec. r. The motion was
defeated-yeas, 20; nays, 202.
This was met with cries of Regular
order" and a formal demand therefor by
MIR. Bland. Thereupon Mr. Tracey moved
to adjourn, but offered TO withdraw the
motion if permitted to be heard. He did
withdraw it, and framed his motion to re-
commit. At first Speaker Crisp held it to
be out of order, but Mr.. Tracey drew the
rules on him, and he stated that the mo-
ton was proper at that time 1t was read,
and proved to be an instruction to substi-
tute Monday, Dec. II for the 22d inst. as
the date OF beginning the debate on the
Bland bill. On a viva voce vote the mega
tive chorus rolled mp in tremendous vol
ume compared with that of the yeas and
then Mr.. Tracey demanded the yeas and
nays A call was ordered. The vote on
the motion to recommit the order to the
committee on rules was defeated-yeas, 20;
nays. 2u2
Mr.. Reed asked unanimous consent that
gentlemen who have spoken on this sub
ject be permitted TO extend their remarks
In the Record.
Mr. Bland urged that the request be
granted, but Mr.. Owens of North Carolina
objected. The demand for the previous
question made by Mr.. Catchlngs was sup
ported by the House. and half an hour
allowed for debate. to DO controlled by Mr..
Bland and Mr.. Reed.
The Chair then rendered his decision rs
follows: The committee on rules having
submitted Its report some davs since. the
gentleman from Mississippi this morning.
Immediately after prayer by the Chaplain
and before the reading of the journal,
called up the report from the committee on
rules for consideration. The Chair held
that the motion was In order. The gentle
man from New York Mr.. Tracey appealed
from the decision of the Chair" Reading
from the rules the Chair stated it was
always III order to call mp a report from the
committee on rules. to fix day to take a re-
cess. or TO entertain a motion to adjourn. A
conference report also would always be in
order. except when the journal was being
read, when the House divided. OF during a
roll-call. If the decision of the Chair in
entertaining the motion be arbitrary the
fault was with the House and not with the
Chair. The House made the rule that a re-
port from the committee on rules should
always be in order. The question now is:
CHaii tue hppcuA 10 lhlu Ou VIC taoic ou
this motlon1
THE APPEAL LAID ON THE TABLE.
Mt. Tracey demanded tho yeas and nays.
The appeal was laid on the table by vote
of 1914 to 13.
Mr.. Catchinas then demanded the previ-
Gus question. and upon this Mr.. Tracey
raised the question of consideration.
The Chair decided that this was not In
order under the present rules, and it was
not in order under the rules of the last
House.
Mr. Reed inquired whether the Speaker
Endorsed the rules of the last House.
The Speaker-Some parts of them i do
and some parts do not.
Mr.. Reed said he never expected nor de-
sired the Endorsement of the Speaker.
The Speaker--We are entirely agreed on
that point.
Mr. Tracey said he did not want to have
anything TO do with the rules of the last
Congress. Applause and laughterl They
should not bo allowed in this House, ex-
cept possibly by an occasional reference of
the gentleman from Maine.
The Speaker-The Chair will not quarrel
with the gentleman about that. The gen.
tleman's motion is In order and the House
overrules IL.
Mr.. Tracey then noted an appeal from the
Chairs decision. and on yea and nay vote
the appeal was not sustained-I76 to 81.
Mr.. Warner OF New York made IA short
speech, in which he said that the House
was the Judge of it's own rules. aud 1t was
for them To say whether this rule should
stand, arbitrary as IL was. de appea. vi TO