The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-02-06
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE.

The rules which the Democratic House
has adopted are we'll designed to pre-
vent legislation if the minority should
see fit to exercise powers not conferred
by the Constitution. In some respects
they are better and in others worse than
crosses prior to the Fifty-first. Three
men in the House, the majority of the
committee on rules, have it in their
power to interpose a resolution for con
sideration of a bill on which, after one
motion to adjourn is disposed of, the
House must vote. The nature of the bill
depends upon the sweet will of the ma
jority of the committee on rules-the
Speaker, Mr.. Catchings of Mississippi,
and Mr.. McMillin of Tennessee. There
are certain privileged committees
which can report at any time
consideration of their measures, but if
the filibuster chooses to exert himself
q vote thereon cannot be reached. The
only sure way to get a vote upon q
measure is to have the Endorsement of
the majority of the committee on rules.
A large majority may favor free COIN
age, but unless the committee on rules
deems it advisable to have the bill taken
mp, the filibuster can waste the hour
or two assigned to the coinage commit
tee and thus enable q handful of men to
prevent its passage. And so it is with
ararv r,aacuro fho xoaof p.nrfonf of
which, like those relating to immigration,
pure food, Option-dealing, etc., are non
partisan. Two years ago, when the So
called Reed rule was adopted by which
the committee on rules, by the vote of
the House. might assign a time for con-
sideration of particular measures, the
Democrats set up a howl over the
despotism of the rules committee. If
that was despotism, what name can they
give to their own rule7
Otherwise thar this absolutism of the
committee on rules, the professional fl
ibuster has things his own way. By the
use of the regular dilatory motions,
which Mr.. Bynum attempted to have re-
duced In number, but had only the CO.
operation of the Republicans, by requir-
ing the reading of long reports and bills
to consume the morning hour or other
time assigned to consideration of special
matters by breaking quorums and like
detices known to the men who regard
blocking the will of the majority as
craftsmanship, the york of constructive
legislation can be hindered, as under the
rules of previous Congresses, until the
last.
One very vicious provision, which was
dropped while Mr.. Carlisle was Speaker,
has been inserted at the suggestion of
Mr.. H~olman-the power to append leg
islation to appropriation bills, under the
pretext that it will reduce expendi-
lures. The viciousness of this provision
has been so well established that it was
rejected while Mr.. Carlisle was Speaker
and Mr.. Randall was chairman of the
committee On appropriations. 1t is now
revived by Mr.. Holman in spite of the
fact that the wisest Democratic legis-
lators in the past have condemned it.
The attitude assumed by the Repub-
llcans in regard to the rules of this
House was in harmony with their policy
in the last. They assumed that it is the
right of the majority to l~egislate. and
that the rules should all be designed to
enable the majority to exercise that
right. They assumed that after q rea-
sonable period had been assigned to de-
bate the majority has the clear right to
require a vote. This assertion of a con-
stitutional right for the majority by the
Republicans began in the last Congress,
and is a Republican purpose to insist
upon the fundamental idea of popular
government-the right of the majority
to rule. The Democratic House yet
clines to tho right of the minority to
prevent legislation by tactics which are,
in their essence, destructive of repre-
sentative government.