The advocate., 1892-02-10


on Monday, and Will be found printed upon
pages 56S and 564 of the Congressional
Record of yesterday. In doing so, sir, We
propose to state plainly and clearly
the propositions involved in 1t, which are
three:
l. The creation of a new committee upon
the order of business in this House;
2. The election Of the standing commit
tees by the House itself; and
3. (Whst may be considered q corOllary
of the secondly The election by the COM
mittees themselves of their own Chairmen
and the naming of their own clerks.
This is what the substitute proposes, and
this is what we believe is right. We do not
propose to discuss this question in all its
bearings, but simply as il relates to the
principle of popular rights, or the principle
of rule by the many as opposed to domina-
tiOn by the few.
The first proposition takes the place to
certain extent of the present committee on
rules; in other words, it relegates the COM
mittee on rules to its proper place and insti-
tutes a committee on order of business, to
attend to it's own business. We claim that
it is not and ought not to be the province Of
any three, five, or even seven men in this
body to dictate the course Of legislation
and to say what this House should deliber-
ate upon. If you will refer to the substi-
tute you will notice that this committee on
order of business is to be composed of one
member from each state and territory of
the Union, to be nominated by that state or
territory; so that under this provision this
committee would embrace representation
of the entire union. It would not include
merely few individuals or represent
simply the conceptions of few men COM
ing from only few portions of this coun-
try. In our view, committee of this kind
would be the most important committee of
this House; and we conceive it to be very
necessary one.
Il seems to us that as yet no good reasons
have been urged by gentlemen who have
spoken on this question why rule ten
should stand in its present form; yet take
notice that our Democratic friends and our
Republican friends are alike in favor
of that rule. We claim that the rule violates
the fundamental principle of free govern
ment. We claim that the great common
people of this country should rule this
country, that it should not be ruled by one
man or by three men. We favor the uni
Versal equality advocated by Thomas Jeffer
son in his inaugural address. We claim to
be in favor of equal rights, not special
privileges, which this rule ten, as we claim,
gives. It is a principle that we are adVocat-
ing. We are urging no objection to the
present officers or the present committees
of this House. Our party claims to be
founded upon equal rights, upon the Jeffer-
sOnian doctrine of equality, upon the WASH
ington idea of union, and upon the Abrs-
ham Lincoln idea Of protection to labor
and its superiority over capital.
Mr.. Speaker, in presenting this substi-
tute for rule ten, we do 80 in no captious
spirit. We disclaim any personal objection
to our present presiding officer, or to the
makeup of the present committees of the
Fifty-Second Congress. 1t is simply the
method, as such, to which we take excep-.
tion. It violates principle Of popular
government; it confers special privileges
upon few, and robs the many of their just
rights. From our standpoint, as free, inde-
pendent American citizens, rule ten, as re-
ported by the committee on rules, is simply
lone man power" or what we choose to
term frank partisanism, grown to full ma
turity and overshadowing popular rights"
Ours is supposed TO be a representative