The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-29
LOST THEIR QUORUM
House Democrats Were Unable to
Gust Mr.. Joy Yesterday.
They Succeeded in Adopting ClOture
Rule, but on the Final Test
Lacked Sufficient Votes.

WASH1NGION, Marcn Wnen the
Speakers gavel fell to-day there were less
than eighty members on the floor. The
House proceeded with some routine bust
ness pending a report expected from the
rules committee for the disposition of con-
tested election cases of O'Nien VS.. Joy and
English VS. Hilborn. Letters from the Secre-
tary of the Treasury and Attorney general
were transmitted asking for additional APP
preparations for the secret service and the
United States Courts.
Then Mr.. Outhwaite, from the commit
tee on rules reported rule limiting debate
to two hours each on the two election
cases, the final vote to be then taken. Mr..
Cultivate demanded the previous question
on the adoption of the rule. The vote on
ordering the previous question resulted 164
to O. Mr. Reed made the point of no quo
rum.
The vote resulted 179 yeas and 1 nay, one
more than a quorum. The Speaker voted in
the affirmative. This was the first time
for a week that the Democrats had mus
tered a quorum. The result was greeted
with applause
Mr.. Reed criticised the disposition to
hustle through these cases without discus
sion. He said the purpose of the Republic
ans had been to call attention to a great
outrage the House and the country being
In the habit of paying little attention to
election cases.
Mr.. Cultivate replied, saying that more
time for discussion Of these cases in the
first place had been offered. He also re-
viewed the action of the Fffty-first Con-
gress on election cases. and pointed out the
quick manner in which cases were then dis
posed Of
Mr. Reed moved to recommit the rule
with instructions to report rule allowing
further time The Speaker was inclined to
think that this motion could not be enter
tanned. Mr.. Reed argued the case on tech
meal grounds. The Speaker ruled that the
motion to recommit was equivalent TO
proposition to amend. Amendments were
not in order after the previous question had
been ordered. Therefore, the motion OF the
gentleman from Maine (AIr. Reed was not
in order.
On the question Of adopting the report of
the committee Mr.. Cultivate demanded the
yeas and nays. The division having de-
veloped the lack Of a quorum the Republic
ans again refrained from voting. The vote
on the adoption of the special rule was liz
to Z, including the vote of the Speaker and
was agreed to, q bare quorum voting.
The resolution of the committee on cleo
the seat for the Eleventh district Of Mis-
souri, was read, and Mr. Patterson was
recognized on the side of the majority re-
port and Mr.. Daniels on the side of the mi
nority. Mr.. Patterson's statement involved
a very elaborate and extended explanation
of the Missouri ballot law.
case of Mr.. Joy, followed Mr.. Patterson
with a review of the Australian ballot law
Of as aPp tst tb the in Ray @f be
election Judges were not on the ballots,
Mr. Daniels contended that this an
error to be charged against the judges and
not against the voters.
Mr. Bartholdi contended that the Repub-
lican vote amounted to SO per cent OF the
Democratic vote, and the gerrymander had
enabled them to secure q representation Of
only 10 Per cent of the Democratic vote
Now 1t was proposed tor cut this down half
The election machinery was all in the hands
of the Democrats.
MIR JOY, whose seat was the question at
issue argued that the recount of the ballot
had built UP his majority. The grounds OF
the contest. he claimed, as finally made,
were not stated in the notice of contest
| served upon him. as required by law.
statute provided that judges are re-
| quired to put their initials on ballots. Fur
Their, that judges shall not deposit the
ballot unless it has the initial. He held
| that his was intended to give the voter a
chance to rectify the omission if the initial
was at first omitted. He said it was pro,
voters on account of the fault of the judges.
| Mr.. Brown, of Indiana, consumed the re-
mainder of the time for the majority re-
port. He claimed that they were bound to
| observe the statute of Missouri whether 1t
gave power to election judges to dsfran-
chiSe voters or not. 1.'s-#.
The vote then required on the substitute
| for the majority report Of the committee pre-
scented by the minority. declaring Mr.. JOY
entitled to his seat. The vote resulted:
Yeas, 102; nays, 146. The substitute was re-
| jected; Mr.. Burrows moved to reconsider.
| and Mr.. Springer moved TO lay that mo-
| ton on the table. The Republicans then
precpitated another fiilibuSter by making
the point of no quorum on the division,
| and the roll call was taken, the Republic
ans refrainng from voting. The vote re
suited: Yeas, 1871; nays, s. On motion of
/ Mr.. Patterson the House then, at 5:45, adj
| journed.