Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-01-08
PREVIOUS QUESTION
On the Tariff Bill Ordered in the
House.
MR.. BOUTELLE MAKES SOME TROUBLE
Ex-Speaker Reed Takes a Hand in
the Debate.
THE SPEAKERS RULING.

The proceedings of the House opened
briskly this morning. At the very Outset
the struggle between Mr.. Boutelle and the
tariff bill resolution began. This time.
however, Mr.. Boutelle adopted a new line
of tactics. Instead of renewing his request
for consideration of the privileged resolu-
ton he made a point of order that the
Speaker had transgressed the dignity Of the
House in preferrins the report of the COM
mittee On rules to his own privileged mo-
ton and that this point Of order should b
submitted to the House.
The Speakers Ruling.
Speaker Crisp accorded Mr.. Boutelle very
courteous consideration to make his state
ment and then ruled that he could NOT
recognize Mr.. Boutelle to raise the point OF
order. He explained that a motion to
amend the rules of the House is now be-
fore the House and that under the rules no
other motion save one to adjourn can be In
order. He said by way of illustration, SUP
pose motion to amend a rule were pend
ing and a gentleman should invoke the
very rule which ii was intended to amend
and invoke IL in order to prevent it's amend
ment. then the House would be bound hand
ana foot. 1t is clear" he said, that the
chair has no choice but to obey the rule
which says that no motion except to ad-
Journ can be entertaiDed pending the con-
sioeration OF report from the COMMITTEES
on rules Therefore, he declined TO recoe-
nize Mr.. Bouteile.
Mr.. Reeds Inquiry
At this point Mr.. Reed arose to a psrlia-
mentary inquiry.
Mr. Reed said: The chair has stated TO
the House that Ii would be in the power of
the House to control this matter by direct
action. namely, by opposing ;he adoption
OF the rule now presented. wouli IL be in
order to raise the question OF consideration
against this. in order to test this very ques-
ton? That the House should have contro.
of its own proceedings would seem TO be be-
yond dispute. but ii cannot have control of
Its own proceedings under the rules as gen.
tlemen upon the democratic side are called
upon to vote against a rule which otherwise
they might desire retained
They might be willing to vote against con-
sideration upon the ground that as soon as
they had disposed of this Hawaiian matter,
either by laying IL on the table or refusing
TO consider It, they could then proceed under
this rule. But il they defeat the rule they
deprive themselves of that right; and take
this occasion to suggest to the chair that
perhaps there ought to be a revision of tn
former ruling of the chair that the House
could not raise the question OF consideration
against report of the committee on rules
This is one of the bad consequences To
which that ruling has led That ruling 1
think. was made under a mistaken idea that
there was some analogy between the pres-
ent situation and a motion for the suspen-
sion of the rules. OF course IL the chair be-
lieved that my colleague lMr. Boutelle) Wa
presenting this matter for purposes of DELAY.
or anything of that sort, then, under the
general parliamentary. law of every civilixed
body, the chair would have the right to rule
II out subject to future corrective action by
the House. IL there were any abuse: but
surely We ought not to be put in a position
where the House may not take up a Ques-
tion relating to its own dignity. by dispos-
ing temporarily OF proposition 20 change
the rules without being obliged TO dispose
of IL permanently.
Allow me in this connection. in order 10
show the importance of this situation ana
OF the course of action that ought to be
taken In regard TO IL. to suggest to the
chair a possibility. Suppose IL were WITHIN
the knowledge of any member of the House
at this moment that some body. some band
OF undiscipined or Of disciplined people
were marching upon this body and the
Hcuse might desire to call for proper aid
In order to preserve its existence; suppose
member should rise in his place and say
that he desired to present that as a quts-
ton of the highest privilege, and TO ASH
Tor action on the part Of the House in order
TO preserve Its own existence nobody would
Tor an instant dispute the superior right
OF that question over the present PROPOSE
ton which the Speaker is about 70 Law be-
fore the House. The chair VIII please OBJ
serve that this point does not depend upon
the Importance of the question presented
1 put an extreme case because II is only
by putting an extreme case that we can
see the full extent of the ruling The prin-
ciple is precisely the same whenever any
question OF privilege is presented 10 the
House. and the House alone can determine
whether the question is of sufficient Inn
portance to justify the interruption Of a.
present business.
Question Of Privilege.
Now. let me say that a question Of privi-
lege is not dependent upon a rule of this
House. Without any rule IL is inherent In
the nature Of a legislative body that it
shall have the right to interrupt temporary
business for the purpose of preserving its
own existence, and what is necessary in
order to preserve its own existence can
only be determined by the House itself. I
think that possibly the Speaker may have
been led into error in regard to this-if he
Is In error, and 1 mean to speak with per-
feet respect upon this subject, because I
understand somewhat of the difficulties Of
ruling upon questions which spring up sud-
denly and even Of ruling upon questions az
to which one has plenty of time for delib-
Grafton. But the question, / say, must be
determined by the House. either primarily
by the Speaker, with an appeal from his
decision, or by submission TO the House tt
self. Now. this being the case. ought there
not to be a series Of rulings which will al
low the House TO remain in this position!
1t is perfectly true that the House has the
right to change its rules, not merely under
the Constitution, for. I'm my Judgment the
Constitution is only declaratory Of an in
herent power which exists In every par
liamentary body.
1t undoubtedly has the right 20 change fts
rules, and IL this were a direct proposition
to change this rule alone in order to get rid
of this question as the House might desire
why then the intimation of the Speaker
would seem to be entirely correct But here
Is a general proposition. and 4 do not be-
lieve that by any rulings which have been
heretofore made, this order, either IN its
inception or I'm its execution. could be saved
from interruption when any matter OF prfvf-
lege concerning the House itself was up
In other words. I mean to assert that N this
rule were actually adopted IL would not alb
rogate the other rule to which my colleague
INT. Boutelle) has appealed. N. IN the midst
of the discussion which is to take place un-
der this rule and which is limited and pre-
rise in his place and present a question OF
House. which, of course. would be a question
ment is that the chair would be obliged TO
rule that that question OF privilege had
precedence and to call upon the House to
dispose OF IL.
OF course the thing which the chair really
has in mind perhaps, although ne may not
be conscious of II, because this is a aues-
ton of feeling-the feeling may be that this
is for purposes of delay. Upon that ques-