St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-03-29
FIRST TIME FOR A WEEK
HOUSE DEMOCRATS MUSTER A Gy3-
FUN ONLY TO LOSE III.
coNFEsTED ELECTION CASES.
Ex-Czar Reed Critiuises the Demo-
Gratis for Attempting TO Hustle
% Through the Election Cases
s3s ha'
ia Wasting the Day the House
81 Adjanrns.

81 Through the Election Cases
/ Without Discussion = After
Ia Wasting the Day the House
81 Adjanrns.
WAsnINGToS. March 2S.-When the
Speakers gavrl fell today there were
less than eighty members on the floor.
The house proceeded with some routine
business, pending report expected
from tile rules committee for The dispo.
sitlon of the contested election cases of
U Nti! vs.. JOY and English VS. Hilborn.
Mi. Outhwaite (Deni, %. from the
committee on rules. reported rule
limiting debate 10 two hours each on
the two election cases. the final vote To
be then taken. Mr. Cultivate de-
manded the previous question OH tile
adoption of the rule. The vote on
ordering the previous question resulted
164 TOT
MIR. Reed made the point of no QUO
rum.
The vote resulted l79 yeas and l nav
ONE more than quorum. The
result was greeted with applause. This
is the first time for week that the
Democrats have mustered a quorum.
MI. Il ed criticised the disposition to
hustle through these cases without dis
cussinn. He said the purpose OF the
Republicans bad been 10 call attention
to q great outrage, The house and the
country being III tile habit of paying
LITTLE attention to election Gases
Mr. Outhwalte replied by saying that
more time for discussion of these cases
III the first place had been offered.
He also reviewed the action of the
fhty-hrst congress on election cases
and pointed out the quick manner in
which eases were then disposed of.
Mr.. Reed moved to recolnnit the rule
with instructions TO report a rule allow
| Ing further time. The speaker was
inclined 10 think that this motion could
not be entertained
| MIR. REED ARGUED
the case on technical grounds. The
| speaker ruled that the motion 10 recon.
NIT was equivalent TO proposition to
amend. Amendments were not in or
DER after the previous question had
been ordered. Therefore the motion
OF tile gentleman from Maine ReedO
was not in order.
On the question Of adopting the re-
! port or the committee. Mr. Cultivate
| demanded the yeas and nays. The di-
vision having developed the lack of
! quorum. the Republicans again re-
Trained from voting
| HE vote OH the adoption of the spe-
cal rule was III TO {, including The vote
OF the speaker, and it was agreed 10. a
bare quorum voting.
+i The resolution OF the committee on
elections declaring John j. O'Neill
entitled. to the seat for the Eleventh
district OF Missouri was READ. and Mr..
Patterson. of Tennessee, was recognized
on the side of the majority report. and
Mr.. Daniel. of New York, of that Oh the
side OF the minority.
lMr. Patterson'S statement involved a
very elaborate and extended eXplana-
ton of the Missouri ballot law.
Representative Daniels (Rep., n. ".
in charge of the case for Mr. JOY, TO
lowed Mr.. Patterson with review of
The Australian ballot law of Missouri as
applying TO the JOY ballots. As to the
| objection that the initials OF the election
Judges were not on the ballots. Mr.
I Daniels commended that this was an
error to be charged against the judges
and not
AGAINST THE VOTERS.
Mr.. Paynter Oem., ky.) followed.
He argued that the absence of the
| judges initials from the ballots i'll
validated them.
Mr.. Bartholdt REP, Mo-, commended
that the Republican vote of Missouri
amounted to 80 per cent of the Demo-
cratic vote, and the gerrymander had
enabled them TO secure representation
OF only IL per cent of the Democratic
vote. Now it was proposed to cut this
down half. The election machinery
was all i'll the hands of the Democrats.
MIR. benson Dem., Ala) argued for
the contestant and the majority report,
while Mr.. Griffin (Dem., Mich.) argued
against the majority report.
A request for unanimous consent to
/ extend his remarks was refused.
| He asserted that he would decline to
| vote to disfranchSe any of the citizens
OF Missouri by reason of failure of the
| election officers to put their initials on
| the ballot, the intent Of the vote being
| plain.
Mr.. Joy REP, Mo- whose seat was
| fAAS Ny Su Oii gu iOouC, uSu lildI tU6
recount OF the ballots had built up his
/ majority. The grounds of the contest
ant. ne claimed, as finally made, were
| not valid In the note of contest served
upon bin as required by law.
MIR. Reed rep. Me.) pointed out that
Tn. Missouri statute provided that
| judges are required to put their
| INITIALS ON BALLOTS.
Further. that Judges shall not deposit
the ballot unless it has the initials He
held that this was intended to give the
voter chance to rectify the omission if
the initial was at first omitted. He said
it was proposed to disfranchise over 900
voters on account of the fault OF the
| judges.
Mr.. Call (Rep., Mass.) closed for the
minority report.
MIR. Brown Dem., Ind consumed the
4