Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-04-18

Burrows, did not attempt 70 put In their
oars. They watched every point, how
ever. vigilantly. Finally Mr.. Catchpgs
Welded and agreed to allow two hours
debate on a side, a vote TO be taken at 4
o'clock.
Everything seemed to be in pro-
cess Of peaceful adjustment be-
fore the request for unanimous consent,
By which such agreements are made
binding on the House, was submitted.
MIR. Burrows, one of toe Republican
members of the rules committee, Of
fered on behalf OF himself and Mr.. Reed
as a substitute for the proposed rule,
the quorum counting rule Of the Fifty
first Congress.
THAT RULE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
"On the demand of any member or at
the suggestion Of the Speaker, the
names OF members sufficient 10 make
quorum in the hall Of the House who DO
not vote shall be noted by the clerk and
recorded in the journal and reported TO
the Speaker with the names OF the
members voting and oe counted and an
nounced in determinS the presence OF
quorum 70 do business.
The Speaker then submitted tha re-
quest for unanimous consent to close
the debate at four o'clock.
To the great surprise OF all Mr., Wells,
OF Wiscon, objected. This ended the
attempt TO reach 4 peaceful settlement.
Mr.. Catchings appealed to the House tU
witness the fact that he had made an
honest attempt TO afford reasonable
opportunity for debate, Nothing was
left but 90 apply the gag. lie demanded
the previous question. The vote was
taken by yeas and nays.
The Republicans made no effort to
flibuster, but voted 10 the negative, as
did many Democrats who were opposed
either to the proposed rule or to drlV-
ing it
THROUGH UNDER THE Lash.
The demand for the previous question
was sustsined-140 TO 12O.
Under the rule, fifteen minutes were
allowed on a side for debate.
Mr.. Hatch attempted 10 ask uoanl-
nous consent for further time, but Mr..
Bynum Gndiana), objected.
Some question followed as to the
manner in which the time should be
divided. In the course of this contro-
versy Mr Reed stated that so far as the
Republican minority was concerned the
rule reported from the Committee on
Rules embodied the principle for which
they bad been contending. There
might, perhaps, be some objection TO
the details of the rule, but the principle
was the correct one.
Mr.. Burrows, after stating that the
proposed rule was substantially the rule
of the Fifty-6rSt Congress, withdrew
the substitute he had offered. Before
the debate began Mr. Catchings asked
unanimous consent that those who so
desired should have an opportunity to
print their remarks 10 the Record. "Oh,
I object" shouted Mr.. BOutelle, OF
Maine. with a smile. "Such remarks
would make but a melancholy contribu-
tion 70 Congressional literature"
THE DEBATE THEN BEGAN.
Ii was calm, even tempered, and wholly
unlike what had been anticipated. The
Republicans were bubbling over with
good humor over the consummation OF
their long legislative struggle, and aD-
plauded every Democratic convert TO
the rule put ia practice In the Fifty
frSt Congress. Mr. CatchingS was first
recognized and made a two minute
speech.
Mr.. Catchings yielded one minute to
General Wheeler, (Alabams6 who had
Just enough time TO protest against 1t
as antagoniStic to the deliberation
which ought 10 obtain in a legislative
BODY like the House OF Representatives,
when the gavel dropped aud he was
snmmarily taken of the floor. Mr..
Reed. who controlled fifteen minutes
for the Republicans, at this juncture,
yielded FIVE miauJes to Mr. Bryan,
Dem, Nebraska).
Mr.. Bryan was very earnest in bis
opposition 10 the proposed rule. This
was a matter of great importance, he
said. Over half the States IN the Union,
including New York, Pennsylvania, Hi
uOls. Indiana, Ohio and Nebraska, re-
quired the affirmative vote Of major
ity of their legislative assemblies TO en-
act laws. II might be convenient at
times. but 10 was essentially safe plan.
ID was the safeguard OF the minority.
10 gave the minority the power TO COM
mel the concurrence OF a majority on
any measure, aud while the power
could be used for filibuStering purposes,
after all 10 was better
TO BE SAFE THAN BE SORRY.
Mr.. Springer Dem, Ill.), who fol-
lowed Mr. Bryan, supported the pro-
posed rule, because be said II would
enable the members OF the House to
transact the business which their con-
stituents sent them here 10 transact. A
burst of Republican applause greeted
this statement. which was renewed
when be said that the House had in a
month done but two DAYS business.
"NIy constituents are tired Of it," said
he in conclusion, and l hone the House
is tired OF 10. / hail this as the dawn
Of brighter day"
Mr.. Kugore argued that the proposed
rule was unnecessary In = legislative
body Ia which the controlling party had
"a majoritv, and 80 more than quorum
EN-SpeaEer Grow rep, PennSy va
nia,) upheld the principle incorporated
in the proposed rule, but objected TO its
details as CumberOuS.
Mr.. Russell Dem, Georgia. to whom
Mr.. Reed yielded one minute. declared
that no one would have the temerity to
affirm that the Fitty-frst Congress
would have adopted the Quorum-count-
ing service had the Republicans 10 that
Congress not been so hard pressed for q
Quorum. With the enormous majority
possessed by the Democrats OF this
House. 10 was
A HUNuLIATING SPECTACLE
10 see them forced 10 the adoption Of
the revolutionary expedient.
A round of Republican applause an
swered this, and Mr.. Reed, whose face