Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-01-08

terpoSe nere-my colleague tMr. Bouteiie
knows that 1 have had nothing to do what
ever with the proceedings with regard Il
this matter heretofore
Mr.. Boutelle-I relieve my colleague from
all responsibility for my action.
Mr. Reed-I have had nothing to do Wit
IT, but j do desire that this matter shall
be put upon a basis where the rule would
be such that We can transact business IN
orderly fashion; and 1t seems to me that II
the chair would give consideration to the
whole condition of affairs. he would either
change the intimation which has ALREADY
been made. or else permit the question oil
consideration to be raised.
am quite well aware that the chair has
been justified by the action of the House.
j am quite well aware that the actloh OF
the House sustaining an appeal from the
decision of the chair is conclusive evidence
In a way of what parliamentary law 1s'
for the time being. That 1 fully admit.
But at the same time we all know that a
Speaker Is sustained ordinarily by his Side
Of the House. and 1t Is advantageous for the
dignity and honor of the House tnat that
should be 50. Yet there have been instanc IS
where Speakers. upon examining the mat
ter have seen ft to submit the whole situa-
ton to the House.
1 have discharged my duty in presenting
this matter as 1t seems to my mind
Mr.. Boutelle rose. Cries Of Regular or
derrO
Mr. Bouteiie-I desire to say
The Speaker-One moment.
The Speakers Reply.
Mr.. Boutelle-I desire to emphasize, Mr..
Speaker
To this the Speaker replied: Zone mo-
ment, please. On the suggestion OF the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed as to the
propriety of recognizing the right to raise
the question of consideration on a report
from the committee on rules, the chair
will say, It has always been held IN TINS
body that the question of consideration
could not be raised against what Is known
and defined as the order of business. For
instance a gentleman makes a motion that
the House resolve itself into committee OF
the whole to consider a certain Dill. Ihe
question of consideration cannot De raiser ,,
against that The question of consideration
is determined on that motion by Young ~
up or voting 1t down. Now the chair, IN
making the ruling in respect TO report
from the committee on rules, regarueo 4.
as in the nature of a motion relating 10
the order of business. and therefore, helu
that the question of consideration could not
be raised because the House could deter
mine that order of business by voting the
proposed rule up voting it down, and the
effect would be the same as though the
question of consideration were recognized:
srhe chair SO held in the last Congress and
again in this, and the decision was sus-
tanned by the House
OF course the chair Is aware. painfuliy
aware Of the fact suggested by the gentle
man from Maine. that very often the occu-
pant of the chair is forced to make decisions
without such investigation as he would like
But in regard to the present decision, the
chair does not see that any harm can come
from Ii, becaUse IL Is within the power or
the House at any time to dispose or the
question so presented. Take the present
case Suppose there were a great erner-
gency, as suggested by the gentleman from
Maine: IL would be in the power of the
House to dispose of the report from the
committee on rules in forty minutes. to get
Il out of the way; a majority could get IL
out of the way in forty minutes. There are
thirty minutes allowed for debate. and then
IN ten minutes more the majority OF tne
House could get the question out of the
way, so that there could be no hardship as
the effect of this ruling.
OF course. If there were no quorum pres
emit, or IL members present failed to vote, so
that no quorum appeared, there might be
some embarrassment, but II majority or
the House should desire to dispose of the
pending matter so as to reach another mat
ter. some great privileged question, Ii could
do so. This is not like lingering matter,
IT could be disposed of certainly In an hour,
80 as to reach any business that the House
might desire to reach.
The chair has thus in response to the sug-
gestion of the gentleman from Maine given
expression to the views that governed him
in originally holding that the question of
consideration could not be raised against a
report of the committee rules. The
question is now upon the demand for the
previous question
Mr.. Boutelle and the Speaker.
Mr.. Boutelle-Has the Speaker ruled upon
the question of precedence now presented?
II the chair has
The Speaker-The chair declines to recog-
nize the gentleman to make the motion.
Mr.. Boutelle-The chair stated a moment
ago that this presented question of
or1er-he recognized it as question of the
order Of business. call the attention of the
chair to the fact that a question of privi-
larxa folr - Ion, af
the order of business. according to the
specific language of the rule
The Speaker-The chair has endeavored to
express his views in regard to the question
presented by the gentleman from Maine.
Mr.. Boutelle-Does the chair decline to
entertain appeal?
The Speaker-The chair declines to recog-
nize the gentleman again.
Mr.. Boutelle-The chair declines to enter
tain an appeal?
o The Speaker-No appeal can be entertain
ed upon question of recognition.
Mr.. Boutelle-I simply protest against this |
proceeding as usurpation on the part of
the Speaker. only equaled by the usurpa-
ton on the part of the executive
Ordered to His Seat.
The Speaker-The gentleman from Maine |
will take his seat.
MIR. Boutelle-I shall do so.
The Speaker-The gentleman will resume |
his seat
Mr.. BOutelle-I shall do so under duress. |
The Speaker-The gentleman will do SO at |
once The sergeant-at-arms will request
the gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr.. Boutelle-It will not be necessary. |
understand what force and duress are |
The Speaker-The gentleman will take his |
seat |
Mr.. Boutelle-They do not foreclose any |
constitutional right. |
Mr.. BouteIle resumed his seat Applause |
on the democratic side) |
The Tariff Bill Up.
The Speaker-The question is on the de- !
mand Of the gentleman from Mississippi
CMr. CatchingsJ for the previous question
The yeas and nays were then ordered, and |
by a vote of $50 yeas to nays, a quorum |
being present, the previous question was or
dered.
Mr.. Catchings' Expnation.
Mr.. Catchings Miss.). a member of the |
committee on rules. explained that when
the Mckinley bill was before the House
no 70