The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-21
THE ROOT OF THE WRONG.

THE ROOT OF THE WRONG.
The dispute in the convention on
Tuesday, over the Coray bit of bitter
ness, has occasioned some discussion
outside as well as inside the conven-
ton. If the parties to it will consider
the exact facts, we believe they will
come to the conclusion that the greater
part Of the trouble came through the
error of the President, in recognizing
a motion to lay a resolution on the
table while the mover of the resolu-
ton held the floor.
In reading the press reports we find
that they agree in these particulars,
namely: That when Mr.. Evans pre-
scented his resolution citing Mr.. Coray
before the bar of the convention, Mr..
Evans said: 81 move the adoption of
the resolution, and if I can get sec
ond [ will state the reason" Where
upon the motion was seconded. Be
fore Mr.. Evans could proceed further.
Mr.. Eichnor moved to lay the resolu-
ton on the table and his motion was
seconded by several persons in con-
cert. The President entertained this
motion and put it, thus aiding in chok-
ing off Mr.. Evans in. his announced
desire to speak on his resolution.
1t was while this motion to lay on
the table was before the convention
that Mr.. Evans insisted upon making
an explanation. For this he is de-
clared to have been out of order. But
that is on the ground that a motion
to lay on the table is not debatable.
The fact is Mr.. Evans was not at
tempting to debate that question. He
was not speaking to that motion. He
was endeavoring to show the President
that he had a right to the floor when
the latter motion wos offered, and that
in entertaining it the President had
deprived him of the right to speak to
bis resolution after it had been Sec
onded.
Mr.. Evans, then, was not out of or
der, but all the proceedings which cut
him out of his parliamentary right to
speak on his resolution were irregular,
arbitrary and disgraceful We do not
share in the view expressed by many,
that the President knowingly and will
lingly muzzled Mr.. Evans for a par
tisan purpose. We think what he did
was in error, not in malice. He wrong
fully entertained Mr.. Eichnor's motion
while Mr. Evans was clearly entitled
to the floor.
1t is claimed by apologists for the
course pursued that Mr.. Evans had
taken his seat while the vote was in
progress over the Eichnor motion.
That, however, did not waive his right
to be heard on the resolution, but he
simply subsidized for a time while the
progress, not wishing to add to the
tumult.
It is also claimed that he lost the
floor by the seconding of his resolu-
ton. That would be a new thing in
parliamentary practice. 1t is one of
the commonest occurrences for a men,
Der to announce that he will speak to a
motion he presents if he can get a
second, and on receiving it, proceed to
make remarks.
Common courtesy, If not rules of or
der, would suspend a motion to lay on
the table until the speaker had finished
his remarks, and if the President had
declined to recognize Mr.. Eichnor until
the mover of the resolution had closed
his speech, the trouble that ensued and
the bad feeling it caused would have
been avoided.
The Evans resolution could have
been voted down, or the Eichnor mo-
ton sustained, and every delegates
rights preserved in either case. AS it
was, Mr.. Evans was shabbily treated /
and is placed in false light when he
is accused Of trying to speak to Eich- |
nor's motion which was not debatable, |
when he was merely endeavoring to |
explain the right to speak to his own /
resolution which was debatable
The disposition of the Coray dis
courtesy was as rank a display of par
at could be made in the most |
partisan body on earth. It was a la
mentable thing and shows how much /
rancor may spring from a very small |
root Of party bitterness.