The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-01-10
House Vote Yesterday Was
Brought About as a "Vindi-
cation of Cannon
iNSURGENT LEADER
J, EXPLAINS SITUATION
Man Who Offered Resolution
in House Yesterday, Citing
Precedent of Last March,
Votes Against 1t


Representative George w. Norris,
floor leader of the House insurgents,
and author of the famous Norris
resolution" that precipitated the fight
against Speaker Cannon and the
House rules 1ast March. to-day pre-
pared the following statement on yes
terday's rules fight In the House for
the United Press:
Copyright, 1911, by the United Press
Associations
BY REPRESENTATIVE GEO. w.
NORRIS. of Nebraska.
The insurgent members of the
House, with O few of the Democrats.
are able to-day TO point to record
that Is consistently In favor of a pro-
gressive conduct Of public business in
the House. We were apparently over
ridden yesterday by corn bination of
Republicans and Democrats. but our
record liz clear. The effect or our
fight OF last spring is not nuliitied, anu
the-pFegfesstee- Fuies-that We then
wrote into the regulations of the
House arc not in any way abrogated.
The fight for progressive American
principles In legislation will go on.
Yesterdays action of the House was
at most a mere temporary setback.
The attack on the precedent set by
the House ruling on the so-callea
Norris amendment to the rules last
spring. when 1t was declared that a
motion TO amend the rules is of the
highest constitutional privilege, ana
the attacks on the insurgent rule
amendments. that have been in pro-
gress since the beginning of this ses-
sion OF Congress, including the hiibus-
ter against the Democratic motion
TO discharge rule" are typical exam
Mos NJ: machine I'm he AnnGH
There is no doubt in my mind that
they were inspired by a ring of the
"old guard" in the House, with n
view to discrediting the ends accom-
plished by the bitter insurgent fight
of last March,
Not an Insurgent Engagement.
Yesterdays rules fight was not aTI
insurgent engagement. II was started
by Representative Fuller. close
friend and lieutenant of the Speaker.
He offered his resolution and made
an argument TO the effect that it was
privileged under the Constitution. cit
ing the decision of the House on my
own resolution last March to sustain
this point. He then voted against
his own position to sustain the ruling
OF the speaker that declared his reso-
luton ont OF order. The appeal from
the decision of the chair was taken
by Representatives Gaines, of West
Virginia. another lieutenant Of the
Speaker, but when the roll was called
Mr.. Gaines voted against his own ap-
peai--voted To sustain the ruling OF
the Speaker, Both Mr.. Gaines and
Mr.. Fuller last March voted to sus-
tain the chair in ruling the Norris
resolution out of order. and voted
against the resolution itself.
1t looks TO me very much like a
frame-up, brought about By the
Speaker and his friends for vindi-
cation.
The Democrats who voted yester-
day TO sustain the Speakers ruling
that motions to amend the rules are
not OF the highest constitutional priv
ilege. declared they did SO on the
ground that their vote of last March
esta hlishing contrary precedent was
a revolution and was not intended
10 establish a precedent. The ext
gencies of the situation In the House
last March fully justified a legislative
revolution. but none MAS necessary.
The Crumpacker Resolution.
On the seventeenth of March, Rep
resentative Crumpacker. chairman Of
the House census committee, had call
ed up on the fioor~of the House. with
out reporting IL from ,rommittea. q
resolution amendment the census law
Speaker Cannon ruled that this was
question OF the highest constitutional
privilege. as the Constitution imposes
oh Congress the duty OF legisiating for
a census every ten years, and the
House sustained that ruling.
My resolution claimed privilege on
exactly the same grounds-that is
that the duty OF making rules for the
House is prescribed la the Constitu-
tion--and the House in reversing the
Speakers ruling against this, simply
decided consistently with the prece-
dent established in the ruling on the
Crumpacker resolution.
This was not revolution. This was
acting according TO a precedent es-
tabiished by a vote of the House and
by the Speakers ruling, 1t was pro-
ceeding according to all the usual
means employed in legislative ac-
tivity in the House. No amount OF
equivocation can conceal the true fact
that. II the ruling of the Speaker
and the House was right on the Crum-
packer resolution, then my resolution
OF last March was in order. and the
House was right then in overruling
the Speaker when he declared II out
OF order. and the Speaker was wrong
yesterday when he reversed that ac-
ton.
But the fight for free legislative
body In the House responsible to the
people will go on. And there is no
doubt that in the end the cause OF
progressive conduct of the affairs of
the republic must prevail.