Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, N.D.) 1909-1915, 1911-03-31

4 The speaker (Schuyler COlfax) in
ruling stated among other things: "'He
can propose to impeach the president
or any other officer of the govern
rnent on any day during the season. /
4 Now: to my mind this is absolutely
decisive Of the question The above
ruling by Speaker Colfax OF the ma B
tionala house arose Z out OF the, fact
which you will find in the records that
the first impeachment resolution
against President ] ohnson$ was voted
down on December Z, 1857 and there
after in the same session another i'm.
parchment resolut lon was introduced
and adopted. :y @ 3 s$y $Si55:s ~ ,'5 l&
# So il Judge Cowan's friends com
plain in the matter I have only to say
that the same situation arose, when
President Johnson was inlpeached: aft
or the first attempt failed, and in.
sist that your statement that was ar
bitrtry in the matter is not establish.
ed but that on the contraryI followed
the precedents exactly. VAT as,I 7 lss,a -
: 4. I know that you claim that the cita.
ton above referred to as an au-
thority does not say anything about
a Hclincher." But a 'clincher" is moth
ing more than laying the matter 81
the table as far as the effect thereof
is concerned. It. is a doubled
ed'' motion, first to- reconsider and to
lay the motion on. the tab i and under,
lie parilamen tary practice adopted in
our house when q bill is laid on the
table it cannot be taken of The table
without suspension of the rules. Your
clincher motion its terms put. the
resolution on the table. ( But 4 again
lsay that in view OF the precedent above
given in the Johnson Impeachment
matter Although a report as 10 an
Impeachment; be laid on the table the
right to move anFimpe achment Ia the
same case ID not recIuded !. - And the:
/ first resolution which went to the ta-|
BILE under the 4clincher motion with
out the testimony still stays there Ny
ruling was made more particularly,
however, on the PROPOSE ton laid down
| by Speaker Colfax and is an estab-
lished principle OF arliamentary law
to the effect that an impe achment res;
olution is one 4 Of high consti tutional
privilege and q new one can E intro
tduced 4 second time as was done in
Presid ent Johnson's case. ( n E s N
Again I call your attention to the
fact that in every session there are
identical bills introduced and the fact
y that one of these is Indefinitely post
\ poned and q cline cher added, still ex-
4 act1y similar bills are later consider
led and passed by ajority vote. B "a
In the SGowan matter, II a mot ion had
Ebeen made to reconside the vote BY
which the first resolution was indef-
\ nitely postponed your positio 4 ould
i be correct. S. But such was not the
case and }at no time was there a mo-
q ton to- reconsider that first resolution
made. The Illustration which you use
/ with reference ito calling up 4 a bill
4 which has been defeated ii not a par
Il allel situation but the situation would
81 be nearer parallel lfS 1T was a; case in
\ which IA bill had be en defeated and "a
Il clincher put on End then afterwa rds
\, y another and new bill On the same sub,
Meet would come up.
You also complain that did not
n recognize your point sof order but ran
8 the steam roller over It ID AS to this ]
Il desire 4 to call our attention to the
Il record. One page 4 2 !. offs the house
i Journal for Feb: is the fol lowing
J. MI. streeters appealed from che de
cision# OF the Chair
streeter. then withdrew his ap
& pea.
!, This shows that you are mistaken
n does not ?88 And proves that you
I Ipoint of ord erS was recognize and yot
Twill remembe that hen ruled VI!
4 stated ito You that the house had iii
], right tel PASS 81 upon the matter as I'll
fIWhether was ight and INFORMED
:slyyou that YOU had q " ghts to appeal from
y my ecision and 4 gave you \ I'LL stIhs
u chance couId tto discuss the matte
On appeal You did appeal but 81
u shoWn above you itthhdrews your ap
e1peal before the mot lon was put Yoi
u nndo ubtedly would have Insisted up
elon the appeal had yo1 felt al that tim,
al al YOU we're srigh
i. our next critic srn IS to the effec
Il that instead soff the house, appointel
III ID the beard or managers ato conduct stth
d ttrial ills true III The code provide
81 that the managers shall be selected j;
e3l the house, and YOU know that nc il
Il the uniform nra ctice that the act %
d the speaker Is the act of the house
Ell But, however that may pc. tto show yo
IL that your cri ticis1n is unjust, u want Z
Ii call your attention to- the fact, tina,
lss III order III be fair The matter sui
II LIMIT ted HE DE managers to iii
II house for their approval and synt
!. of the house ne list was approved