The Detroit times., 1911-01-11

light OF last spring is not nullifed, and
the progressive rules that we then
wrote into the regulations OF the hoyse
are not I'm any way abrogated. The
fight for progressive American prin-
ciples In legislation will go on. Mon
days action Of the house was at most
mere temporary setback.
The attack on the precedent set by
the house ruling on the so-called Nor
ris amendment to the rules last spring
when IL was declared that a motion
tfo amend the rules Is or the highest
constitutional privilege, and the at.
lacks on the insurgent rule amend
ments that have been In progress
since the beginning OF this session OF
congress including the hlibuster
against the Democratic Motion to dis
charge rules" are typical examples OF
machine rule In the house. There Is
no doubt In my mind that they were
4 Inspired by a ring Of the "Old guard"
In the house, with a view to discredit
the ends accomplished by the bitter
insurgent fight OF last March.
Mondays rules fight was not an
4 insurgent engagement II was start
cd by Rep. Fuller, a close friend and
lieutenant of the speaker. He offered
his resolution and made an argument
to the effect that II was privileged UNI
der the constitution. citing the .deci-
sion of the house on my own resolu-
ton last March to sustain this point.
He then voted against his own posi-
ton to sustain the ruling of the speak
Or that declared his resolution out OF
\ order. The appeal from the decision
Of the chair was taken by Rep. Gaines,
of West Virginia another lieutenant
OF the speaker, but when the roll was
called Mr.. Gaines voted against his
own appeal--voted to sustain the rul-
Ing or the speaker. Both Mr.. Gaines
and Mr.. Fuller last March voted to
sustain the chair In ruling the Norris
resolution out OF order, and voted
= against the resolution itself
IL looks to me very much like a
frame-up brought about by the speak
err and his friends for a vindication.
The Democrats who voted Mon
{, day to sustain the speakers ruling
a that motions to amend the rules are
not OF the highest constitutional priv
& flege, declared they did so on the
\ ground that their vote OF last March
! establishing a contrary precedent was
A q z Revolution" and was not intended
to establish a precedent.
The exigencies OF the conditions In
\ the house last March fully justified a
\ legislative revolution.
On the 18th Of March. Rep. Crum.
(, packer, chairman of the house census
committee, had called up on the floor
Il Of, the house, without reporting Il
from committee, a resolution amending
a the census law. Speaker Cannon ruled
B that this was a question of the high
est constitutional privilege. as the
coDstitution imposes on congress the
duty OF legislating for a census every
tea 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 In the constitu
E tion--and the house in reversing the
epeaker's ruling against this. simply
decided consistently with the prece
dent established In the ruling on the
Crumpacker resolution.
This was not revolution. This was
/. sting according TO precedent es
tablished by a vote of the house. and
By the speakers ruling. Ii was pro
cceding according to- all the usua
+ means employed in legislative activ
ify In the house No amount OF equiv
ocatioh can conceal the true fact that
4 the ruling Of the speaker and In,
0ouse was right on the Crumpackel
reeolutton. then my resolution OF las
e March was In order and the house wa,
h Heht In overruling the speaker wher
BE- declared II out OF order, and tn,
speaker was wrong yesterday wher
. BE reversed that action.
But the fight for free legislativ,
111y In the house. directly responsi
~ 20 the people, will go on. AnC
here IL no doubt that in the end IN,
11ne Of prozrexsire conduct of TIM
an Of the republic must prevail.