The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-04-30
HOW LEADER M r. MANN
WAS OUTWfTTED.
And Meyer London. Socialist. Lands
In the legislative Llmelfght.

GreeslOnaI district. the lone SOCIALIST
Of the House. WAS thrust into the dag
zling centre Of legislative limelight
offers a paradox: an interesting story
untangled from n House rules snarl.
The army preparedness bill was
passed by the House on March %.
The Senate labored with II for just
one month and then "messaged' II
back 70 the House with two amend
ments In which the concurrence Of
the House Is respectfully requested
az was stated by the messenger from
the Senate. The two amendments
changed tho title Of tho bill and struck
out every word Of II after the enact
Ing clause, substituting as an amend
ment" "a Senate bill: but under par
liamentary practice IL was stIll con-
sidered a House bill. That considera-
ton was what put Comrade London
In the bullseye Of the spotlight.
Naturally the House wanted 10 dis
agree with the amendments and refer
the bill TO a conference committee. as
the bill had passed the House with
only w dissenting votes. London OF
New York and Britten of Illinois. This
reference is secured by one Of two
methods. by unanimous consent or by
the adoption of a special rule. the for
iner method being used in n%inety-nine
instances in a hundred.
Chairman Hay OF the Military AZ.
fairs Committee made the motion FOR
unanimous consent. but Mr.. Mann
objected and the hill automaticall,
Went back to Mr.. Hays committee. AZ
Mr.. Mann had voted for the bill his
objection denoted "A purpose To- play
politics. therefore the Rules Com.
inittee in preparing a special rule ,c
provide FOR conference sought to head
nm on By emitting from the rule five
"ords which usually conclude such
rules. As presented the next day
April ~. by Mr.. Garrett OF the com.
nittee h rule discharged the fla,
committee from further consideration
o! the bill. a conference was asked for
ana hnaily provided THAT upon thu
adoption Of this resolution . IN,
Speaker shall Immediately appoint IN,
managers lconfereesl on the part M
the House. without intervening mo.
ton
h customary concluding word,
omitted r except one motion tt
recomm!t.'
instantly Mr.. Mann made the mo.
t'on mat the rule was not privileged.
ro'io""d a two days debate In which
parliamentarians from Jefferson u
cannon were freely quoted. the dv,
ponderous volumes OF Kinds prece
cents" dog cared as never before. IN,
House Manual torn to tatters and IN,
parliamentary big guns rushed IN
ioaued and fired and retired for re,
ioanihg. innocent members-and al
nut a dozen or 80 were innocent at firs
Of the cause OF the excitement-lis
tened in wide eyed wonder.
Mr.. Mann contended that tn,
special rule was contrary to the gen
era' rules In several respects. particu
larIy mat II deprived the minority O
us hard Fought for privilege of offer
ms a motion to recommit.
Paragraph I. Rule NNI.. provides:
AFTER the previous question shall hav
been ordered on the passage OF a hill a
'"Int resolution ono motion TO recommi
shaIi he In order. and the Speaker sha,
give preference In recognition for sue
~ ~ mi u IN ODDnEed :
the bill or Joint resolution.
This protection OF the i
strengthened by Rule NJ. Section 70
OF the House Manual, which. prohibit
ing the Rules Committee ccrt,i,
Things. adds. NOR shall IL repor, nm,
rule or order which shall operate Z
prevent the motion To recommit beln,
made as provided for in the rul
quoted above.
Mr.. Garrett responded that the rul
under consideration did not relate 4
III" passage Of a bin or Joint resolu
ton therefore the general rule d.
not apply. Moreover. the minorit
would have opportunity to move 4
when the conference repor
was brought in for adoption.
rms uncovered the motive of tn
Mann objection. which was more full
revealed by Sherley OF Kentucky whc,
he got into the debate.
II IL a custom having Jeffersonia,
lhd"fsement-not a rule, hut with IN
force OF a rule-that that branch n
which asks for a conference
acts last on a conference report IN
branch which agrees acting frs, %
a report. In this case the House wa
asking for the conference and there
iore would not act on n motion I
agree To the action of the conferee
until the Senate had acted. When tn
Senate had acted its conference mana
gers would be automatically dis
Charged and the conference committe
would cease to exist. Therefore IN
opportunity Garrett suggested I
Mann he would have to move to re
commit would ne v~alueless: Their
would be no committee having iuris
diction of the report to which To CON
init IL.
Even II the right To move to re
commit were granted 10y the pondin
rule 1t would he valueless for es
sentially the same reason; the Ha
committee would have been discharge
from further consideration" of III
bill and the conference committe
would not have been yet created.
A comment by the Speaker Shove
that he was leaning toward Mann
contention. and then Sherley made I'll
keenest argument of the debate. II
urged upon the Speaker that the rul
Itself would not prevent a motion I
recommit when the conference repoi
should be brought in; what woul
prevent the motion would be "A pa,
liamentary situation uhe action ,
the Senate in destroying the confer
once coinmittee) The only limits
ton on the action of the Commute
IN Rules is that il shall not deny III