Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 June 1882 — WHITED SEPULCHER. [ARTICLE]

WHITED SEPULCHER.

Revolutionary Action of the Republicans in the National House. Scathing Speech of Hon. S. S. Cox, of New York. I do not arrogate to myself any special patriotism. To arrogate is to derogate. I shall not d« rogate from the patriotism of my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Robeson) who has just labored so hard to pass this measure. It was labor, physical, mental and moral. It reminded me of the classic phrase, “Up the high hill he heaves the huge round stone.” But the mythical stone came tumbling down, smoking along the ground. It required renewed and never-ending exertion. The gentleman, at last after every endeavor, must come to the American constitution as the reservoir of all our powers, and this forever commands renewed labor. As to the rules of this House, the constitution says (article 1, section 5) that “ Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” There is nothing said in that clause that is exceptional. It has no limitation upon either House of Congress. We may make rules, not for certain purposes, but for all purposes. It is not said that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, except as to the admission of a member or the methods regulating our approaching judgment upon the qualifications of a member. There is no restriction or limitation upon that grant of power. It is unqualified; as much so as the other clauses of the fifth section of the first article, which allow each House to judge of the elections, return 1 and qualifications of its own members. Eveiy rule made by us, consistent with the tenor of the constitution, is, if not a part of the constitution, a subordination as sacred as the constitution itself. We have made rules. Among them are rules which regulate these proceedings. They provide the mode of amending the rules themselves. All these rules remain. They remain, since there is no exception, for every proceeding in this House, and a fortiori for the most important proceeding. Can there be any proceeding more important than the admission of a member? Is it not most necessary, Mr. Speaker, that we should have steadfast rules for such a purpose ? Is it not most important that we have a law unto ourselves, a' law of this House, fixed and irrevocable except by the prescribed rules or modes ? It is more necessary, sir, for rules to be observed in such a case than in any other except perhaps one. And what is that other one ? That is in relation to the apportionment of members every decade according to population. This apportionment is the foundation of our system of representative government. But we know, alas! too well, Mr. Speaker, that when this House was engaged in the last Congress in endeavoring to apportion members according to the census returns, and when there was an emergency to conclude the constitutional prescript that the State Legislatures might then redistrict, and to save the people some $11,000,000 expense, it was not this side of the House, bnt the other, which intervened to prevent by dilatory motions. That other side was led by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) and by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Robeson), who protests his virtuous indgnation on this occasion. It,..jras their frivolous delays wh ch prevented the enactment of a law for apportionment They are responsible for the consequences of such delays—the most serious that can happen to a republican constitutional system. They prevented such a law, sir. Mr. Hooker—Defeated. Mr. Cox, of New York—Hour after hour, day after day, all night thn t bill was delayed on dilatory motions for adjournment and what not. until the session was nearly run out, and we had no chanco except on the last day of the session, when on my own motion, consenting to all they asked, we got at last a vote on the proposition for 319 members. The cost and trouble, the unfairness of representation, the election of Congressmen-at-Large, and other misadventures, are due to the Republicans, who set up this example which we have followed on a less consequential object But you gentlemen on the other side are not peculiar in your relation to filibustering on the Apportionment bill. I might in the last Congress have made the point that that bill xvas constitutional and was of the highest sanction, above all rules; or wc might have changed by a majority vote, as you now attempt, the rules and stopped your expensive and unrepublican filibustering. We did not do it. We pursued our rules, and you pursued your disorderly conduct. You left us without this indispensable legislation; you remitted it to tho present session; you had your own will; you, the minority, defeated us; you pursued this very course with which you now reproach us, not merely on the Apportionment bill, bnt in the Forty-sixth Congress on the Tariff bill again and again on motions to refer it to a friendly committee; you did it on the Funding bill and on the Political Assessment bill, as you had in previous Congresses on other measures. More than that, sir. When there was an investigation demanded by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Springer) as to the infamies connected with our Chinese Embassy, and a committee of investigation was asked, the record before me shows that you resorted to dilatoriness and all its methods, not merely for party purposes, but to cover up corruption and to stop investigation. And now you complain of us because ire resort to these tactics for the purpose of promoting investigation, and, if poss:b!e, of finding out whether fraud and forgery are connected with this Carolina case.

Therefore, if gentlemen are sensitive now they must remember that they have pursued this identical path on very remarkable occasions. Onr memories are not too short to recall their number and enormity. I do not believe very much in this business of filibustering. When the Apportionment bill, to which I had given much study, was treated to this inhospitable reception, regardless of the wish of the majority, I resolved that I would never follow your example. I have been, however, the past week drawn into its vortex almost against my will. But I have been in good company and for a good purpose. You pursued it ’in very bad company for a very bad purpose. Gentlemen say that they will make this proposed new rule or change existing rules under the superior vigor of the constitution. ‘Supremo. lex," cries out onr Ajax from New Jersey. The constitution, he says, is the supreme law, and a rule unto us for legislative purposes of this nature. Why, sir, if the constitution be such a rule of duty and a law unto the House, what need for any other rule? Why undertake to make rules of proceeding ? Why “ determine ” any rule ? Oh, says the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, we propose this new rule to be rid of obstructions to legislation, such as dilatory motions, and we propose to change the rule so as to have a mode of procedure and not of obstruction. If that be the purpose, then ail rules for delay, such as adjournment or debate or recommittal or any thing except arbitrariness, should be abrogated. What does the gentleman mean by obstruction in this case? Or is this proposed rule for this case of contest only a cover for something else to come ? What does the gentleman mean? Is he only making this fight here for the admission of a member on that side, when they have already a working majority? Or does he mean that he will give the power to the majority, on a whim, on a caprice, at any time, or on any emergent occasion when the majority is ndn-phissed, obstructed, defied, or impeded, so that it may change the rules for every rising purpose ? Is there some other purpose beyond? What does he mean ? We have not yet had all the appropriation bills brought in here. We are ready to proceed with the consideration of the Legislative and the Do ficiency Appropriation bills. We are ready to go on with and proceed with other public business matured by committees. Much important business remains to be done or 'undone. Impediments are likely to be thrown in its way by critical and honest’deliberation. There is one appropriation bill which has not yet been reported. It the Naval Appropriation bill The custom has been heretofore to have that bill reported early in the session. Six months of this session have gone and we have not. yet seen any Naval Appropriation bill. Now, arc we to roll this dilatory stone out of the way for this case only? Or is it in order that if there be filibustering on that naval bill or other bills as to a new navy, the majority at any time may by this convenient change of the rales brush the “ obstruction” out ot the way ? Ten millions of dollars perhaps may bo

involved in that bill, or twenty millions, or there may bo other bills involving hundreds of millions yet to be brought in. If you can do it unto the least of these, you can do it unto every bill hereafter. Now, I am in favor, and always have been in favor of the House persuing legal methods. I would have the rules, the law of the House obaerved. If gentleman will look back far. enough, if they care enough for the debates in the war Congresses, they will find something that is applicable or analogous to our duty to the rules. When I was looking this moruing through the records of the library-, I happened upon the Bible. Really, when one enters upon these debates, it is sometimes a relief to peruse that good book. I found this in Haggai, second chapter, third verse : “ Who is left among yon (hat saw this house in her first glory ? And how do yoxF see it now ? Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing ? ’ It is worse than nothing. Who in the last days of the war, not to go further back, at the time the amendments to the constitution were on the tapis, ever had the supreme audacity to say that the amendment abolishing slavery should be passed in this House by a majority vote? Who dared to saf tha\ the majority should rule in any other than by the-mode prescribed in the constitution in its fifth article? By the mode prescribed, I say—by two-thirds of both houses proposing, or on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of tlie States, etc. Not by overriding it; not by suprenia Zez, some higher law, some whim of the exigent moment for party ga’n, but by the mode prescribed; thatimode and no other.

So, now, Mr. Speaker, wo contend that in making rales here we must follow “the mode prescribed.” This mode is the existing rules. For making or unmaking rules, whicl are a law ox a constitution of our House, the rules existing must be observed. Any other models a flagrant breach of the law of th s House, and as law-abiding members wo denounce it. All the amendments bf the constitution from the beginning, including those guarantees and immunities of civil liberty—liberty of conscience’ free speech, fair trial, bail, delegated powers, judicial rights, electoral college, citizenship, disabilities, apportionment—all the amendments until yon come down to the great and boasted amendments in regard to human liberty, suffrage, and civil rights were passed in pursuance of the “the mode prescribed.” They were submitted through the two-thirds vote of Congress to the States for ratification. ’ He is » revolutionist who would seek to change our-constitution except in the prescribed me do. He is no less a revolutionist, who, to seat a member, would override existing rales here, not repealed or changed ; and he is worse than a revolutionist who, to seat a member, jvould overturn our rules to seat a member in a* case involving fraud and corrupted by forgery. Now, Mr. Speaker, when you rale, if you dare rule, as perhaps you may rule in this partisan excitemer t if yoa rule that you can, irrespective of the “ mode prescribed,” and regardless of the rules which are now the law of thia House, force this summary proceeding through by arbitrary ruling, yon will defeat, you will abrogate every canon of interpretation belonging to the amending and making of law, organic or other law.

Mr. Kasson—Will it interrupt the gentleman if I ask him a question right here ? Mr. Cox, of New York—Certainly not. Mr. Kasson—l wish to ask the gentleman a question on a single point which he seems to aei-ire to make; that the rules should be amended “in the mode prescribed.” I want to call his attention to the fact, and get his answer, that all our proceedings proposed here are “in the manner and mode prescribed” by the rules. Nothing justifies his criticism except that, in order to accomplish it in that mode, it is claimed that the Speaker must refuse to recognize what will obstruct an amendment “ in the mode prescribed.” Mr. Cox, of New York—ln other words, the Speaker must overrule a certain rule in order to change those rales. Mr. Kasran—“ In the mode and manner prescribed.” We are following the mode literally, giving one day’s notice of the change, then entering upon the debate and submitting the proposition to a regular vote of the House. It is not in any respect a failure to follow the mode prescribed. Mr. Cox, of New York—My friend will see that the Speaker must first wipe out paragraph 5 as well as paragraph 8 of RuleXVI., before he can proceed one inch in this business. Why, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kansas would blot out the very prescribed mode fixed in the rules by which all our proceedings are to be regulated, inch ding those for the amendments of the rales themselve.i. I ask that the Clerk read the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Rille XVI. Tbe Clerk read as follows : “4. When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received but to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn, to adjourn, to take a recess, to lay on the table, for the previous question (which motions shall be decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain, to refer or amend, or to postpone indefinitely, which seveial motions shall have precedence in the foregoing order ; and no motion to postpone to a day certain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being decided, shall be again allowed on the same day at the same stage of the question.

“5. A motion to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn, a motion to adjourn, and to take a recess shall always be in order, and the hour at which the House adjourns shall be entered on the Journal.” Mr. Cox, of Now York—Now, Mr. Speaker, every clause of those rules which give the minority or any member here a right to make these propositions in the interest, as 1 believe, of legislation, may, nay must, be abrogated by the arbitrary ruling of the Speaker, sustained by a majority of this House, to reach what? Why, to reach—not now perhaps, but hereafter —an opportunity to pass appropriation bills with undue haste, on what plea ? On the ground that money must be voted to sustain he Government, and that the constitution must be upheld with money. You can always make a pretext when you are disposed to follow out your own peculiar policy in your emergency. Why has not the majority of this House resorted to this particular method before to-day? We have been running on for eight days ; we have had no intimation of proceedings of this kind until gentlemen on the other side saw failure staring them in the face. Now, driven to it, they seek by revolutionary methods to do that which cannot bo done by the ordinary, regular and legal procedure. As I said before, I am not one who favors filibustering. It may be a good remedy m great emergencies. The Republicans have so deemed it, judging by their action heretofore. But when the honorable memlrer from Virginia (Mr. Tucker) offered an amendment t» the new rules providing that filibustering should cease, torn up by the roots, who met to confute him in debate? The first member who attacked that proposition was Gen. Hawley, a shining light in the Republican party. He was followed by Gen. Garfield, a man of confessed parliamentary ability; the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) who has shown us here to-day his ability in straddling this question. And Mr. Conger, of Michigan, then your best parliamentarian, who led your filibustering scouting parties. The gentleman from Virginia was so thoroughly overwhelmed by the argumentation and denunciation coming from these able debaters of your party, urging minority rights, that on the subsequent Tuesday he withdrew his proposition.

It seems to me that gentlemen on the other side, when they undertake to say that we are revolutionary—that we are guilty of “parliameutary revolution,” to use the language of the gentleman from Kansas—ought first to look at their own record. That record convicts them. The gentleman from Kansas, when he talked about “ parliamentary revolutios,” ought to have thought of his own conduct on the Apportionment bill. Mr Haskell—Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. Cox, of New York—Certainly. You cannot embarrass me. Mr. Haskell—l ask the gentleman, when did tiiw.side of the House ever filibuster npon the consideration of the right of a member to his seat ? Mi. Cox, of New York—l say there never was so flagrant a case presented as this one. I ask the gentleman from Kansas whether he did not filibuster, not merely against the right of a single member to a seat, but against the Apportionment bill, which concerned the rights of 300 members, and the right of States to be represented for ten years—the very foundation of our Government. He sits quietly now, and answers not. Yet the past week he" has fought this filibustering business, on this special case and on every possible case in general, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Robeson) contends in the same special ana general way. The gentleman from New Jersey said that only three things would justify filibustering—first, to obtain debate; next, to obtain proper consideration—that is what we ask now—a little more consideration perhaps than you intend to give us; consideration here and elsewhere.

consideration of fraud and forgery and how they affect the rights of the party in this contest Without consideration, it ia said, all contracts are void, and until yon do consider the charges here your proceedings are morally void. His third case, I think he said, was to insist upon a quorum. No matter for that The quorum is inconsequential. All I have to say to gentlemen is that when they charge this side of the House with “ parliamentary revolution,” they are, in view of their own recent action snd sentiment nothing more nor lees than a whited sepulcher,inside full of dead men’s bones, outside fair and seeming before the people. I prove, therefore, what I &r. Reed made a remark inaudible at the Mr. Cox, of New York—l care not what the gentleman from Maine may mutter in his seat The gentleman had better go home to the State of Maine this fall and make his speeches there, and with tbe aid of our friends iu Maine, Greenback and Democratic, his little majority of 100 will be 100 minus the next time iu consequence of this revolutionary business. Although, Mr. Speaker, the argument ad Zuwitnem is not a very cogent one, although it is not very much to say “We are doing unto yon what you did unto us last year,” one thing this sort of argument does on this occasion ; it puts a “poor man’s plaster ” over every one of your mouths. It is the ad Jiojmncai; and I pay respect to human nature when I me the word homines toward gentlemen on tbe other side of the House. [Laughter and applause.] Now, Mr. Speaker, I know what is cou«ng. I know that this revolutionary change of the rules to seat a member whoso evidence » tainted is preordained. I know that an invasion upon our modes of procedure here ia coming That I am shocked as an old member identified with the honor of this House I need not say; but, sir, to one who “saw this House in its best glory,” who has seen it through all its vicissitudes of war and peace in a long public life, I am bumiliatZffi that this venerable code of rules to protect the minority and forward the general welfare should be eradicated ruthlessly for mere party purposes. The gentleman from lows (Mr. Kasson) referred to the fact that wo are a great representative body. 8o we are. He declaimed eloquently that the majority here should rule. He asserted that no other body like ours in tbe history of the world would ever allow a minority to dictate terms. Ab, did he forget that in the English Parliament of six hundred and fifty-odd members forty only, by motions to adjourn and other “ obstructions," had kept that great Government of the British empire almost in the very throes of agony for weeks and months as the only way to remedy great and century-old wrongs borne by a portion of the United Kingdom without redress? These wrong?, now and by recent events confessed to be great, unredressed grievances, are in process of relief by the courage and persistence of a small minority. Does he not know that the great Premier of England threatened to throttle that minority by a cloture? Bnt even he, sir, had not the courage or strength to bring that cloture to a division, and minority right remains to-day, as it has been in the British. Parliamentary constitution for hundreds of years, as a fundamental part of those rales which were made in the interest of the minority for the protection of Parliamentary privilege and civil libcrtv'throiiKb all tbe ages.