Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 February 1890 — WRANGLING SOLONS [ARTICLE]

WRANGLING SOLONS

A TURBULENT DAY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ... ■.l - » After Three Days’ Fighting Speaker Reed Holds to His Rulings—Bitter Protests of the Democratic Minority—Stormy Scene* on the Floor, [Washington dispatch.] In the House of Representatives, on Friday, after the Clerk had completed the reading of the journal— Mr. McKinley, of Ohio, moved that the journal be approved, and on that motion demanded the previous question. • Mr. Springer interjected a motion to adjourn, saying that he did so to enable the committee on rules to bring in a code of rules. The Speaker—The gentleman is not in order in speaking on a motion to adjourn. * Mr. Springer—There are no rules for the House. The Speaker—There are rules for the House. Mr. Springer—Where are they? The Speaker—The rules that govern parliamentary assemblies, and those rules distinctly declare that a motion to adjourn is not debatable, of which the gentleman is perfectly aware. The motion to adjourn was lost—Yeas, 125; nays, 162, and the question recurring on the demand for the previous question, the yeas and nays were ordered. The Democrats again pursued ?|heir policy of not voting, and the Speaker once more pursued his method of jotting down the names of members present and not voting. The vote having been taken, the Speaker directed the clerk to enter on the journal the names of several Members present but not voting. Mr. Bland immediately arose and demanded that the vote be announced before the names were read, but the Speaker ignored him and proceeded to call the names, notwithstanding Mr. Bland’s vigorous protest, in which he declared that the Speaker might be deaf to his appeal, hut that it was a tyranny that this House was getting sick and tired of. j The Speaker then declared the demand for the previous question carried —yeas, 160; nays, 0; amid the loud protests of the Democrats. The Speaker—The previous question is ordered and the question is on the approval of the journal. Mr. Bynum of Indiana moved to adjourn, but the Speaker declined to recognize him and again put the motion on the approval of the journal. Mr. Bland demanded the yeas and nays (which were ordered), and pending this moved to adjourn. But the Speaker was deaf to this motion, which called forth the declaration from Mr. Springer that this was tyranny simple and unadulterated, and the further declaration from Mr. Bland that it was an outrage, and that the House could not be in a more demoralized condition than the Speaker. Another storm swept over the House as Mr. Bynum attacked the Speaker, his words calling forth cheer after cheer from the Democrats. Mr. Bynum walked down the aisle and, taking a position close to the front of the Speaker’s desk, demanded recognition. The Speaker using his gavel vigorously, pronounced him out of order. Mr. Bynum replied that he was in order and said. “I propose to stand here and say what I have to say in regard to this action.- I represent an intelligent constituency, as intelligent as that of any State or section, and in their name and the name of the country I denounce this outrageous and tyrannical and damnable ruling which you have made. [Applause, long continued, on Democratic side.] “You have violated more parliamentary law than any man on this floor. You may succeed temporarily. Yon have the power, backed by a mob on your side of the chamber, to temporarily succeed [yells of derision on the Republican side and prolonged,applause on the Democratic side]; but the people will not consent to this. During this speech the greatest excitement prevailed, and it was some time before quiet was restored. The Speaker refused to entertain Mr. Springer’s motion to adjourn, and stated that he would not recognize even parliamentary motions if used with ,a view to obstruct House business. Mr. Springer appealed from the decision and demanded to be heard, but Mr. McKinley was recognized to move to table the appeal. Mr. Springer protested wildly and was seconded by the entire Democratic side. A tremendous uproar ensued. Mr. Perkins, of Kansas, taunted the Democrats with disgraceful conduct, and a number of Democrats responded in kind. The Speaker directed the roll to be called and the clerk proceeded to do so, Mr. Springer meanwhile denouncing the Speaker’s-action and continuing to shout his remonstrance and defiance as the roll-call proceeded. Before the clerk had gotten through the “B’s” of the list he (Springer) sank back exhaused into his seat, amid the *jeers of t]je Republicans. The call proceeded in at least partial order while the Democrats consulted earnestly in groups. The Democrats again refrained from voting, but the Speaker, glancing over the Democratic side, now and then checked off a member whose name w’as called and who refused to respond. The vote resulted—yeas, 163; nays, 0, and the Speaker’s decision was sustained.. Again the Speaker refused to allow Mr. Springer to put a motion to adjourn and Mr. Dalzell was recognized to call Up the election case. Mr. Crisp endeavored to raise the question of consideration and tried to appeal from the decision of the chair, but the Speaker refused to entertain the appeal. Mr. Crisp denied the right of the chair to class his motion as a dilatory motion, and protested against the Speaker’s action, which, he said, was in disregard of all parliamentary rules. Mr. Dalzell then took the floor and began to present the views of the majority of the election committee on the contested election case of Smith vs. I Jackson.