Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 February 1890 — UPROAR IN THE HOUSE. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

UPROAR IN THE HOUSE.

AN EXCITING DAY IN THE LOWER HOUSE OF CONGRESS.*’ Speaker Reed’s Ruling Sustained by the The Democratic Minority Exhaust the Resource* of Parliamentary Tactics to Defeat the Ruling. The galleries of the House were crowded on Thursday iu anticipation of a renewal of the previous day’s hostilities. As soon as the journal was read. Mr. Breckenridge of Kentucky demanded the reading of the names of those who did not vote Wednesday. That was done and the ruling of the Speaker, as placed on the journal, was also read as a part of the journal. The moment the reading of the journal was ended McKinley moved that the journal be approved, and on that motion moved the previous question. The Speaker put the motion amid great confusion. Mr. Blanchard tried to get recognition on a question of privilege, intending to protest Against the placing of his name on record Wednesday by the

Speaker. Mr. Springer, who meantime had been shouting for recognition, moved to adjourn, and demanded a roll call on his motion. This was ordered and the clerk was directed to call the roll. Mr. Bland then sprang to his feet and moved to reconsider the vote by which the roll-call was ordered, his apparent purpose being to begin filibustering tactics. The speaker paid no attention to his motion, and Mr. Bland then shouted “Mr. Speaker! Mr. Speaker!” at the top Of his voice and denounced the Speaker’s course as revolutionary and that of a tyrant. His shouts and demonstrations were greeted with founds of applause and yells from the Democratic side and shouts of derisive laughter on the Republican side until he sat down exhausted, and the roll-call, which had gone on in the meantime amid great confusion, proceeded in comparative quiet. The motion for adjournment was defeated—yeas 142, nays 160. A roll-call was then demanded on the previous question of the approval of the journal, and on this the Democrats declined to vote. Before the vote was announced, the Speaker directed the clerk to record the following names of members as present and not voting: Messrs. Breckinridge, Of Arkansas; Carlise, Clements, Crain, Crisp, Culberson, of Texas; Dockery, Enloe, Goodnight, Hemphill, Hooker, Kilgore. Lane, McCreary, McMillin, Montgomery, Moore, of Texas, Oates and Outhwaite. Mr. Chipman, of Michigan, raised a burst of laughter by his complaint that he had been present and not voting, and that his name was not upon the Speaker’s list. The Speaker then announced the vote to stand: Yeas, 160; nays, 1; and added: “Which in addition to the gentlemen present, constitute a quorum, and the previous question is ordered. *’ This brought forth a storm of applause from the Republican side. Mr. Crisp, of Georgia, wished to appeal from the decision, but the Speaker sided with the point of order raised by Mr. McKinley, of Ohio, that the appeal was not in order, as another appeal was pending. Mr. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that no quorum had voted and said that if the Speaker so desired he would take an appeal. The Speaker—And the Chair declines to entertain the appeal of the gentleman from Illinois. [Applause on the Republican side and hisses from the Democrats.] Then, amid wild cheering on the Democratic side, Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, rushed down the aisle, and standing in front of the Speaker, exclaimed: “From that we appeal. There is no appeal pending. There was an appeal yesterday, but this is a different appeal, because the Speaker is assuming that the House will sustain his decision of yesterday, and so is carrying by his own vote to-day the decision he has had.” 1 “It, therefore,” continued Mr. Breckinridge, “does not eom'e within the rule, as stated by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MpKinley), and the gag law, which that gpntleman, with the help of‘the Speaker, has applied to-day is us'urpatory, revolutionary and corrupt.” Cheer after cheer arose from the Democratic side, mingled with hisses from the Republicans. In the midst of the tumult the Speaker stated the question to be on the motion to approve the journal, and the yeas and nays having been ordered, directed the clerk to call the roll. Owing to the confusion, many Democratic members did not understand the question as put by the ch tir, and another scene of excitement ensued,, dozens of members arising and demanding to know what they were to vote upon.' The Speaker tried in vain to restore order, and one Democrat was heard to shout above the turmoil that the House was as much in order as the Speaker. A lull occurred, however, and Mr. Carlisle arose and hoped that the roll call would be suspended until order was restored. The journal was declared to stand approved, and, alter another storm, occasioned by Mr. Springer’s persistent efforts, which in the end proved successful, to address the chair, the House be-

came quiet and the floor was accorded to Mr. McKinley, who spoke upon the appeal taken yesterday and supported the Speaker’s decision. Mr. McKinley argued that one man could pass a measure if sixteen remained in their seats silent and inactive, and characterized such inactivity as a betrayal of trust. He had indulged in filibustering himself,but Be had never done so for any high or noble purpose and generally felt ashamed of himself afterward. [Voice from the Democratic side: “When were you converted?”] - - He said that the other side wanted to rule or ruin, and said: “While we are in the majority we say you .shall do neither.” Mr. Turner, Democrat, maintained that the clerk was the officer of the House to keep the minutes and the Speaker had no more power over these minutes than an other member had. “If,” he said, “the Speaker can put any name on the journal why can not I, his peer on this floor, direct the clerk to leave my name off?” Mr. Butterworth, taking the floor, said that the proposition of the Democrats was untenable. Their position was that a member was responsible only to himself and his constituents as to whether he should vote or not vote. Such a doctrine was well enough in the days when members were regarded as ambassadors from the States, “but it won’t do in January, 1890.” It was absurd to hold that members who sat on the floor of the House drawingslo or sl2 per day were not participating, or that members could be bodily present and legislatively absent. He cited a similar case in Kentucky, where a Democratic officer had ruled in the same manner that Speaker Reed is now ruling. Here a member on the Democratic side asked Mr. Butterworth if it were certain that the presiding officer of the Senate of Kentucky counted the Senators who were present but did not vote in order to fiiake up a quorum. Mr. Butterworth referred to Mr. Wilson, of Kentucky, who, answering the inquiry, said that in 1886, while he had the honor of bqing a member of the Kentucky Senate, “and it is always an honor tube a member of the Kentucky Senate,” the precise question arose there and had been decided by a Democratic presiding officer exactly as Speaker Reed is now holding and the bill so passed had been signed by Gov. Knott, a distinguished constitutional lawyer, who was perfectly familar with the manner in which the bill was passed. A vote was taken on the motion to lay on the table the appeal from the Speaker’s ruling of yesterday, that he had a right to take notice of the presence of persons not voting, and thus make a quorum. On this tlife Democrats declined to vote, and the result was announced—yeas 162, nays 0. The point of no quorum was made, but the Speaker directed the clerk to place upon the journal the fact that certain members who did not vote and whose names he called, were present in their seats, and that a quorum was present. This course was received by the Democrats with demonstrations of disapproval, and Mr. Mansur entered a formal protest. The Speaker declared the motion to lay on the table.! The appeal from his ruling carried, and the House, after another roll-call, adjourned.

SPEAKER REED.