CONGRESS. (THE RULES.) 



181 



The legislation which I have suggested.it is sin- read the report of the committee touching clause 

 cerely believed, will promote the peace and honor of 1Q of Rule XVI, which provides 

 our country and the prosperity and security of the 

 people. I 'invoke the diligent and serious attention 

 of Congress to the consideration of these and such 

 other measures as may be presented, having the same 

 great end in view. BENJ. HAKRISON. 



EXECUTIVE MANSION, 



WASHINGTON, Dec, 3, 1889. 



No dilatory motion shall be entertained by the 

 Speaker. 



" The report of the committee on this point is 

 terse and direct, and covers the ground upon 

 which this rule is recommended, and is as fol- 

 lows : 



The Rules. One of the most important inci- 

 dents of the first session of this Congress was the 

 adoption by the House of Representatives of a 

 code of rules,differing in some essential points 

 from any previously in force. It was designed 

 to carry 'out the policy of the Speaker in refusing 

 to entertain dilatory motions and in counting a 

 quorum by recording members present but not 

 voting. The contest over the adoption of the 

 new rules was bitter; the change in the manner 

 of conducting business was radical ; the majority 

 was enabled to push forward legislation in disre- 

 gard of any attempts at dilatory action, but the 

 minority was indignant over the innovation, and 

 there were many scenes of disorder, discourtesy 

 was frequent, and ill-feeling almost constant. 



The Committee on Rules reported the new code 

 Feb. 6, 1890, and on Feb. 10 the debate on its 

 adoption began. Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, opened 

 the discussion. Speaking for the Committee on 

 Rules, he said : 



44 There were forty-seven rules in the old code 

 of the rules of the last Congress. Of those rules, 

 twenty-nine are recommended in the proposed 

 code without any change whatever. The changes 

 in the proposed code from the former rules of 

 the House are found within eighteen rules, and 

 in most of those eighteen the changes are merely 

 formal, being, in the main, matters of rearrange- 

 ment and changes of phraseology. So that the 

 real material changes from the old code are com- 

 prised within four or five rules, and during the 

 time that I shall occupy the floor I shall proceed 

 to speak of these material matters. 



" The Committee on Rules, in framing this code, 

 has, to the best of its ability, prepared and re- 

 ported a code of rules under which the will of 

 the majority of the House shall be ascertained and 

 expressed with accuracy, and with the utmost ex- 

 pedition consistent with fair and due debate and 

 consideration. 



" The committee believe that there should be 

 radical changes touching the manner and the 

 conduct of the business of the House, and the 

 changes recommended in this report are so radi- 

 cal and so proper in our opinion that some gentle- 

 men upon the other side have denounced them 

 as ' revolutionary.' 



" And the material matters about which there 

 will be difference of opinion are, I take it, first, 

 the provision which cuts up dilatory motions by 

 the roots; second, the provision under which 

 gentlemen present in the House of Representa- 

 tives to prevent legislation shall (if they be in 

 fact present) be counted as part of the quorum 

 under the Constitution to aid legislation ; third, 

 the provision of the rules by which 100 shall 

 constitute a quorum in the Committee of the 

 Whole ; and fourth, the daily order of business 

 as contained in Rule XXIV of the proposed 

 code. 



" Now, first, as to dilatory motions, I desire to 



This clause is merely declaratory of parliamentary 

 law. There are no words which can be framed which 

 will limit members to the proper use of proper mo- 

 tions. Any motion the most conducive to progress in 

 the public business or the most salutary for the com- 

 fort and convenience of members may be used for 

 purposes of unjust and oppressive delay. The ma- 

 jority may be kept in session for a lon^ tfme against 

 reason and good sense, sometimes at the whim of a 

 single member, and sometimes for a still longer period, 

 at the will of one fifth who are misusing the provis- 

 ion of the Constitution for yeas and nays, by the aid 

 of simple motions proper in themselves, but which 

 are improperly used. 



In the early days such prostitution of legitimate mo- 

 tions caused by anger, willfulness, and party zeal was 

 not so much as named among legislators. To-day the 

 abuse has grown to such proportions that the parlia- 

 mentary law which governs American assemblies has 

 found it necessary to keep pace with the evil, and to 

 enable the majority, by the intervention of the presid- 

 ing officer, to meet, by extraordinary means, the ex- 

 traordinary abuse of power on the part, sometimes, of 

 a very few members. Why should an assembly be 

 kept from its work by motions made only to delay and 

 to weary, even if the original design of the motion 

 was salutary- and sensible? Why should one fifth, 

 even, be entitled to waste a half-hour of themselves 

 and of four other fifths by a motion to adjourn, when 

 the majority manifestly do not want to adjourn ? 



If the suggestion should be made that great power 

 is here conferred, the answer is that as the approval 

 of the House is the very breath in the nostrils of the 

 Speaker, and as no body on earth is so jealous of its 

 liberties and so impatient of control, we may be quite 

 sure that no arbitrary interruption will take place, 

 and, indeed, no interruption at all, until not only such 

 misuse of proper motions is made clearly evident to the 

 world, but also- such action has taken place on the 

 part of the House as will assure the Speaker of the 

 support of the body whose wishes are his law. So 

 that in the end it is a power exercised by the House 

 through its properly constituted officer. 



" Now, motions made in this House if used to 

 forward legislation or for legitimate purposes are 

 perfectly proper : but the moment motions proper 

 in themselves, framed to assist the House in 

 shaping legislation, are used, not for the purpose 

 of consideration, but by a minority of one or 

 more to hold the majority at bay and say that 

 legislation shall not be had that moment they 

 are perverted from the legitimate use for which 

 they are made, they become dilatory and would 

 fall within the clause of this general rule. 



" Gentlemen say this is ' tyrannical.' I deny 

 it. But if it be tyrannical, than the 'tyranny' 

 is exercised by the Speaker sustained by the ma- 

 jority of the House ; and on the other hand the 

 tyrannical minority that has controlled hereto- 

 fore fails to control now. If I must choose be- 

 tween the ' tyranny ' of a constitutional majority 

 responsible to the people, or the 'tyranny' of 

 an irresponsible minority of one, I will stand 

 by the Constitution and our form of government, 

 and so act as to let the majority rule. 



" Now, Mr. Speaker, having said this much in 

 reference to the rule prohibiting dilatory motions, 



