186 



CONGRESS. (THE RULES.) 



procedure of the business of this body, but at the 

 same time they are intended to cause the House 

 to halt, to pause, to reflect, and in some instance, 

 where it may become necessary, to go back and 

 inquire of the sober second thought of the people 

 again. 



"We have been contending for rules rules 

 which provide the mode of procedure in the or- 

 derly dispatch of the business of the House, rules 

 which have been provided for the protection and 

 preservation of the rights of the minority, 

 whether that minority be 1 or 160. We have 

 asked for a code like that of our fathers. We 

 have asked for the old institutions of our fathers. 

 We have stood here and remonstrated with the 

 majority on that side of the House against sweep- 

 ing that code out of existence a code which we 

 have had for a century, a code under which our 

 nation has grown from 3,000,000 to 65,000,000 

 people, under which we have grown to be the 

 most prosperous, the most powerful, and most 

 intelligent people on the earth. 



" But it is now proposed to tear down all the 

 barriers interposed by our fathers for the protec- 

 tion of the rights of the citizen and permit the 

 majority to make rules to pass bills in viola- 

 tion of the Constitution, to pass them practically 

 without opposition, .without consideration, with- 

 out mature deliberation. 



" Pass these rules and there remains no limi- 

 tation on the power of the majority. Pass the 

 rules as you have reported them, tear down the 

 barriers, and enthrone arbitrary power. 



" It is true that a little filibustering has occa- 

 sionally occurred. But are all these great barriers 

 that were intended for the preservation of the in- 

 alienable rights of the citizens to be removed ? 

 Are the obstructions interposed for the protection 

 of the Treasury to be removed out of the way ? 

 Our friends are so alarmed at the scandal of fili- 

 bustering that they forget the part they have 

 played in its performance. They forget who in- 

 troduced it into congressional legislation. 



'* When did it start here, and who started it f 

 Mr. Speaker, it is the legitimate offspring of the 

 Republican party. The two motions which your 

 committee have reported to eliminate from* our 

 rules the motion to adjourn and the motion to 

 fix a day to which the House shall adjourn 

 have been in our code for a hundred years. They 

 came from the British Parliament. They are in 

 Jefferson's " Manual." They have been adopted 

 by the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

 and are hoary with age ; and yet these two mo- 

 tions were never used to obstruct legislation until 

 1854, when a Republican minority in the House 

 of Representatives alternated them 128 times to 

 prevent the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 

 But it did not ruin the country by their obstruc- 

 tion ; they appealed from the House to the pub- 

 lic judgment whether that bill ought to pass. 

 They called upon the Legislative Assembly to 

 pause, to deliberate, to re-examine again while 

 they made an appeal to the sober second thought 

 of the people. 



" There is no reason why these motions should 

 be used for obstructing legislation. The fact 

 is they are never used except on most extraor- 

 dinary occasions, and when some extraordinary 

 measure is being proposed to be enacted into law. 

 And when that occurs it is not an unmixed evil 



to delay the legislation till the public mind ca 

 be consulted and the public judgment hud. 



" There is another feature of the proposed cod 

 to which I want to call the attention of th 

 House and the country. It is proposed to inves 

 the Speaker with power to contradict the recor 

 provided by the Constitution. The Constitutio 

 declares that in a certain contingency a recorde 

 vote shall be had, and at all times a majorit 

 shall be required to constitute a quorum. It 

 now proposed that the Speaker may add to, var 

 or contradict that record, and that against tl: 

 uniform ruling of all the Speakers that have ev< 

 presided over the House from the beginning < 

 the Government. The record of this House 

 like the record of a court, it imports alisohr 

 verity. No man can attack the record of 

 court in a collateral inquiry. No man can s; 

 its records are not true or that the record doi 

 not contain all the facts, and supplement it I 

 the statement of a bystander. 



"The judge can not do it when it is colla 

 erally called in question. The clerk can not c 

 it, and no party can. The record is conclusiv 

 The Constitution has provided that a record i 

 the yeas and nays shall be made in certain cast 

 and the record shall decide whether a quoru 

 has voted, and which side has the majority. ] 

 the face of this plain provision, the Speaker d 

 cides, and the majority sustain him, that he ct 

 look out over the assembly, and write down 

 present anybody that he pleases, whether he 

 present or not. He is to be the judge, not tl 

 record, not even the House. The record is mm 

 by the answer of the member under the supe 

 vision of the whole body, taken down by tl 

 clerk, read to the House, vouched for as accurat 

 and then approved. Bnt all this is abrogated, ai 

 the voice of one man is substituted in its stea 

 and he is authorized to make the Journal PJ 

 what he wants it to say whether that be corre 

 or not. 



" If it were in the power of the House to co 

 for this authority it should not be conferred ( 

 any man. What we contend for is this u 

 broken line of decision by all the Speakers of tl 

 House. The rule propos'ed is condemned by tl 

 public opinion of the country. Instead of exp 

 diting legislation, the country is erecting checl 

 and barriers against it in every direction. 



" It was not the idea of our republican fathe 

 that we wanted a government to be passing la\ 

 every hour of the day, interfering constant 

 with the liberties of the people. We want 

 have as little law as possible, as little intermc< 

 dling as possible with the affairs of the peopl 

 We want to protect and preserve the natiu 

 rights of the citizen; and in order to do th 

 these checks and balances have been provided i 

 the Constitutions of 'all the States, as well as i 

 the Federal Constitution, and in the rules of pr< 

 ceedings of all legislative bodies, the object < 

 which, as I have said, is to compel legislative a 

 semblies to go slow, to deliberate, to debate, J 

 reflect, to pause, to examine the pending quest i< 

 in all its aspects, to let party passion an<l part 

 madness die, to let judgment resume its s\va 

 These are the things that wise legislation d 

 mands ; and this is all we have asked. 



" In challenging the ruling of the Speaker, i 

 challenging the will of the majority as it hj 



