4
The Commoner.
I
u
&..
ft
V-
r
ii
i
i1
;
tlio bouso itself to say that filibustering shall
stop.
Mr. Payne: But suppose that the majority of
the committee on rules are in sympathy with tho
illibusterors, and a proposition Is made to stop
the filibustering and Is submitted to tho coinmit
teo on rules, tho committeo on rules, tho com
mittee, of course, being in sympathy with the
fillbusterers, would not report such a rule. Now,
In that case, how is tho majority of the house to
act? When tho speaker is to determine, I can
nee very well that there may bo an appeal from
his decision, so that the house can vote and a
majority may revise his decision; but if a ma
jority of the committee on rules, being in sym
pathy with the filibustering, fall to bring In a
rule to stop it, how can tho majority of the
house act?
Mr. Bryan: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is
that in th Fifty-first congress there were In
stances where even the appeal from the decision
of the chair was declared to be dilatory, and
tho gentleman from New York would find it
very difficult to get tho house to express Itself
upon such a question when the speaker refused
to put the question.
Mr. Reed: If tho gentleman from Nebraska'
will allow me to make a suggestion, the houso
haB always power to revise the. action of the
speaker. It may not be always by way of appeal
but, by direct action, tho house has always the
right to do that.
Mr. Bryan: Well, will the gentleman from
Maine toll mo for he is informed how the
house would act In this case; suppose 'a motion
Is made and the speaker decides it to be a dila
tory motion, and therefore out of order; an
appeal is taken from his decision, and he decides
that that is a dilatory motion and out of order;
in such a case, how can tho houso act?
Mr. Reed: The house, by a direct proceed
ing, could raise the question the speaker' had
decided improperly.
Mr. Bryan: The house itself?
Mr. Reed: Yes. Let me say to the gentle
man from Nebraska that in the British houso
of commons no appeal whatever is allowed from
a decision of tho speaker upon a question of
order, but the British house of commons 'Is not
powerless in such a case; for, where the speaker
disregards his duty, it can, by a direct proceed
ing, attack his action.
Mr. Bryan: Do I understand, then, that the
minority in the Fifty-first congress overlooked
one advantage that they might have had
Mr. Reed (interposing): One? They over
looked no end of them. (Laughter)
Mr. Bryan: Well, Mr. Speaker, if l have
done nothing else I have given a new weapon
to the minority in future congresses, where the
gentleman from Maine may preside if his
prophecy of the other day shall prove true, for
if he refuses to put a motion they can put it
themselves although, as has been suggested, it
may he that when ho takes tho chair again his
opinion will undergo tho same change that it
aid upon the question of the right to count a
quorum. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire
to detain the house longer.
Mr. Payne: But will not the gentleman from
Nebraska, before he sits down, answer the ques
tion I asked him? Suppose the majority of the
committee on rules are in sympathy with the
fl"buterers and refuBe t0 brinE in a rule to
stop filibustering, how, then, can the house act?
Mr. Bryan: Tho question 1b a pertinent ono.
ii the committee on rules does not bring the
proposition before the house, the house will not
act upon it. (Laughter.) But'th committee
on rules is composed' of a majority belonging
to the dominant party, and it is presumable that
in any important case, if it was tho desire of
the house and of the majority to stop filibuster
ing th rule would be brought in and the fili
bustering would bo stopped.
But I insist that the changes made by the
last congress and by this congress from' the
rules of the Fifty-first congress on these two
LESS f? qrfUeSV0D8were wIsely made: that in
stead of adopting the rules of the Fifty-first
congress we are as far away from the two vicious
J?1?8 ingress aB we ever were, and
that this congress can adopt the rules reported
by the committee without fear that the members
are thereby subjecting themselves to the samo
criticisms which they made against tho ronubii
cans of the Fifty-first congress Publi-
I was glad to find that in the Forty-sixth
?S?r?, altnousn the democrats were ina ma
ity' theJ refu8e to adopt the rule of the
F,fty;flrst for the counting of a quorum. I was
proud that the last congress, although the demo!
crate had a majority there, refused to follow
. wt uxo jimy-nrst congress, and I
am glad that this congreis refuses to take that
power simply because it can do it, and in giving
to the committeo on rules the right to bring
in a rule hero stopping filibustering, we aro
simply putting power In the hands of the houso
to conduct its business and to stop delay not
putting that power in the hands of the speaker.
ANOTHER DEBATE
The question was debated again on August
30, 1893. The following is from the Congres
sional Record showing Mr. Bryan's remarks:
Mr. Bryan: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a
word or two in reply to the gentleman from
Arkansas. As I understand him, he does not
discuss the principle, but, so far as I could
gather from "what he said, he seems to go upon
the theory that this committee on rules is mere
ly an advisory committee to act with the speaker
and to carry out the speaker's will.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the idea, I desire to
exp'ress my dissent. In doing so, let me say
that no person in this house has been more
kindly treated by the speaker than myself, and
for that reason I am, perhaps, in a better posi
tion to express a dissent from the committee's
report than if I were suffering, from disappoint
ment. No man has greater confidence in the speaker
than I have; and yet I must object to the idea
that a representative body ought to place the
direction of its legislation in the hands of one
man, or a few men; and if it is necessary, in
order to carry out the idea which is incorporated
in our rule to do that, then I would be In favor
of a change in the rule sufficiently comprehen
sive to bring us. back to the democratic idea
of a rule by the people themselves, and a rule
by their representatives sent here to conduct
their business.
If this committee were simply to report gen
eral rules like those we are now acting upon
I would not feel called upon to object to Its
present size, but when the committeo Is given
power to direct legislation by presenting a spe
cial rule for the consideration of each bill T in
sist, Mr. Speaker, that that can be more wisely
done by a larger committee.
If the argument urged in favor of continuing
tho present size of this committee is correct,
then a committee of one is just as good as a
committee of five. If you want simply to cen
tralize power why divide it among five men?
Why not give it to one man?
But, sir, if you wish legislation to be con
ducted in the interest of all the people whose
representatives are here, if you concede that
every man on this floor should have an equal
vote in its deliberations, if you concede that
every constituency Is equally Interested in what
goes on here, then, Mr. Speaker, I submit that
this committee which has in charge the direction
of our legislation ought to be large enough to
comprehend every part of this country, and to
give expression to all the large interests of
the country. And it is not asking too much
When we urge that this committee be enlarged.
Nor is It flying in the face of tho adminis
tration. It is paying no compliment to th
speaker of this house and those who are his
Intimate advisers to say that when we express
a dissent wo are in rebellion. It is paying no
compliment to the Bpeaker of this house to say
that be or his advisers desire to control our
legislation. I think I pay him a higher compli
ment when I say that as the epealter of this
house he desires to give voice and expression
to the wishes of the members who put him there,
and not to control their deliberations, and that
ho will Tespect us if, in following our judgment,
we dissent from the rule proposed and express
it as our opinion that the interests of the coun
try will be better served if the committee is
made larger.
Practical Tariff Talks
Senato document No. 155, prepared by the
bureau of manufactures of the department of
commerce and labor at the request of Senator
LaFollette discloses some very interesting things
to confute tho man who contends that the tariff
has been reduced. This shows, for instance,
that an Increase of 17 per cent is made in the
rate on laceB and embrolderios of whatsoever ma
terial they are made, save wool. When the mat
ter was brought before the finance, ways and
means committee of the house the request waa
made that the rate bo reduced from GO per cent
ad valorem to 50 per cent. Lacea and embroid-
VOLUME 9, NUMBER z
eries never paid a higher duty than 40 per mnf
until the McKinley bill put it at 60. The Wilson
bill reduced it to 50, Dingley put it back to
60, and now it is 70, an unnecessarily high rate
as the evidence before the house committor
clearly discloses.
This industry Is a very large one the world
over, and it has been very prosperous in America
under the stimulus of the old duty. Laces and
embroideries are necessities of later day civili
zation, being used by persons in all grades of
life. An idea' of the Immensity of this trade
may be gained from the fact that the revenue
in 1907 was $25,000,000, representing imports
of $42,600,000. Most of the laces, especially
the cheaper grades, come from France and Bel
gium, while Switzerland furnishes most of tho
embroideries. Expert testimony before the com
mittee was that a reduction to 60 per cent
would not close a single factory here notwith
standing it would increase the importations and
the revenue. That presented what ought to ap
peal to a republican as an ideal condition, in
creasing the revenue while giving all needed
protection to home industries. But what did tho
congress do? It increased the duty 17 per cent.
Laces and embroideries are the raw material
of the wearing apparel manufacturers. The lat
ter presented a long petition to congress ask
ing a reduction in the tariff. Practically every
manufacturer of women's, misses' and children's
underwear, dresses, waists, corsets, hats, caps,
aprons, etc., employing thousands of skilled
operators four along giving employment to
11,000 joined in this request. They said a
very large proportion of their labor Is engaged
in the application of these trimings to crments.
The larger therthmber of trinfralngs employed
tho more persons would have work. They said
that the old excessive rate so enhanced the cost
of laces and embroideries that their use on
these garments was restricted. Another result
was the use of cheap lace so that the price of
the completed garment would not be too great
for the masses to pay. These manufacturers
also called attention to the fact that if they
were given the raw material of lace and em
broidery at a less cost, they could, because of
the artistic character of the garments turned
out, compete in the world's markets, obtain an
outlet in every civilized country. But the tariff
makers preferred to pile on protection to the
smaller industry. This protection, let it bo
added, goes entirely to the manufacturer and
not to tho laborer, because the wages earned
by the operators of the power looms in Notting
ham and Calais is practically the same as earned
by American operatives, as shown in the hear
ing before the house committee. The lace
makers' union here is a branch of that in Not
tingham, and fixes the same rate of wages.
There is another reason why the lace making
industry in America needs no such protection
as given it. Letters submitted to congress from
makers of women's apparel showed that they
bought domestic laces 15 to 20 per cent cheaper
than they could the Imported articles. This
was due to the fact that women call for tho
Nottingham, Valencinnes and Torchon laces, and
the American manufacturer simply copies the
designs of the foreigner, thus saving all of the
expenses of drafting and designing connected
with making new patterns. If tho American
manufacturer is selling laces below the cost of
Imported goods, he needff no such protection,
and the only result that can follow the 17 per
cent increase in duty will be that ho will em
brace the opportunity to put up his own prices,
knowing that the imported stuff, carrying a high
er rate, must be increased in price.
0. Q. D.
LOVE'S SWEET SISTER
Thank God for Love's sweet sister, Tenderness!!
The gentle watcher in the wakeful night,
When pain, mysterious and measureless,
Strikes quivering chords of anguish and
affright;
The mate of little children and the friend
Of all the patient, dear dumb beasts that are?
The priestess of the faithful to tho end,
The white-souled lady of the Morning Star;
The second se'u of mothers seeing deep
Into the holiness of souls new-born;
The shrine where sinfulness and Judgment reap
The measure of fulfillment free from scorn.
Sweot, softly sandaled saint, abide with me!
Without thee Love were less than Love should
be!
f Marie Hemstreet, in tho Outlook.
-&&t qM&ik JiiUMUhm j