The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 32

The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired, and it requires unanimous consent for the senator from Georgia to proceed with his remarks.

JANUARY 21, 1882.

Mr. h.o.a.r: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration of the resolution.

The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: If there is no objection, unanimous consent will be a.s.sumed.

Mr. FARLEY and others: I object.

Mr. h.o.a.r: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. SHERMAN: Let it be proceeded with informally, subject to the call for other business.

The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the motion of the senator from Ma.s.sachusetts. [Putting the question.] The Chair is uncertain from the sound and will ask for a division.

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division--ayes 32, noes 20.

The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The resolution is before the Senate and the senator from Georgia [Mr. Hill] has the floor.

Mr. HILL of Georgia: Mr. President, I do not intend to say one word on the subject of woman suffrage. I shall not get into that discussion which was alluded to by the senator from Ma.s.sachusetts. The senator will remember, if he refreshes his recollection, that when my late colleague, now no longer a senator, made a motion for the appointment of a select committee in relation to the inter-oceanic ca.n.a.l, I opposed it distinctly, though it came from my colleague, upon the ground that the appointment of select committees ought to stop, that it was wrong; and I oppose this resolution for the same reason. I voted against a resolution to raise a select committee offered by a senator on this side of the chamber at the present session, and I have voted against all resolutions of that character.

No senator, in my judgment, will rise in his place in the Senate and say that it is necessary to appoint a special committee to consider the matters referred to in the resolution. It is true I am a member of the committee, and perhaps ought not to refer to it, but we have a standing committee, of which the distinguished senator from Ma.s.sachusetts [Mr. h.o.a.r] is chairman, the Committee on Privileges and Elections, that, I take occasion to say, is a very proper committee for this matter to go to; and that committee has almost nothing on earth to do. There is but one single subject-matter now before it, and I believe there will be scarcely another question before that committee at this session.

There is not a contested election; there is not a dispute about anybody's seat; and yet it is a Committee on Privileges and Elections. What is the reason for going on continually and appointing these select committees, when there are standing committees here, properly organized to consider the very question specified by the resolution, with nothing to do?

Now, I am going to say one other thing, I do not pretend that the purpose I am now about to state is the purpose of the senator from Ma.s.sachusetts. I have no reflections to make as to what this resolution is intended for, but we do know that there is an idea abroad that select committees are generally appointed for the purpose of giving somebody a chairmans.h.i.+p, that somebody may have a clerk. That is not the case here, I dare say. I do not mean to intimate that it is the case here, but it ought to be put a stop to; it is all wrong. I think, though, that there ought to be a resolution pa.s.sed by this body giving every senator who has not a committee a clerk. Everybody knows that every chairman of a committee has a clerk in the clerk of that committee. The other senators, at least in my opinion, ought each to have a clerk. I would vote for such a resolution. I believe it would be right, and I believe the country would approve it. Every senator knows that he has more business to attend to here than he can possibly perform. Why, sir, if I were to attend to all the business in the departments and otherwise that my const.i.tuents ask me to perform, I could not discharge half my duties in this chamber; and every senator, I dare say, has the same experience. It is to the public interest, therefore, in my judgment, that every senator should have a clerk. I am unable to employ a clerk from my own funds; many other senators are more fortunately situated; but still I must do that or move the appointment of a special committee for the purpose in an indirect way of getting a clerk.

It is not right.

It has been said that if senators each have a clerk, for instance, a clerk at $100 a month salary during the session, which would be a very small matter, the members of the other House would each want a clerk. It does not follow. There is a vast difference. A member of the other House represents a narrow district, a single district; a senator represents a whole State.

Take the State of New York. There are thirty-three representatives in the House from the State of New York; there are but two senators here from that State. Those two senators in all likelihood have as much business to perform here for their const.i.tuents as the thirty-three members of the House. There is, therefore, an eminent reason why a senator should have a clerk and why a member of the House should not.

I cannot vote for the appointment of select committees unless you raise a select committee for every senator in the body so as to give him a clerk. You have appointed select committees for this business and for that. It gives a few men an advantage when the business of the country does not require it, whereas if you appointed a clerk for each senator, with a nominal salary of $100 per month during the session, it would enable every senator to do his work more efficiently both here and for his const.i.tuents; it would put all the senators on a just equality; it would be in furtherance of the public interest; and it would avoid what I consider (with all due deference and not meaning to be offensive) the unseemly habit of constantly moving the appointment of select committees in this body. This is all I have to say. I vote against the resolution simply because I am opposed to the appointment of a select committee for this or any other purpose that I can now think of.

The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. VEST called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and the princ.i.p.al legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. JONES of Florida (when his name was called): I propose to vote for this resolution, but at the same time I do not regard my vote as in any way committing myself on the subject of female suffrage. If they think an investigation of this subject should be had in this way, I for one am willing to have it. I vote "yea."

Mr. TELLER, (when his name was called): On this question I am paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan]; otherwise I should vote "yea."

The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced--yeas 35, nays 23; so the resolution was agreed to.[82]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 20, 1881.

Mr. WHITE of Kentucky: I ask consent to offer for consideration at this time the resolution which I send to the clerk's desk.

The clerk read as follows:

_Resolved_, That a select committee of seven members of the House of Representatives be appointed by the Speaker, to whom shall be referred all pet.i.tions, bills and resolves providing for the extension of suffrage to women, or for the removal of legal disabilities.

Mr. MILLS of Texas: I object.

Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania: A similar resolution has already been referred to the Committee on Rules.

The SPEAKER (Mr. Keifer of Ohio): Objection being made to its consideration at this time, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules.

The resolution was referred accordingly.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 25, 1882.

Mr. REED of Maine: I rise to make a privileged report. The Committee on Rules, to whom were referred sundry resolutions relating to the subject, have instructed me to report the resolution which I send to the desk.

The clerk read as follows:

_Resolved_, That a select committee of nine members be appointed, to whom shall be referred all pet.i.tions, bills and resolves asking for the extension of suffrage to women or the removal of their legal disabilities.

The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the report of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HOLMAN of Indiana: I ask that the latter portion of the resolution be again read. It was not heard in this part of the house.

The resolution was again read.

Mr. TOWNSHEND of Illinois: I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.

Mr. TOWNSHEND: My inquiry is whether that resolution should not go to the House calendar.

The SPEAKER: It is a privileged report under the rules of the House from the Committee on Rules. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. MCMILLIN of Tennessee: I make the point of order that it must lie over for one day.

The SPEAKER: It is the report of a committee privileged under the rules.

Mr. MCMILLIN: The committee are privileged to report, but under the rule the report has to lie over a day.

The SPEAKER: The gentleman from Tennessee will oblige the Chair by directing his attention to any rule which requires such a report to lie over one day. It changes no standing rule or order of the House.

Mr. MCMILLIN: It does, by making a change in the number and nature of the committees. All measures of a particular cla.s.s, the resolution states, must be referred to the proposed committee, whereas heretofore they have been referred to a different committee. Therefore the resolution changes the rules of the House.

The SPEAKER: The Chair is of opinion the resolution does not rescind or change any standing rule of the House. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. SPRINGER: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the Chair to the fact that this does distinctly change one of the standing rules of the House. One of the standing rules is--

The SPEAKER: The Chair has pa.s.sed on that question, and no appeal has been taken from his decision.