1890. CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD-SENA-TE. 553 for legislation to prevent the improper detention of people accused of ruling yesterday, and Rule XI did not at the moment occur to him. being insane-to the Committee on the Judiciary. - The Chair is of the opinion that the point made by the Senator from By Mr. RUSK: Petition of Juli!l Nolan, for widow's pension-to the Missouri is well taken. Committee on Invalid Pensions. · Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I should be glad to make a suggestion By Mr. SMITH, of Illinois: Resoktions of the Board of Trade of to the Chair and to the Senate upon the subject, if there be no objection. Cairo, Ill., relative to the improvement of the Mississippi River-to The Senat.or from :Missouri I think will not have forgotten that the the qpmmittee on Rivers and Harbors. petition presented was presented when other business was going on, By :Mr. STONE, of Kentucky: Petition of William F. Crouse & Co. business which was in my charge. There was no earthly reason, if the and 9 others, citizens of Missouri, for passage of an amend!Ilent to the petition were to take any time by debate or by reading it at length, tariff act-to the Committee on Ways and Means. why it should not have been presented either in the morning hour, By ~. WALLACE, of Massachusetts: Papers to·accompany House when there is time expressly assigned to petitions, or after the mat­ bill for the reliefof Warren V. Howard-to the Committee on :Military ter which was before the Senate-was laid aside for the day. It was in Affairs. the interest of preserving that business against interference that I made By Mr. WILLIAMS, of Illinois: Affi4avit in case of Thomas D. Wng­ the objection. So the matter which bas been discussed by the Senator nau-to the Committee on Military Affairs. from l\Iissouri is wholly immaterial to the merits of the occurrence which took place yesterday. But in regard to the general matter of petitions, I conceive also that the Senator from l\Iissouri is in error. '!'here is an express rule that petitions shall be presented with a written abstract of their contents SENATE. indorsed thereon and without debate. The Senator knows very wen WEDNESDAY, December 17, 1890. that these documents are exceedingly numerous, coming in by the thousand, and I do not know but by the hundred thousand sometimes The Senate met at 10 o'clock a. m. in the course of different sessions; and if they were to be read at length Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. as a rule, the result would be that the debates of the Senate would be The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. entirely taken up by the papers presented by volunteers, if they were all read at length, instead of the time being occupied by the Senat.ors PETITIONS AND l\!El\IORIALS. who are elected here to repr~ent the opinions of their constituencies. Mr. FARWELL presented a memorial of the city council of Chicago, Therefore under Rule VII the reading of a petition is in the nature Ill., remonstrating against the licensing of the use of the United States of debate; and to this I wish to ask the attention of the Chair. The pier in that city; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. Senate has provided that a petition shall be presented and appropri· Mr. HOAR. I present a petition of the Wage-Workers' Political ately referred, and ·an abstract of its contents indorsed upon it, with­ Alliance of the District of Columbia, praying for the adoption of cer­ out debate. The reading of the petition would be in the nature of tain rules by the Senate. debate, and it would be only when that debate was going on that The VICE PRESIDENT. The petition will be referred to the Com­ Rule XI would be applicable. mittee on Rules. When the reading of a. paper is called for and objected to it shall be deter­ Mr. VEST. Mr. President-- mined by a vote of the Senate without debate. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missouri rise to It certainly never could have been the intention of Rule XI that it the question of the reference ot the petition which has just been pre­ Ahould be in order to take a vote upon the question of reading at length sented? every petition that was presented. It would utterly destroy Rule Mr. VEST. I rose in connection with the subject of the petition. VII. Yesterday the Senator from New Hampshire [:M:r. BLAIR] presented It is proper to observe that the necessity of the case has led the other a petition upon this same subject, as I understood-I could not catch IIom~e to establish a. rule, growing out of the large numbers of that the full meaning of what he said-and I asked that the petition be read body, very much more strict even than ours, because these petitions at the time. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] objected. are not presented to the open House at all, but they nre handed to the I stated then that it was the first time· in my service in this body that Clerk or put into a box known as the petition box and referred with­ I had ever known a Senator to object to the reading of a petition for out being read at length or stated at all to the House by the Clerk. It information. is not necessary to refer to the odious and ancient precedent which the I have never assumed to be a parliamentarian, an expert in the matter, Senator's party ordered, that all petitions on a certain subject should buiJ I thought it extremely strange that the· power was given by the be laid on the table without any debate whatever. I suppose nobody rules of the Senate to any individual Senator to stop the reading of a now would justify that rule anywhere; but, as I understand it, the petition which was sent here under a constitutional right, in order that present practice of the Senate is simply to require the. petition to be the Senate might.be informed of its contents. I have always assumed presented and its contents stated from the minute or abstract of the as a general proposition that the Senate had the right, when a citizen petition on the back, and anything more than that is in the nature of exercised his privilege of petition, to know what its contents were, in debate. order to ascertain whether it was respectful in terms and legitimate in However, at any time when the Senator from Missouri or any other its object. Senator, especially the Senator from Missouri, whom we all respect, I was so much impressed with what I considered the injustice of this should st.ate that he thought it was expedient as a matter of public proceeding (for I care nothing about the personal motive or actions of interest that a petition should be read at length, I, for one, would the Senator from Massachusetts) that I looked in the rules, an unusual never think of objecting if the request came at a time when there was thing with me, and I call attention now of the Presiding Officer to Rule no other business that I thought was more pressing. XI of the Senate. Yesterday it seemed to be assumed by the Chair, Mr. VEST. Mr. President, let me say a word. I have expressly of which I make no complaint, that as a matter of right any Senator stated that I did not care to discuss the motive of the Senator from could stop the reading of a petition. In Rule XI provision is made Massachusett8, as I certainly do protest against any one questioning that' when any paper is presented to the Senate and objection is made my motive yesterday in regard to what I did in reference to this mat- to its reading the Pre.'!iding Officer shall submit the question to the ~~ . Senate. I assume that that covers petitions, because they are papers. I have not stated that all petitions should be read; that is a very dif­ I find no other rule which is exactly pertinent to the question I am ferent proposition from the case presented to the Senate. Herc was a now discussing. petition presented which I thought ought to be read, a.'! it was entirely The practice bas grown up here-I never had occasion to examine it pertinent to the matter under discussion, the election bill, and for the before-whenever objection is made -by any Senator to the reading of additional reason that Rule .VII bad not been complied with in that any paper the Chair says it goes over. Rules XI and VII are all that case, which requires a condensed statement of the objects of the peti­ I can find which will apply to this subject. Rule XI provides that tion to be indorsed upon it in writing. On the other band, there was whenever any objection is made, the question shall be submitted to simply an oral statement, and an imperfect one, made by the Senator the Senate, and Rule VII, which was not complied with in this case, who offered it. as I fin~ on examining it, requires that a condensed statement of the I submit that the proper time to have objected to the petition was objects of every petition shall be indorsed in writing upon the paper when it was afl:Ared, but no objection was made then and I simply asked itself by the Senator who offers it.