New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-04-17

adopted usruetirg the Committee the judiciary TO in
quIe whether any and what action Is necessary 10 conhs
the title 10 lands that purchased oy Tue ae oo
federae States and used for prison camps ana o'e P
poses.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
Mr.. WHALEY rose to make personal explanation ~
reference to an article IN The CfRcinhdH DH'y u"-e
making fun OF him. and describing him as Iather Ieho
rant man. who had been badly sold" in the House some
weeks ago by the Latin phrase 90" al" occurring irequeht
y in the accounts Of the Commissioner Of Agriculture
suggesting that Mr. Whaley was resPonslpe lof
the appointment Of this very expensive MI Btaii az
mpuation which Mr.. Whaey al the time ignoranty ~.
pudaicd. The correspondent described the incident and
il was his description Of it that Mr. Whaey objected to
unkind and HngeneTous. IL was too common thlDg,
be thought, for reporters 10 SANDER members.
Mr. ROGERS 10 make personal explanation IN ref
eronce paragraph which appeared in TIE Ner- YORK.
Times OF Friday last rejecting on MIR. Conklng IN con-
necton with the Introduction of the Bankrupt bill, which
he had been Instrumental iD defeating. lie himself had
thought Of introducing IL again order to revive the Com
mtee but had judged it better to let IT from one OF
the members Of the majority side Of the House. and the
Speaker whom be had consulted had agreed with him On
tie propncy Of having Mr. Conking offer the bill
ILauebterJ He was convinced that the country should
have some kind Of Bankrupt BILL and 30 was Mr.. Conk-
ling II was matter Of courtesy TO Mr. Jenckes that
the bill was nrodueed-not TO take away any Of the pres
tge of the gentleman from Rhode Island.
The SPEAKER explained that on the rejection OF the
Bankrupt Bill he had informed the gentleman from New
York Mr.. Conklng aud some other gentlemen as was
his duty to do in reference 10 parliamentary questions,
that the Special Committee the Bankrupt law could be
revived by the introduction OF new Dill ana us reference
10 that Committee.
Mr. CoYKLING expressed his obligation TO the gentleman
from New.Jersey for making the explanation. He had
done an OF personal courtesy and justice, which, from
Political opponent always refreshing relief from
the moLotoIy OF party spirit.
Mr. Ross IN suggested that he would like to
Of that refreshing matter come from the Republican SIDE
Of the House.
the malicious and somewhat yenomous paragraph Mneh
had been read telegraphed 10 The Mar YORK Ines
By either OF the ayowed and responsible Washington cor
respondents OF that paper. From long acquaintance
with OF those gentlemen he should have been very
much surprised if be had made use of mere act OF per-
sonal courtesy 70 deame any member of the House.
Mr. JEycKEs stated his belief that the fact as had
been stated by both the gentlemen from NewJersey and
New-York. The bill had been introduced while he was
absent from his seat but Immediately upon his return,
the gentleman Mr.. Conkling explained the reasons Of
his action, and secured his MI Jenckess thanks there
for. He had connection whatever with the orgna'
ton or publication OF the paragraph.
Mr.. RAYMOND said he neither TO make disclaimers
admissions. He simply rose in consequence OF the
somewhat peculiar language which his colleague tMr
Conkng had tit 10 apply to the paragraph IN ques
ton. This was the first time The NeU-I0rk Times had
been drawn into this controversy. He had understood
that paragraph to have appeared in other papers HIS
colleague had acquitted gentlemen Of all response
biity for that paragraph but whether they would be
obliged him for his voluntary acquitta was Their con-
Germ. He did not know but that his colleague might have
intended from popularity in his manner and en-
phass throw the responsibility on hm Mr. Raymond),
as the known editor Of the paper. However when his
colleague would be pam
no Mr. Raymond should be prepared to give him such al
answer az the might require.
Mr. CoSKLG said that ii his colleague thought there
was anything in the evidence orcumsanal otherwise
before the House, calling him 10 admit OF disclaim
having telegsphed inspired libel on one OF his col
leagues that question for him. He repeated that he
had TO believe that neither Of the ordinary core
spondents Of The Times sent that paragraph.
Mr. RAYMOND said he did not feel disposed 10 dsclaim
admit anything on the strength Of such an appeal
as his colleague had seen fit TO make. He had
M the uaragraDl and had supposed when
il read at the desk that il was from The Nerfork
Heraid. All he knew about the matter was that be
was Informed Immediately after his colleague had intro
duced bill that after killing the bill he had introduced II
precisely the terms. He presumed be repeated the
fact to several people. He did not remember whether he
had repeated the fact to any newspaper correspondent
He had never had any feeling against his colleague III this
or any matter and had expressed any by cor
respondence or in conversation.
Mr.. CoYKLING desired 10 make very emphatic dis
camor That that he had made no appeal whatever
70 his colleague. Ii his colleague felt called upon to
ANYTHING on the subject, IL was in consequence Of
prompting other than any suggestion Of his. The bin
which he had introduced was one sent TO him by gentle
from New-Jersey, and be had even without looking
at IT, the Clerks desk with the simple motive OF
referred the Select Committee on the Bank
npt Law and thus reviying that Committee Every gen.
teman knew the aninus Of the paragraph. IL
cusa,ion that the person referred 10 bad been palterng
with here double sense; that he had been defeating
bill far in his power TO do and then rentro-
ducing it and claiming il as bis He therefore
peaed that II an extraordinary statement and ven
and he would stand what he said II Others
content to leave il there, he quite content.
Mr. RAYMOND said he was not quite content 70 leave II
just there He begged 10 say he had said before
that be IN sense responsible for that paragraph
cent possibly by conversation with Others he might have
made himself responsible for the fact stated in 1.-THE fact
that his colleague having opposed the bill and contributed
10 It's defeat, Immediately reintroduced the same bill
That fact and in the absence ofany explanation he
would take leave say that the circumstance gave 10
a construction which might or might not be yenomous
but was certainly NOT complimentary He lMI Raymond
put 10 such construction it, but be would take the
liberty say that Others did. The explanation given
satisfactory he supposed 10 ALL it was to the gentleman
who the acknowledged author Of the bill. With that
explanation the matter clear enough without IT, he
submitted IT was not clear enough.
After further diminishing, harmless in its effects
the matter was allowed to drop.
WOOL.
Mr. VAN HORN IN. " presented petitions from Mag
ara and Genesee Counties Ncw.York signed by 245 cit-
zens asking for an increase of the duty Oh wool.
DUTY ON FLAX
Mr. CoNgIIyG presented the petition Of the owners Of
several axms praying that duty of at least so per
al vaorem be laid fax yarns linens
hemp and ute goods and duty foreign fax for fine
fabrics and also petition of the citizens of Utica pray
ing for the passage laws regulating State insur.
They were referred to the Committee of Ways and
Means.
THE ARMY ORGANIZATION.
The ouse took up the regular order of business and
proceeded consider the bill reported from the Committee
on Military Affairs TO reorganize and establish the Army
the United States The pending question being the
amendment to the Sd section.
Mr. STEVENS moved to amend the section by providing
that Of the cavalry regiments shall be composed Of
coored men.
Mr.. CHAsLER opposed the amendment, and demanded
the yeas and nays
The amendment was agreed to by vote of SO yeas
against % nays.
Several other amendments proposed and discussed
and some agreed TO.
Mr. Ross IN moved to recommt the bill to the Mill
ary Committee with Instructions TO modify remodel il
Oh the plan of reducing the army TO 10000.
Mr.. ROGERS IN. j.. made speech in favor Of the pro-
posed reduction, which Mr.. BLAINE characterized as
q slashy washy style of debate"