Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-07-18
scHENcK AND BINGHAM.


the House of Representatives on last
Thursday, between a couple of Ohio
members, who ought to have more sense
than to engage in such disgraceful pas
sage of tongues. 1t will be remembered
that at the spring session the member
from this district had similar contro-
versy with Mr. Butler, which didneither
of the parties any credit, and we regret
to see this new manifestation of bad feel
ing between Republican members. The
gentlemen had better expend their
strength in discharging the duties of
their position and in fighting the COM
mon foe. ..rf
The question of adopting the new Re-
construction bill passed by the Senate
was before the House,:
whether it was by design that in this bill
the General of the Army had no power
to appoint civilians to Office.
Mr.. FARNswoRTH said that the provis-
| ion was not in the bill.
Mr.. SCuENCK begged pardon. 1t might
| have beensthe intention to put that pro-
vision in the bill. The District Comman-
| ders were given that power, but accord
! ing to his understanding of the bill, as
read, the General of the Army was not
given such power. The section on the
subject was read by the Clerk.
| Mr.. SCHENCK argued that his under
standing of the bill was correct.
Mr.. BINGHAM asserted that 1t was not.
Mr.. SCHENCK said he had expected to
get such a. flat denial as that from the
gentleman from Ohio, who was one of
those men who knew everything, and
who supposed that no one else knew
anything. He favored the reference of
the bill to the Reconstruction Commit
tee, so as toavOid the word mongering"
and "hair-splitting, that rendered the
last bill nugatory. Hewould ldhaveswept
away the mongrel governments in the
South, and commenced to build up from
the foundation. AS he would remove
the obstruction i'm the way ofa President,
not by digging canal around him, SO he
would remove all other distinctions.
Mr.. FARNswoRTH did not think there
was any force in the objection made by
the gentleman from Ohio; still he was
rather of the opinion that the bill should
be referred to the Reconstruction Com
mittes and printed.
Mr.. PIKE (Rep.. Me- said the House
bill and the Senate bill were 80 nearly
| dilkc uilaL lc COiiiu Scc hO uiiicichtO pS-
tween them.
Mr.. BINGHAM, referring to Mr..
Schenck's remark. did not see why that
gentleman should undertake to snub
everybody, and say that he (Bingham)
knew everything. If he did know every
thing he would not have asked him for
information. ..-.
Mr.. ScHENoK corrected him by saying
that he (Bingham) had asked him no
question, but had interrupted him by
saying 1t was no such thing.
Mr.. BINGHAM remarked that he cXcus-
ed his colleague, for he was not himself
tonight. Laughter.
Mr.. SCIIENCK did not know what his
COLI ue meant by that remark, but he
(Jche,. ,.ck) was better satisfied to be what
he was than to be.so egregiously mistaken
as shiscolleaguc was in forgetting his very
offensive manner.
Mr.. BINGHAM declared that he was in
capable of misrepresenting his colleague,
but he knew he was not himself tonight.
Mr.. STEVENS (Pa.) expressed the hope
hat the reporters would omit anything
said tonight about any member being
drunk. Laughter.
Mr.. BINGHAM, aftcrsome minutes, said
he withdrew everything he had said in
reference to his colleague. f.-
Mr.. ELDRIDGE Dem, Wis., insisted
that Mr.. Bingham (who was speaking
on the Republican side Of the House,
should come over to the Democratic sido
Of the House, where he belonged, and
not go back to wallowing in tho mire.--
daughter.
N..F l.