The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-03-16

7 WA6Iei ne l0aglleu CneEe udu DGGu
any fraud. m
Boyer had no further explanation to
/ make.
Williams said that the Chairman
of the Judiciary Committee had act
ed In bad faith and introduced the
/ amendment IN a manner to deceive
/ the House.
/ Boyer answered that what he had
said, he had said, and was willing that
it should remain.
Williams said that his recollection
was that nothing was said by the gem
tleman who offered the amendment,
and all that was said, was said by the
gentleman from Ohio, to the bill as it
came from the Speakers table, with
out the amendment.
Mr.. Boyer did not charge the gen
tleman from Ohio, from knowing the
character of the amendment. 1t would
be contrary to all experience of him to
suppose he would allow an important
amendment, Of which he had charge,
and which he knew nothing of be-
fore hand, to pass unnOticed.
Mr.. Williams understood he shifted
the charge from the shoulders of the
gentleman from Iowa, to the shoulder
Of the gentleman from Ohio.
Boyer said that the gentleman could
not put words in his mouth. What
he said was without any personal
malice toward any one, certainly with
out any i'll feelings to the gentlemen
from Ohio or from Iowa, for
both of whom he had high respect,
but the country should know by what
means a majority of the House think
it necessary to sustain themselves in
their unconstitutional acts of usur-
patton. 1905
Schenck said the gentleman from
Pennsylvania undertakes, directly or
by Implication, to impute fraud to the
members of this House, or the ma
jOrity, but more particularly to the
gentleman from Iowa and myself l
do not intend to answer such charge.
| should be far gone, indeed, when /
found 1t necessary to go over there for
lessons of prOpriety, and fairness, and
of manliness, and of honor in legis-
lation. The other branch Of the
proposition of the gentleman seems
an apology for the minority to their
constituents for not having been
awake and watching, and observing
the course of legislation; so something
which they disapprOve has become a
law.
Schenck proceeded to state his ac-
ton in the matter. understanding at
the time the full effect of the amend
ment offered by Wilson. He said he
was willing it should be received, but
did not attempt TO accept it; he had
no power to do so; and as a mediator
of the bill, he simply consented from
demanding the previous question In
order to let in the amendment that 10
might come before the House, and
then demand the previous question.
The gentleman and his friend, who
are watch dogs on the walls Of
liberty, and are always guarding the
cons tuition, slept or did not observe
it; and this he says was a trick often
practiced on them. He, -Schenek,
would not make a confession Of that
kind, if he were the gentleman; and
he could hardly credit 1T as an excuse.
1t was not for him to raise any ques-
ton about their obtuseness or their
late waking mp to discovery which
they werethen not capable of making.
Boyer asked if Schenck ever saw
the amendment before it wss offered.
Schenck, disclaiming any admission
that be was bound to be catechised or
eross-questiOned, said he had never
heard the amendment read or seen 1t;
but he did hear a moment before
that a good thing to accomplish
good object-just such as was accom-
plished-might be obtained by put
ting an amendment on the bill, and
! he was glad Of having an opportunity
of hearing such an amendment, aud be
was not so stupid but that he could
see as soon as It was read what It's
object was, and give it his concur
renee. He had lost confidence in the
majority ofthe Supreme Court; he be
lieved they usurp power when they
undertake to settle questions purely
political, and if he found them abus-
ing their power by attempting to ar
rogate jurisdiction, and he could take
away that power by repeal to the
statute, he would do it.
Boyer said that was q very manly
and courageous declaration.
Holeman, while admitting that the
amendment was germ ane, asked
Schenck if it was exactly fair in hav-
ing to obtain the unanimous consent
for the bill to allow an amendment
to be offered, which could not have
come be ore the House by Unani-
nous consent.
Schenek merely said he was willing
that the amendment should be Of
| fered, and unless he was responsible
as guardian of the gentlemen from
/ Indiana, Pennsylvania ana others, he
did not see but his responsibility
ended there. Let them 60 to their