Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-03-24
Special to the Appeal

1
Ssnate bill to rediStricS the State wa
taken up on second reading.
Mr. Warren moved to EdOpt the house
bill reported by the redistrioting commit
tee in lieu of the senate bill.
Mr.. Brandon opposed the house bill. He
was opposed to selling out Middle and
West Tennessee, and regarded the action
of the redistricsing committee as an at
tempt 10 deirsud West tennessee of a
member OF congress. He suggested, as q
| compromise, that McNairy county be
taken from the seventh and added to the
ninth district.
Mr.. Coulter explained that II the sug-
gestion were adopted IL would give the
ninth district nearly one hundred and
fifty thousand, and leave the seventh only
one hundred and thirty. four thousand.
he referred 70 the difficulty which the
COMMITTEES had experienced in framing the
bill now offsrsd in lieu, and hoped 1t would
be adopted.
Mr.. BuBose ssid Shelby county had not
q Democratic majority Of over five hun
dred. In Upton the Radicals had a ma
jority. Il was the same in Fayette. Ia
Haywood the Democrats had majority.
Shelby and Haywood together would give
the Democrats majority of one thousand.
| Upton and Fsystte would give the Radi-
Gals q msi orisy Of seven hundred, or in
tbs whole district OF only three hundred,
CAUSES. He would not acosps the author
ity of the APPEAL and Avalanche on the
| subject. Both advocated the elsction of
moderate Republicans, while he was in
fsvor of sending simon-pure Democrats
| to represent ths State in congress, lAll
| that he desired was such combination of
| counties as would give the ninth district q
Democratic representative without doubt.
Mr.. Warren said that the bill reported
by the committee did not satisfy him per-
sonally, but he believed Il was the best
| which could be framed d proof that the
| Ninth district hEd larger Democratic
majority than had bsen stated by the SEN
stor from Shelby county. He read from
1 the APPEAL, which, Notwithstanding an
assertion hEd been made, was the best ex-
nanent of Democratic opinion in West
| Tennessee.
Mr. DuBose was very sorry to
| say that there was not a Democratic
organ in Memphis, Tne Avalanche was
doubtful, and had been scoffing at the
name of Democracy snd abusing the
! Democratic nominee; and, although sup
| porting the lsst candidate, the editor of
| the APPEAL WIS formerly editor of the
| Avalanche, and was advocating noder-
ate Republican for President, and shaped
his policy by that. He had been known
for yesrs, in Shelby county, TO be of the
track, and to be opposed TO the organial-
ton of the party.
Mr.. Warren said that be would never
have known that the APPEAL was not q
dyed-in-ths-wool Democrat, if he had not
learned the fact from the senator from
Shelby county.
Mr.. DaBose said that the Memphis pa
psrs would not have compiled their fg-
ures carefully, but that their object was,
10 doubt, TO represent the Democratic
party ss strong es possible.
Mr.. Coulter said the Memphis papers
agreed that ths ninth district, IS formed by
the bill reported by the committee, was
strongly Democratic, and Memphis aud
West Tennessee members we're almost e
unit with them
Mr.. Ernest said ft would be news to East
Tennessessns that the APPEAL was not
good Democratic authority. He would
not vote for any measure which would
hazard the SUCCESS of the Democratic
party in any district of the State. BE was
satisfied, from figures presented by the
APPEAL and from the almost unanimous
support of the Democratic members of
West Tennessee, who had given the bill
in the house, that the ninth district was
Democratic.
Mr.. Thorpe was willing to sccspt the bill
in the house that the ninth district was
Democratic. he WIS willing to accept
the bill reported by the committee. |
Though 1t did not suit him personally. he |
of compromise, and therefore the only |
bill could sYsr pas the legislature, and |
because the time of the session was very
short.
Mr.. DuBcss explained that he based his |
calculation ofthe strength ofthe parties in |
West Tennessee on the Radical vote in |
Grants election.
After furthsr discussion, Mr.. Foley rose |
to point of order, and said that tbs house |
bill could not be substituted for the senate |
bill.
The chair sustained the objection.
Mr.. Thorpe appealed from the decision Of |
the chair.
No quorum voting, the roll was called, |
snd twenty-one senators answered to /
their names. This result left ;he senators
sdrift on q sea of peTplexities.
After a confused discussion the roll was
called, again nineteen members voting
ayes 9, noes 10-snd the decision of the |
chsir was declared reversed, and the house
bill was adopted in lieu, on the following
division: Ayes-BIgg, Cooper, Coulter,
Earnest, Hughes, Pope, Porter, Thorpe,
Fslley, Warren and Speaker Vsugh-11.
Noes-Crsnder, DuBose, Gibson, Hswes,
Mcconnell, Staley, Wendle and Young
"a. The bill passed g second reading and
the senate adjourned.
IN THE house,
Mr. Newlin, from White county, en-
tered protest against the action Of the
house In passing the spportionment bill.
1t abounded in high-tOned cant about
sacrificing Democratic prin-
ciples for partisan purposes, ETC., such IS
grumblers always use on such occasions.
The Democratic party have sensibly deci-
ded not to play the role of the farmer and
his donkey by trying to please every one.
There may be some more Ekirmlshing
against the bill in the senate, but the
heaviest fight was waged to-day, and the
last overwhelming defeat of the opponents
of ths measure has dishesrtened them,
Objection was made by several members
that the protest impugned the motives of
those who voted for the bill.
Mr.. NowleD said he could never 90 back
to his constituents and present TO them 80
Unsightly thing as the new second dis
trict without entering his solemn protest
against il. He hsd not intended to re-
o sct upon the personal motives Of the
and had nothing to retract.
After considerable discussion the pro-
test was ordsred to be spread upon the
journal.
Messrs. Gould and Leach recorded their
votes against the congressional spportion-
ment bill.
The resolution to pay John s. Wilkes
Eve hundred dollars for services az clerk
Of the commissioners who had cancelled
the bonds In the comptrolleT'E Office, was
adopted.
Mr.. Ferguson'a Joint resolution to pay
officers and members of the general as.
sembly in State warrants instead Of cur
rsncy, was laid on the table.
Mr.. Spears moved to reconsider the
vote by which the resolution was tabled.
Mr.. Harris moved to lay the motion to
reconsider on the table. Carried-syes
"A, noes IS,
Mr.. Gordon'a Joint resolution authoriz-
nc the State railroad commissioners TO
.etsle with the receivers of delinquent
railroads was laid over.
Mr, Odom introduced bill to diminish
he public debt of the State senate.
The Joint resolution declining to re-
,pen the dispute concerning the boundary
inc between the States Of Virginia and
Tennessee wss taken up.
Mr.. Enloe offered the following IS
yuhstitute for that portion Of the resolu-
ion which referred 10 the proposition to
snsettle or disestsbiiah the line es mis-
,hlevoas and wanton:
Resolved, Said boundary line having {
been 30 long legally settled and estab- {
ished, it is the deliberate judgment of {
his general assembly that any sction on {
)ur part tending TO unsettle or disSstsbiish .
Isid boundary line, or even awaken 3 /
ioubt as TO its perfecs validity and invio- !
ability, is in direct conflict with the !
rested rights of TenneaHee, and such &C q
ion is, and Of right gnt 70 be, discon \
inued by this gene assembly. Ii
Several meml insiated that tina LAM I
yuage used i senate resolution vyae | I
lisrezpectfnl % Virginia, and ought to be &
ilther modified or stricken out.
Others held that tbs general assembly / &
iouid not uae language too strong Ia ak I
messing ~ lissp pPrQRazQR Of the deFnaud