The Portland daily press., 1872-01-27
xLIId CONGRESSIONAL SESSION.
SENATE.

Allison of Iowa.
Mr.. Morton moved to take up the resolution
for the final adjournment on the 10Th of May
Messrs. Sumner and Trumbull opposed thu
motion.
The resolution was taken up.
MIR. Schurz modified the pending amendment
so as to provide only that Congress shall not ad
jOurn without passing law for the reform O
| the civil service, and he said if this amendment
was rejected it indicated that the Senate die
not care about the reform of the civil service
| and if the time for adjournment should be fixed
not it would be in the power of a minority to
prevent any legislation that it might choose tt
oppose.
The amendment was rejected-32 to 16.
Mr.. Sumner spoke ON the adjournment reso-
luton to the end of the morning hour.
The Trumbull demanded the regular order
the apportionment bill.
The apportionment bill was then taken up.
Pending the amendment there was Sumner s
providing that no adjournment take place until
| rights bill.
Mr.. Trumbull moved to amend the amend
ments by adding: "Nor until the Senate shall
have come to vote upon the bill from the
| House repeating the duty on coal"
Mr. Sumner before making some remarks
said he would like to hear MIR. Morton's reasons
| for urging the passage of the resolution.
Mr. Morton did not wish to debate. He said
the Senate had indicated its preference to the
| resolution, and he favored fixing the 18TH OF
| May for the adjournment, believing that all
the business could be finished by that date.
Mr. SUMNER am glad the Senator has ex-
pressed himself. You have heard him and
now you shall hear the answer; and 1 know
that neither the Senator himself Dor any other
Senator can answer the answer that shall now
make to his remarks. have before me the
| Globe of May 6, 1870, when there was resOlu-
ton before us to adjourn sine die on the Fourth
| of July. Mark you, sir, that resolution was
discussed, but on the 18th of January as this is
| but on the 9th of May-how was it encountered
| by my friend from Indiana? Why, sir, he
| pleaded against it with his accustomed elo-
| quence, because we could not do justice to the
| tariH-the very subject that is now presented
| by the Senator ofIllinOis.
| Mr.. Trumbull-That subject is now before
| us. 1t is urgent and it is practical, and the
Senate now proposes to cut off the opportunity
for that full discussion which ON a former Occa-
sion he invoked.
Mr.. Morrill, of Vermont-Does not the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts, know that since that
time the tariff has been acted upon. Have we
not reduced the revenue very largely?
Mr.. Trumbull revenue was larger last
year than ever before.
Mr.. Sumner-The Senator from Vermont
will find himself answered by the Senator from
Indiana.
Mr.. Sumner continued to read from Morton's
remarks to the some effect till the expiration of
the morning hour.
Mr. Trumbull then called for the regular or
der-the apportionment bill.
Mr. MOrton-I move to suspend the regular
order and all the other business for the purpose
of proceeding with this resolution, but Mr..
Trumbull addressed the Senate on the appor-
tionment bill and explained the amendments
reported by the Judiciary Committee He said
the only States losing members either under
the House bill or the substitute reported by the
committee were Vermont and New Hampshire,
which would each lose one. 1t was no new
matter for the States to lose members At one
Il x-I
and Massachusetts 90 The committee, after
| mature consideration had come to the conclu-
sion that it would be best that the number of
the members of the House should remain at the
present figure.
Mr. Sherman thought that the House bill was
made as near perfection as possible by the COM
ity which has existed between the Houses from
the beginning OF the government. Each had
been left to regulate pretty much every thing
that related to its own organization. He fav-
ored the House bill also for the practical reason
relating to his own State. The Senate of Ohio
was composed of IS Republicans and IS Demo-
Gratis, which would make it difficult to secure
immediate apportionment and the probable re-
suit of the bill as reported by the Judiciary
Committee would be that Ohio would have no
representative in the next Congress. The
House bill, however, would let the old appor-
tionment stand till a new one was made, and,
therefore, no difficulty could arise under it,
Mr. Frellnghuysen suggested that Pennsylva-
nib was in the same position in this respect.
Mr.. Edmunds said that the House bill would
give Ohio ten times as many representatives as
Vermont while her population was only eight
times as great, thus violating the constitutional
provision that representatives shall be appOr-
toned among the States according to their pop
ulation. He also argued against Mr.. Shermans
proposition that the subject belonged to the
House rather than to the Senate, and declared
in favor of a large number of representatives
800 or more-as being less liable to be unduly
influenced by combinations,
Mr.. Frelinghuysen favored the bill as passed
by the House.
Mr.. Morton favored at least 300 members
He also favored the House bill as fairer than
the Senate substitute.
He had made a calculation assuming that the
Republicans would be sure to carry certain
States at the next election, which showed that
the adoption of the Senate substitute instead of
the House bill, would cause a loss to the Re-
publican party of % electoral votes and %
members of the House. The States assumed as
certain to go Republican were New York, New
Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mis-
sippi, Arkansas, Ohio Illinois, Iowa, Mchi-
gan, Wisconsin, California and Kansas. Of
course if the House bill was not fair one he
eonld not ask the Senate to support it, no mat
ter how advantageous it might be TO the domi-
nant party, but it was really more just on every
principle than the Senate amendment.
Mr.. Patterson wished to see the members of
the House increased to three hundred and if
the House bill could be amended in that par
ticular he would prefer it to the Senate amend
ment.
Mr.. Thurman said that while the House bill
was more favorable to his own State that the
Senate substitute, he was convinced the latter
was fairer bill and more in accordance with
the constitution. As to his colleagues appre-
tensions that if the Senate bill was adopted
the State might be left without representation
in the next Congress. He did not think them
well founded. On the contrary he believed the
tie in the Ohio Senate SO far from preventing
~. !.
would have the effect of securing the passage
of fair bill and saving the State from being
'jerrymandered
The Senator from Indiana, Mr.. Morton, had
presented very alarming calculation as to the
effect upon the interests of the dominant party
by the passage of the Senate bill, but he
| (Thurman), would set the Senator's mind at
| ease by the assurance that if the State which
| he assumed as sure for the Republican party
should not vote as he assured them no appor-
| tionment could be made that would defeat the
| Republican nominee for the Presidency, and if
| they should not so vote then the calculation
| would be valueless.
| Mr.. Edmunds moved to amend the substitute
so as to make the whole number of members
| 800. Lost, IL to 81.
Mr.. Morton moved to strike out the fifth Sec
| ton of the bill which provides that no new
State will be admitted until they have a certain
| population.
Mr.. Morrill, arose to speak, but yielded the
| bill was made a regular order for Monday, the
| vote to be taken at o. clock.
Mr.. Morton then again called up the resolu-
| ton for final adjournment ON the 29th of May.
| Messrs. Sumner, Schuz and others offered
| amendments making the adjournment contin-
gent upon certain legislation, all of which after
| tedious debate, were lost, and the resolution
| to adjourn May 18th passed. After an execu-
| tive session, the Senate adjourned to Monday.
HOUSE.
| Several petitions were presented for the re-
| peal of the tax savings banks.
A large number of pension bills were passed.
| A pension bill for the relief of Adam Corrill of
| Ohio, was recommitted, he being denounced by
Mr.. Grassland of Kentucky, as a robber, cut
| throat and thief.
The House went into committee of the whole
on the legislative appropriation bill. A proviso
was added to the item appropriating $500, 900 to
| pay the judgments of the Court of Claims, d.
recting that no part of the amount be paid OF
| any Judgment rendered in favor of George G.
| Chorpening.
On motion of Mr.. Maynard of Tennessee, the
clause of the general appropriation bill which
| directs that no claim shall be considered or paid
| by the government unless filed within seven
| years from the time the claim occurred, was
| struck out.
| MI. Garfield of Ohio, offered an amendment
looking to a restriction on public printing, and
said that last year the quantity of printing done
1 at the public printing office would, if put into
books make library of 100000 volumes OF 900
pages each. He particularly condemned the
printing of Clarence Kings geological explora'
tiOnS of the 10th parallel five volumes of which