The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1872-01-30
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, January 20.
SENATE.

Mr.. Sumner called attention to the
omission from the Globe of Mr.. Ham
Inns facetious suggestion on Friday,
that before voting on Summers equal
rights amendment the Senators should
sing Old Hundred. He complained OF
the Omission because it rendered his
own succeeding remark unintelllgioie;;
He read a note from the publishers OF
the Globe, stating that the omission had
been made at the request OF Mr; liam
lin and said he hoped they would make
the necessary correction
Mr.. Cole called up the bill leasing a
portion of the Preside reservation 10
San Francisco for public park.
Mr.. Casserly said he wished TO ex-
anime the bill, and it went over.
Mr.. Scott called up the resolution to
direct the arrest Of Gist and Camp, the
witnesses who refused to testify before
the sub Ku.Klux committee IN South
Carolina. 1t was discussed until the
expiration of the morning hour, which
brought up the special order-the
amnesty bill.
Mr.. Morrill,, of Vermont, moved to
Law it aside and take up the approprla-
tion bill; when Mr.. Trumbull opposed
the motion, and said that the Senate
had unanimously agreed on Friday that
the amnesty bill should be proceeded
with to-day.
Mr.. SCOTS motion was lost. 81 to 20,
when, on motion of Mr.. Wilson, the
amnesty bill was postponed until one
o'clock on Tuesday, with the under
standing that the vote shall not be taken
on that day.
The Senate then took up the appor-
tionment bill, and Mr.. Morrill,, Of Yer
mont, resumed his remarks. He said
he liked the Senate substitute to the
House bill and did not favor an increase
in the number of Representatives; that
a small House could do better than a
large one. He criticized the House
bill as unjust to several Of the States,
and SAID that If the ratio Of representa-
ton which it applied to Vermont were
to beapplied all ever the United States
it would give an aggregate OF only $50
members instead of 2S3, tine number
provided Tor in the bill. But it was not
against Vermont or New England alone
that the House bill would discriminate.
1t would do injustice to at least fifteen
States, only two of which were in New
England, and it favored the large States
at the expense Of the smaller ones.
The question was, are the first amend
ments reported bv the Judiciary com.
mittee, providing that the House shall
consist OF its present number, 2i3, in
stead of 2S3, as proposed in the House
bill. Mr.. Morrill, moved to amend so
as to make the number 292. Lost;
yeas, II; nays, 81.
Mr.. Edwards again rgued that the
House bill wonld violate the Consti-
tutional requirements that there should
be equality of representation. He ad:
mitted that it was impossible to avoid
some inequality where fractions OF the
population were concerned, but ex-
pressed an opinion that exact justice
would be nearest approximated by
reverting to the rule which was fol.
lowed to 1871, OF disregarding fractions
altogether.
Messrs. Morrill, and Edmunds, of
Vermont, complained in strong terms
of the injustice done to that State in
reducing her Representatives in the
House to two members, and argued
that the discrimination was so great as
to be unconstitutional. They offered
various resolutions designed to retain
the present membership of New Hamp,
shire and Vermont; all of which were
voted down by large majorities. The
first amendment reported by the Judi
ciary committee to retain the present
membership of the House, being 245
members, was rejected; ayes, 20; nays,
81; and the number agreed upon by
the House 2S3, was retained, and all
other Senate amendments were voted
down, except the insertion OF the sec
ton reatfirming in effect the l4th
Amendment. The bill then passed,
the negatives being Edmunds, Morrill,,
of Vermont; Patterson, of New Hamp
shire; Vickers, Hamilton, of Mary
land, and Salisbury, of Delaware. 1t
now goes back to the House for con-
currence in the amendment.
Senate adjourned till 5 o'clock 2. NJ.