Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-03-21
CONGRESSIONAL.
The Extra Session Of the Senate.
An Episode between Schurz and
COnkling.

| inquire into the number of bills, reports
and public documents printed for tide use Of
the Senate, and report what changes, if any,
are necessary.
On motion of Mr.. Anthony, the daily
hour of meeting of the Senate was fixed at
half-past ten, until otherwise ordered.
Mr.. Wright offered an addition to the
| rules, which he asked to have printed and
| aeferred to the Committee on rules, propos-
ing that no debate shall be in order unless
1t relate to or be pertinent to the subject
before the Senate; that debate may be
closed by vote of tWo-thirds after twenty
four hours notice; all bills shall be placed
| upon the calendar in their order, and
shall be disposed of in such order, unless
| postponed; all special orders are pro-
hibited, unless by unanimous consent, and
bill postponed shall, unless otherwise
ordered, go to the foot of the calendar.
Mr.. Thurman objected, and the resolu-
ton Lies over.
Caldwell.
The Senate resumed consideration of the
Caldwell question.
Mr.. Conkling, who was entitled to the
floor, being absent, Mr.. Hamilton, of Mary
land, expressed his views on the subject,
arguing that the Senate could not 90 behind
the election of Senator and inquire into
the conduct and motives of the members
composing the Legislature. He could not
vote to declare the seat Of Caldwell vacant.
But there is no doubt as the power to
expel Senator who had passed beyond the
control of the Legislature. He could not
compromise with fraud, and while he SYM
pathized with the person on whom he was
called to pass judgment, he could not es-
cape condemniDg the act of the Senator
from Kansas in the most solemn form.
Mr.. ConkliDg resumed bis remarks from
yesterday. he condemned as grossly per-
nicious and indefeDsible the payment by
Caldwell of fifteen thousand dollars to
Carney to forbear action in his own behalf,
and to support Caldwell for Senator; but
this did not show bribery of the Legislature
which eletced Caldwell. In conclusion he
said he believed the discussion would con-
centrate
The Burning Focus of Public Atten-
on the lax and culpable agencies which
tamper with elections, and that the States
aud Congress would severally pass laws
Furnishing bribery in elections. He hoped
after the termination of this case the re-
cord would show that the American Senate
was calm enough, placid enough, firm
enough, trustful enough, to maintain the
genius, spirit, methods and safeguards of
the Constitution, as our fathers gave it to
US.
Schurz.
Mr.. Schurz, abiding to portion of Mr..
Conkling's remarks, asked the Senator from
New York whether be had read in the
Washington Chronicle an article severely
criticisiDg his (Schurz's) late speech, and
saying it was a well known fact that this
immaculate reformer had received q $500
fee for each speech he made during the late
political campaign.
MIR. Conkling remarked that he was a
little surprised that the Senator should
make such an inquiry of him.
Mr. SchUrz, resuming, said he was a
little surprised after the friendly discussion
here that the Senator should have made
such an allusion to him. He characterized
the story as an absolute and unmitigsted
fabrication. He not only did not ask pay,
but never received single cent.
Mr.. CoDkling inquired whether the Sen
ator meant the last or previous can
vases. ....-....
Mr.. Schurz replied that year ago there
were similar charges against him in the |
New York Times, and he then pronounced |
them base and unmitigsted falsehood. |
He would ask the Senator from New York |
what he would think of him if he had re-
peated the rumor that the Senator from |
New York had received $4,000 from the |
Central Pacific Railroad Company to repre- |
sent its interests, and if he had made the
allusion in such way as to point to the |
Senator from New YoTk-would he not in |
such case have raised the question of pro- |
priety aud decency?
Mr.. Conkling replied that he would deny |
It and call the statement lie and authorize |
the Senator from Missouri to say to the |
man who made that statement that he was |
q liar.
Mr.. Schurz said applying the same rule,
be would call the story to which the Sena- |
or alluded lie, and authorize the Senator |
from New York to call the originator Of it |
4 liar.
Mr.. Conkling-Does the Senator author |
re me to say it is lie that in past cam |
Daigns he received specific sums.
Mr.. Schulz authorize him to say that |
.he man lies who charges me with having |
received two hundred dollars or any thing |
ior any speech l delivered in the late cam
oaign.
Mr.. Conkling rose to reply, when Mr.. |
SchurZ said, have the floor. and continued: |
authorize the Senator from New York |
also to call him a liar who with regard to |
other stories alleges anything not in &C
,ordance with the statement on this floor
n January, 1872.
Mr.. Conkling thanked the Senator for his |
1irect and luminous answer.
Senator Schurz replied that he thought |
be would be still more luminous in little |
while, and then proceeded to read from his
remarks, as printed in the Congressional
Globe of Jan. s, 1872, explanatory of his
course during a different campaign.
Mr.. Conkling said he made no allusion to
,he Senator from Missouri in his speech,
he had read that in many cases
money had been paid to him for making
political speeches. What be said in his
speech was introduced as an argument just
and fair, but the Senator from Missouri,
who had seen what he (Conkling) had not
zen, took it for granted that he had trav-
alled out of bis way to make an assault
upon him. Notwithstanding a grossly i'm
proper remark at one point of observation
Of the Senator from Missouri, he had no
feeling OF personal unEIndness toward that
Sepator. If his attention had not been
called to the subject he should never have
that he had alluded to the Senator
rom Missouri.
Mr.. Sehurz said he was glad to take the
explanation such as given, but he was sor-
Y to remark that the allusion was made
With such particu arity that it could not be
mistaken. He was sure he had given the
Senator from New Y ork no cause for per-
,onal unkindness. As to the allusion to a
prominent railroad company in connection
v it'll the name of the Senator, which ap-
,eared in the newspapers, it would not
nave been improper in the Senator to have
lenied the allegation in the strongest Ian
,usge be could command. II the Senator
nade no allusion in his speech to him,
Schurz) very well, let it go.
Mr.. Conkling said the Senator from Mis-
ouri evidently wanted the last word, but at
he expense of prolonging an unworthy
natter. He (Conkling) meant to say what
ie said, and meant to let it stand. lie dit
cred with the Senator when he said be
,ad done nothing to produce feelings I'M
riendly to him. He knew how man
,ould indulge in insinuations and then
brink from them. Last session he (Conk-
ing) was covered with insinuations and
Il - Al G.