Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-01-07
EVENING STAR.
COIGRESSTOI.IL.
Conclusion Yesierday's ProccedinxS

N"teSaSh heSterdaF's PrOccedtnyS
SENATE.-After orr report closed. the sal
AIRY bill was further discussed.
Mr.. Carpenter SAID he had voted Cor the sal
AIRY oitl, ana he now intendei 20 vote for the
repea,. he never cast a more CONSCIENTIOUS
vote Than Tor the increase OF salary. aud he saw
no reason 10 vote any other way nov eycept
that the people demanded II. During the dis
ensslon MT Carpenter stated that he did not
Intend y, 70 help any Sinking on this thing, bat
Mr.. Edmonds did not think - ,spl compensa-
ton excessive, but would vote Tor the repeal OF
Pending further discussion. the Senate went
into executive session, and then adjourned.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DISCUSSION.
HOCSE.-After our report closed
MIR. Elliott y. e. closed his speech on the
civil rights bill. The bill, he said simply mo-
posed TO enforce the written guarantees OF the
Constitution. There never was hill that was
more clearly within the constitutional power Of
the government. He held that the war and re-
construction OF the country had settled the
passage OF this bin would settle their civil status
anu place the cspstone on the temple OF liberty
founded on this continent by those who had gone
before US. Referring TO the story OF Roaz and
Ruth, he said that for over two centuries his
people had cleaned in the field OF their kinsmen,
and when, like Ruth, they found favor in their
eyes, they would be most grateful and wonld
repeat the prayer of Ruth Entreat me- no.
to leave thee or 10 return from following after
thee, for whithersoever thou goest will -, ans
where thou lcdgest ! will lodge; thy psopis shan
he my people, and thy God shall be my God
there WI 4 Ia
buried" Loud and prolonged applause on the
floor and in the galleries.
Mr.. BlOInt lGs.l argued against the bin a.
being an unconstitutional measure. but hi eN-
Pcriencc in this house had Taught him that n
was net Of much avail 20 argue the bill from
constitutional standpoint.
Mr.. Lawrence (Dhio) said that after the splen-
did and uuanswerable argument OF Mr.. Elliot
he felt reluctant to speak, but he thought there
there some constitutional questions which had
not yet been Efficiently alluded to. He thought
ert
amendment, which directed that protection
should be afforded TO all citizens. This clause,
he contended, should be construed in its most
enlarged sense.
Mr.. Monroe lOhioN argued in favor OF the
bill, on the ground that the greatest strength
and power OF any government was TO be found
in spirit of confidence and good will OF one
citizen toward another, and this bill was neces-
sary TO secure the good will of large class Of
teIiow-citizens By protecting them in their
Mr.. Bright Tenn said he believed the bin
was unconstitutional, ineNpedent, injudicious
ana unnecessary, and only fraught with evil 70
the race il was proposed to beneht.
Mr: Walls tFla.) argued that there was reason
for the enforcement OF legislation under the
fourteent1 amendment because the negro race
was not ye' secured in all its rights The idea
that the bill would affect the white race was in
bis opinion, all claP-trap, and in very brief
period after the bill was passed all this preiu-
dice would die out. He referred TO the message
| Of Governor Kemper, and Srgued that that
message itself was a reason why the bill shOuli
1
Mr.. HerDdOn Texas argued against the con-
stitutioDsity of the bill, and commended that the
| federal government was a government OF lin
tied powers, and il could not overthrow the
right Of local self government in the states.
| Mr.. Purman fla addressed the House in
favor Of the bill, and advocated it as a matter
Of justice to the cOlored race.
| Mr.. StOwell (Na.l next spoke in advocacy OF
the measure, referring particularly 70 the action
OF the Virginia legislature on Monday in protest.
| ing against the passage OF the Till, which ac-
| ton he greatly deprecated, and argued that il
| was an indication of determination not TO give
| rights to the cOlOred people.
| Mr.. BucEner MOI argued that whatever
| might be the nominal object of the bill, the ct
| feet could not in the southern states be other
| wise than destructive TO the best interests OF
| society, and result in the destruction OF their
| school systems. This bill did not propose 10
confer civil rights, but social rights, and it Wa
| calculated to break up many of the social sy--
| tens OF the states. He also denied the consti-
| tntional authority Of Congress over the ques-
| ton.
| NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.