Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-01-22
HOUSE.

HOUSE.
After the presentation of large num-
Der of memorials and resolutions of lit
tie public interest, the question came up
Of reeOnsidering the vote by which the
Indian appropriation bill was rejected
yesterday. The vote was recOnsidered-
yeas l66, nays 81.
Mr.. Hale, OF Maine, moved to recon-
NIT the bill to the committee on appTO-
priatiOns with instructions to report
back with the Choctaw amendment
struck out. The motion was rejected
yeas l20, nays 1870.
Mr.. Holman moved to lay the bill on
the table, which motion was not agreed
tO-yess ia, nays 132.
The bill was again rcjected-yeas 100,
nays 1875.
The vote rejecting the bill was again
rec0nsidered without the yeas and nays,
and finally the bill was referred to the
committee of the whole on the state of
the Union-yeas, 142; nays, 102.
The Speaker stated that the bill went
to the committee of the whole as an en-
tirely new bill, subject to amendments.
Mr.. Dawes presented letter from
Charles A. Wetmore, the witness who
was yesterday committed for contempt,
and intimated that an apology therein
contained was satisfactory; he therefore
moved his discharge. The motion was
agreed to, and the discharge of Wetmore
ordered.
Mr.. Smith, of New York, from the
committee on elections, made a report
in the case of the delegate from Utah,
with a resolution to exclude him from
his seat, on the ground Of pOlygamy.
Ordered printed.
Mr.. Maynard presented the report of
the conference committee on what is
known as the little tariff bill.
Mr.. Maynard proceeded to explain
the report and the notifications which
it proposes to make in existing customs
duties.
MIR. Beck said that, as member Of
the conference committee, he had de-
clined to sign the report, because the
house had given up to the senate every
thing that was of value in the original
bill, and had accepted from the senate
things that ought not to have been put
in the bill. He did notkuow of single
amendment which it made to change
the law that was beneficial, or if there
was it was OF such slight value that the
house ought not to adopt the report. The
only material difference between this
conference report and the one which the
house voted down last session by vote
of one hundred and twenty.si to forty
nine was that this report increased the
duty on exports from five to eight cents
per pound, and this report was Just that
much worse than the last one. The
proposition to increase from fifty to
sixty per cent. the duties on mixed silk
goods, of which twenty-five per cent. is
cotton, he characterized as little bit of
steal, got up for the benefit, principally,
of three manufacturers in New Jersey.
He believes that that provision would
result in q loss OF two, but that it was q
miserable jobbing bill.
Mr.. Dawes said the bill would,
according to the calculation OF
the treasury department, increase
the revenue about million dollars in
the wine provision, and in the silk pro-
vision by bringing the administration Of
law back to its original intent. But
something more would have to
be done in due time. He was
quite certain they would be
compelled 70 put back the duty on tea
and coffee, and either repeal the ten per
cent. reduction on certain manufactured
goods or increase the duty on whisky.
Mr.. Beck remarked that in the bill
agreed to by the committee on ways and
means and 10y the hOUfse, the twenty.
five per cent. OF cotton in mixed silk
goods referred to the quantity, but that
the senate had changed it into twenty
five per cent. of the value-a very diff
ferent thing
Mr.. KassOn expressed his dissent from
the views expressed by Dir. Beck, and
gave it as his opinion that the bill would
result i'll an increase of revenue.
Mr.. Burchard opposed the bill, and
expressed the opinion that the clause as
to mixed silk goods containing twenty
five per cent. on the value would act as
all absolute prohibition of that class of
goods.
Mr.. Kelley dissented from Mr. Beck's
opinion, that the bill would diminish
the revenue, and asserted that it would
increase the revenue, and was in itself
proper measure. He hurled back on the
gentleman from Kentucky his charge OF
theft in connection with mixed silk
goods, and branded the opponents of
that provision as maintaining to open
the door for free draughts on the trea-
suTy and on the purse Of the people.
Mr.. Cox thought that the bill was not