The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1877-11-27
XLVth CONGRESS-Extra Session.
Senatorial Struggle.
Patterson Defends
His Treachery in
a Speech.
He and COnOver Still VOt-
ing with the Democrats.
RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE
NJ. C. BUFFERS METHODS
REJECTED.
Night Of FillibUstering.
WAsurNcroy Nov 0c

in the Senate as Senator from louisiana He
asked present consideration of the resolution,
but objection was made by Messrs Merrimop,
Withers and others, and the resolution was laid
over until tomorrow.
Mr.. Merrmon submitted a minority report
signed by Hill. Salisbury and himself, in favor
of seating Spofford Ordered to be printed
The House bill to repeal the resumption act
was read by title and referred to the Committee
on Finance.
The latter portion of the morning hour was
devoted to discussion of resolution by Mr.
Chaffee calling upon the President for informa-
ton as TO what impedimeDts exist which pre-
vent him from executing the laws against the
U MON Pacific Railroad and its branches, but
the hour expired before reaching vote, and
the Senate resumed consideration of the reso-
luton to discharge the Elections Committee
from the further consideration of the creden-
tiais of M. c. Butler.
Mr.. Davis of Illinois, said that the contest
now going on in the Senate had attracted the at
tention of the country, and from the position
he occupied in relation to the parties, he trusted
that it would not be out of the way for him to
give briefly the reasons why he should vote for
the motion of the Senator from Ohio (Thur-
many. There were three seats,in the Senate
cham Der, one vacant one belonging to South
Carolina and the other two to louisiana and it
was matter of great Importance that they be
filled. The legislation of Congress was bind
ing on those states, and the people thereof had
right to expect that the claims of those seats
would be acted upon at the earliest possible
moment. He thought the Southern states
should be represented by persons identified with
the interests OF their people. If it had been
suggested that this motion TO discharge the COM
mittee was against the usage of the Senate,
the Senator from Delaware (Bayard1 a few
days ago cited precedent in the case of the
bill for the readmission of Texas in the Union
some years ago, and if he (Davis) might be al
lowed to refer to the proceedings of the other
House of Congress he could say that only last
week Representative from Maine moved to
discharge the Committee on Elections from
further consideration OF the Colorado case, and
this motion resulted in fixing day for its hear
ing. If the committee should examine this
South Carolina case such examination would I'M
doubleday result in two reports, both of EN-
able DO doubt Besides, in the evenly balanced
condition of the Senate it was apparent these
two reports would not receive that considera-
ton which reports 10 othermatters ordinarily
receive. LII the report on the Louisiana case
had been made to the Senate before the intro
duction of the resolution of the Senator from
Ohio (Thurman) to discharge the committee
from further consideration of the credentials of
Mr. Butler, he would hsve voted to consider
the Louisiana case first and against the resolu-
tion of the Senator from Ohio, but as that Sem
ator had submitted his resolution first it took
the precedence, and he (Davis) believed now
Senate
Vice President-The question is, will the Sen
ate agree to the resolution?
Mr.. Edmunds-Mr. President, there are two
parties in the Senate that are very evenly bal
anced. How it is with the third 1 do not know,
(Laughter.)
Mr.. Davis of Illinois-The third isunanimous.
daughter
Mr.. Edmunds-I assume that the third party
is unanimous, as my friend has just stated.
QIaughter) hope we shall have ORDER Mr.
President, or l cannot 60 on.
Vice Presldent-That rests with the Senator
from Vermont (Laughter.)
MIR. Edmunds-Then we shall have the or
der. The very state ment that my honorable
friend has made leads me to think that if he
would reflect little he would see its error. 1t
was only the other day that my friend himself
in respect of the case of Eustis (I think that is
the name OF one of the Louisiana peope)
which on the face of it was simple gu ston
arising on the state of the papers as they were
read here by Senator, saw with his usual
quicknesS and clear0ess of apprehension that
there was question of law involved that
ought to be considered las he states, believe,
hlmselD by committee and reported upon,
not as dispute of facts, but that the commit
tee ought to report after careful study, invest-
CATION and examination of authorities and of
political history, and so on, in order that the
Senate might he informed of the state Of the
law. But what says my friend now in a case
from South Carolina? There he thinks there
is no dispute of facts, because he says the facts
are conceded in the two briefs. | do not know
that. What authority has the Senator for
saying the facts are conceded? Il may be
that some honorable friend of my political Way
OF thinking may rise ia his place and say he
disputes facts asserted in the brief of Butler
1t may be that some gentleman on the other
side OF the chamber belonging not to my
friends party or to mine may rise and say he
does not agree to the facts stated ia Corbin's
brief How are we to know them. There is
the difficulty and it is impossible to get over it
upon any other theory than we are to study the
law. do not know what the truth is to make
all the Prescriptions in favor of one side. How
it will affect l do not know. AS he had no
assumptions in favor of either, he would have
shut his eyes and go it blind and as he says
first come, first served. The first man that is
proposed he would have to vote to let in for all
that l can see. That would hardly do Mr..
President. The mission of this BODY in re-
spect of who compose it is not party mission.
There was some twenty years ago a notable
case in respect of certain Senators from Indi-
ana where it is true that party heat and party
prejudice, according to the universal Judgment
OF Intelligent mankind afterward, set the con-
stitution and the laws at defiance and seated
two men of particular party, but
it has not been true of late, as
bad, as corrupt as parties are said to be.
10 take 1t up as the Senator says we are likely
to do, and to merely exert the physical
strength of party votes without regard to the
law or facts in order to see who is strongest to
put 10 his political friend. Would that be
good thing for the Senate of the United States
to do? L do not think it would. L have
had some occasion to be revled in times gone
by when parties were perhaps not quite SO
evenly divided as now, there were only two
then and there are three now, for thinking that
there was value in an inquiry into the senate
rial question in Louisiana and voting according
to my convictions of the law as they appeared
to me upon facts reported by the committee
against the opinions of a very large majority of
my political associates Now the evident ten
dencY of what my friend proposes is to compel
me in exactly the way he states it, to follow nv
party wishes because l cannot get ali
the facts and have no time be-
cause parties have divided and some mem.
bers OF one party, Il will not say of both be-
cause believe it would not be true) but some
members of one party have voted against the
admission of one of their own political friends.
Now does the Senator wish to drive all the
members OF that party, which has ssome little
vitality left suspect, to do the same thing be-
cause they do not know what the facts are? If
he does he is taking very good way to do it,
l do not think he can succeed. We shall see
But my friend says that there would not be
any practical value in this report because it
would be divided report. Is there any prac-
tical valne, let me ask my honorable f-iend who
has so lately come from that serene hall of ius-
tice little way off. in the judgment of a court
unless unanimous? Is there no value in the !
arguments of counsel?
After further debate Mr.. Edmunds moved |
phoU oho bChaUo plOCcCu w LuO CUuSlu6raEOQ OF |
executive business.
A vote was taken on Edmunds' motion for an |
executive session. Rejected-Yeas %, nays 80, |
Mr. Chrstiancy of Mich, argued that the |
facts regarding the South Carolina case are no |
less in dispute now than last session when his |
Democratic friends had voted with him to send |
it to the committee for investigation. He was |
just as anxious as the gentlemen from Illinois |
(Davis) to have prompt action taken upon the |
pending cases, but he wished first to have them |
properly examined.
Mr.. Patterson said-Mr President 1t was |
not my intention to address the Senate today. |
l propose tomorrow, on the main question, to |
address the Senate at some length, but if [ can |
say saything that will quiet the alarm of my |
Republican friends on this side of the chamber |
l want to do it. The Republican party has |
Deen brave party but never saw it so fut-
tered in my life as it is just now, and for no
cause In the world. The question is on a reso-
luton to discharge the Committee on Privileges
and Elections from the consideration of the |
case OF M. Y. Butler of South Carolina The |
gentlemen who rise on this side of the chamber
and find fault with certain persons. their asso-
ciates, for voting as they do on this resolutjop.
should first admit and confess whose fault it is
that this man is here today. We have been in
session since the 18th of October, and there has
been no movement, no report from the Com