The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-11-22
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.



The senate.
WASHINGTON. Nov. q. The Senate met ut 19 M
A number of relief bills were introduced and
appropriately referred.
ate adjourn, The Chair put the question. and
cided the motion lost. A division was called
for. and was, being taken. when Mr.. Ha1nlin
asked that the motion be withdrawn and the
Senate proceed to the consideration of eXecu-
tive business. The motion was put and declared
carried. and the Senate, at 1923 o'clock, went
Into executive session, and at 12:42 O'Clock the
doors were re-opened and the Senate resumed
It's session.
: Mr. Mitchell made reference to the debate of
consideration Of the, case Of Mr.. Butler. as SEN
f reos sboW & ba ne fa bn
Committee on Privileges and Electi ms was not
him Mr. Mtcheb was ' correct He said t5 that IL It
showedsthat In the unparalleled attempt of the
and his Ve partiepation eta in '0Y t. 'ife He
Privileges and Elections, and claimed that they
had been diligent in their endeavots to invest-
gate the cases before them. The delay in get.
ting at Buffers case was, he said, the result Of
the action Of the friends of Mr.. Butler. Coming
to the merits of the case, he said there was
ants from South Carolina. Butler and Corbin.
There were, two bodies In the Legislature of
South Carolina. each of which claimed to be the
the Mackey House, and the other as the Wallace
House-and one, of these. the Wallace House. in
conjunction with the Senate. proceeded to elect
Mr.. Butler as Senator; the other. in conjunc-
ton with the same Senate, proceeded to elect
Mr.. Corbin.
There was no dispute about the Senate in
South Carolina. but there was a question rs to
which was the legal House. and upon the deci-
stn nf fhnt r1nH tfnn dad fI,n ifG rF
tion on which neither the committee nor the
Senate had sufficient evidence to vote or act in
He claimed that the motion to discharge the
committee from further consideration of the
case was an unheard of proceeding and should
not be adopted. He thought the committee
might be able to act on the case before the holi
days. and he should labor to that end.
Mr.. Hill said he was member of the commit
tee, and beinglone who should support the mo-
tion, he felt it due to the Senate that he should
port the motion Ii he thought it would. in fact
or by Implication. censure the committee He
recorded the case of Eustis and Pnchback. and
seat from Louisiana. The Senate had decided
that Pinchback was not entitled to q seat. and it
followed that Eustts was, hebeing the only con;
testant. The matter remained unsettled until
last spring when the credentials in this .parti;-
for to he an
and subsequently the Senator from Ohio
moved that the Committee be discharged from
The case then turned upon the two Legisa,
lures, each claiming to be, the legal
9eoDa the c,ss same He then in oavea hS South bs
reference of the credentials in each case to the
Committee on Privileges and Elections, and
the committee on October 10. But the next
meeting he found the committee ready to take
ap the Gas case Of sp9,tford and a kellogg: He
aS Mr. HoaT ana % NV Mr. Wadeish Of the committee,
spofrord and Kellogg on the twenty second of
October, because they were the only persons
who presented themselves ready to go on
Mr. Hill said they were present because they
Were Invited and oher parties were not.
MIR. Mitchell read from the journal to show
that the committee took UP the cases precisely
in the order in which they were referred to the
Mr.. Hill said he supposed the case of Mr..
Spofford could be settled in an hours time,
and he did not object to taking it up in the COM
the least time He did not suppose p the com
mittee would proceed to open the whole Lou
1siana case again. He was under the impres;;
sion si, that the people of Louisiana had settled
the controversy themselves. and that an era of
peace was about TO dawn upon the people down
there and upon the whole country.
Later MIR. Hoar, of Massachusetts, offered Ia
resolution to open the controversy and go over
the questions which are so familiar, to the
troversy commenced in the committee He
then insisted that the case of Pinchback should
Dc Idktu up III oEuer. ana mat would bring the
case of Eustis before them first as there was no
contestant for his place.
Mr.. Mcmillan claimed that the case of Pinch
back would come before the committee, aud
that it would consume as much time as the
Mr. Hill said Mr.. Mcmillan tried to get the
Pinchback case before the committee but had
not found anybody to agree with him upOn it.
and the committee had informed pinchback
that he had no credentials before the commit
tee. and to get them there the Senate must
take action and refer them from the files of the
Senate to the committee.
He said the committee has had ample time to
consider all the cases before them. and it was
unjust to keep man out of his seat when there
were no contestants for the seat. and it was un-
just to the State to deprive her of representa-
ton on the floor of the Senate.
He could not say the case of Spoff0rd could
be reported upon in one month or in six
months, for there were many questions con-
stantly arising.
Mr.. Buffers case. he believed could be dis
posed of in five minutes. There was no legal
question in it.
MIR. Wadleigh said that if there was no legal
question in the Butler -COrbn case there was
none in the Spofford- Kellogg case. He said the
Senators had argued this case Just as though
the case of Mr.. Eustis were before The commit
tee in fact as well as in theory. He said Mr.. Eus-
tbs left for New Orleans on urgent private busi-
referred to the committee and there the matter
rested until the extra session OF last March. If
the committee had taken up the case in his alb
sence then they would have heard the cry of
persecution, of injustice to Mr.. EuStiS, of de-
priylng him OF the privilege of proper defense.
In the special Senate session last March the
committee had only five days for work. In this