Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1877-12-19
question and defending the action oi
the President.

was the next speaker. He warmly
commended the civil service policy
Of President Hayes, and in regard t
the pending nominations asserted en-.
Iphaticaliy that the removals which
they contemplated were demanded
BY a proper regard for the purity oi
the service. He charged that Cor
nell and Arthur had disgracefully
made use of the power and patronage
OF their offices for merely partisan
and selfish purposes, and he intimat-
ed that 1t was time for the one-man
power in New York State to be bro
ken.
The debate then became quite gen.
eral.
HoAR AND MATTHEWS
spoke in favor of sustaining the ac-
tion of the President in the exercise
of his constitutional powers, and of
what they argued was sound public
policy in removing the civil service
from the dominion of partisan con-
troll.
TELLER
and others spoke briefly in reply, ar
guing that in the present instance at
least the President had departed from
the principles Of civil service which
he himself had announced, namely
That faithful and efficient services
should protect officers from removal
elc.sasss4Asssas ms n s.fs 3 =
4 sss CONKLIN0 CLOSED "a
the debate in speech of considera.
bic length and great vigor and earn.
estness. He replied in detail to the
supporters of the nominations and re-
PEELED with the utmost emphasis the
charges that had been made against
the official character and conduct of
the officers whom the President pro-
posed to remove.
He insisted that they had been faith
ful, honest and efficient in every par
ticular, and challenged proof that a
single charge had ever been made
against them, either by the mercantile
community or by the Secretary of the
Treasury, or the President himself.
He also defied any one to show or to
assert that his (Conkling's) action in
this whole natter had been otherwise
than fair, open, courteous and above
board.
In conclusion, he claimed that the
Senate would be alike unjust to faith
full officers, careless Of its own prerog-
atives and duties, and unmindful of
the dictates of true civil service pol
icy If it failed to vote that these nom-
nations should be rejected.
VOTE BY YEAS AND NAYS
was then taken upon the nomination
of Roosevelt, and it was rejected by q
majority of Z, the yeas being 25 and
the nays 80. The nomination of
Prince was rejected upon another roll
call, by the same vote in each case.
Senator'S Eaton, Dennis, Whyte and
Maxey, Democrats, united with the
great body of Republicans against
confirmation, and Senators Burnside,
Christiancy, Conover, Dawes, Hoar
and Matthews, Republicans, sided
with the mass of the Democrats in fa-
vor of confirmation.
The nomination of Merritt was con-
firmed without discussion. A mo-
tion was made to remove the injunc-
ti0n of secrecy from the vote but un-
der the rules single objection carried
it over until tomorrow when 1t will
undoubtedly be adopted. Mean
while the following is believed to be
the correct statement of the votes cast
by those Senators who were present
and not paired. The names of sever
al, who are mentioned above as hav-
ing separated from q majority of their
political colleagues ON the question of
sustaining the Presidents action, will
not be found in the list, but their res
pective positions were made manifest
by the announcement of pairs. Those
who voted in favor Of confirmation
were, according to the best informa-
Bailey, Barnum, Bayard, Beck,
Burnside, Christiancy, Coke, Conover,
Dawes, Eustis, Gordon, Grover, Har-
ris, Hereford, Hill, Hoar, Johnston,
Jones of Florida, Herman, Lamar,
McCreery, Matthews, Morgan, Ran
dolph and Saulsbury.-25.
Negatives were cast by Allison,
Anthony, Blaine, Booth, Bruce, Cam
eron, Pa, Cameron, Wis.,, Chaffee,
Conkling, Davis, Ills, Dorsey, Eaton,
Edmunds, Ferry, Hamlin, Howe, In
gals, Jones, New, Kellogg, Kirk
wood, Mcmillan, Mitchell, Morrill,,
Oglesby, Paddock, Patterson, Plumb,
Rollins, Sargent, Saunders, Spencer,
and Teller. Total, 30.
1t is said the majority against the
confirmation of Roosevelt and Prince
would have been two or three greater
but for the absence of an equal num-
ber of Senators known to be opposed
to the nominations who had tempora-
rily left the Capitol without pairs, in
the belief that the vote would not be
reached until late hour. With the
exception of these two or three Sena.
tors and Mr.. Sharon, who is still alb
sent from the city, the full number of
Senators were present or had made
their votes effectual by means Of pairs.