Daily globe., 1879-02-20

not
only to our government, bnt to the morals Of
| our people.
| After an executive session adjourned.
! House Of Representatives.
LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION BILL.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19.-The legislative appro.
priation bill was considered in committee OF
the whole, and the point of order made last
night against the amendment offered by Mr.
Herbert repeating the jurors test oath and reg.
ulating the mode of drawing and the pay OF
jurors was overruled, Chairman Blackburn de-
Gliding the amendment in order.
Mr.. Hale moved to amend the amendment by
striking therefrom The clause regulating the
method of selecting jurors. Rejected
lO1, nays l22.
Mr.. Hale then moved'to amend the amend.
| ment by providing for defraying expenses
which may be incurred in the enforcement of
the act approved Feb. %, 1871, to enforce the
rights of citizens to vote in the several States,
Rejected.
Speaker Randall called attention to the fact
that for some reason or other of which he was
not aware, the State of Pennsylvania had been
which were proposed to be repealed, and at his
suggestion the amendment was so worded as to
make its application general.
MIR. Conger moved to strike out of the amend
ment the clause repeating section 82l. That
would allow the repeal of section 800, aud
would leave it in the discretion of the court to
make connection with the rebellion cause of
challenge.
MIR. ELAN thought it was remarkable spec
tacle that the President of the United States
might take the modified oath, but that Jurors
could not. He reminded the gentleman from
Michigan (Conger) That the late war between
the States, he did not call it rebellion, had
ceased, but that the two sections of the coun-
try could never be reconciled cordially while
this test oath remained on the statute books.
Mr. Frye said that when the North was sat
lstled that United States citizens all over the
country would be protected in all their rights
there would be no distinction of test oaths.
Mr.. Kelly favored the repeal of both stat
utes. They were worse than useless. They
presented an incongruity which disgraced the
statute books, and he hoped that unanimous
consent would be given to wipe them out.
Mr.. Pridemore opposed Conger's amendment,
because it would place judges in the unpleas-
ant attitude Of applying the test or refusing to
apply it for partisan purposes.
Mr. Ellis said that this test oath excluded
the Intelligent of his State from the jury box.
1t was blot upon the statute book, and
should be repealed.
MIR. Conger's amendment was rejected, &C to
81, Messrs Chittenden, Kelly, Cole, Metcalf,
Robinson, (Mass., Rice and Crapo, Republi-
cans, voted in the negative.
The question then recurring on Mr.. Herbert s
amendment, 1t was agreed to, yeas 127, nays 85.
amendment repeating the section which au-
thorlzes the appointment of supervisors of
election.
Mr.. Hale rose to point of order, that the
amendment changed the existing law and was
not in the interest of economy. 1t took hold
boldly and violently Of the whole body of
criminal law guarding elections and proposed
to repeal it. He had never known so bold and
1adical a proposition to be offered to an appro-
prlation bill, but it had been resolved upon in
Democratic caucus, and Democratic caucus
WAS like the old committee of public safety in
tne m french revolution which rendered nugatory
all legislation, removed commanders of armies
and assumed power over life and DEATH He
believed his side of the House was determined
that this revolutionary legislation should not
succeed. Ten years experience had taught him
no parliament wit, no device and no plan un-
II the amendment were ruled to be in order 80
as to prevent its being embodied in the appro-
priation bill.
Mr.. Southland argued that the amendment
was germane, and that it was in the direction
OF economy because the cost Of these super
visors in the election of 1876 was over $780,
OCO, and the same in 1878. The gentleman
from Maine, Hale, could not, he said, intimi-
date his the Democratic side of the House. If
1t was revolutionary to repeal these section
now, their enactment when the Republican
party was supreme was also revolutionary The
amendment had been offered by him in the in
terest OF economy, and also in the interest of
pure and untrammeled elections.
MIR. Conger suggested sarcastically that if it
were claimed that the amendment would save
the expense of maintaining jails and peniten-
tlarles OF the land for the criminals who vio-
lated the election laws that would be pretty
strong ground for argument that it was in the
direction of economy.
The chairman overruled the point of order
on the ground that the amendment was net
only germane, but was directly in the interest
OF economy.
MIR. Southland then made an argument in ad-
vocacy Of the amendment. He was followed
on the same side by Mr.. Durham, who argued
that all the machinery of elections ought to be
controlled to the State governments, not to the
federal government. Mr.. Hale argued against
the amendment.
Mr.. Bragg was surprised that the Republican
party, which had just robbed the American
people of the fruits of the ballot box, should
stand up to-day and talk about whitening a law
to preserve the purity Of elections. The law
which it was sought to repeal, instead of pre
serving the purity of the ballot box, furnished
out Of the national treasury campaign fund
Tor either party which might be in power to
corrupt elections.
MIR. Chittenden said he had voted for the re-
peal of the jurors test oath because it was ab-
surd to admit Southern men to Congress and
exclude them from the jury box. He warned
the other side Of the House, however, that a
solid South would be met by a solid North. 1t
was too soon for gentlemen who had sacrificed
t. cir all save honor to destroy the Union,
fifteen years ago, to appear now to resume its
control. That seemed to the North an ex-
preston Of audacity, which could not be tol.
Grated. He regarded the pending measure as
the hugest blnnder that the Democratic party
<>vpI1 kr& \ H.
Mr.. Kimmel argued in favor OF the amend
ment, and cited recent events in Maryland as
showing the evil Of the existing legislation on
the subject.
Mr.. Frye argued against the amendment. He
declared its object was for effect not in the
South but in the State of New York. In the
South, notwithstanding the election laws. the