National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-04-24
FORTY.SlXTH CONGRESS-.
The Democratic Dilemma in the
Senate.
Tho Desire TO Evadc n Democratic Rule-In
Hurry to Get the Onices-Mr. wallncc's
Regard for Union soldcrs-Tho
Two Kentucky Turner'S "A
Democrat or Rations
FOR Three Days.
SENITE.

"
Mr.. SAUNDERS presented the memorial OF the pas
tors of the leading churches OF Dakota, represent
ing that the POnca Indians since their removal to
the Indian Territory have suffered many hardships
and have lost onc.fourth Of their number By death,
and asking that they be removed bnck to their old
home in Dakota or ifths cannotb he done, that they
be permitted TO join other tribes most agreeable to
themselves, or that commission be appointed TO
investigate their condition.
On motion OF Mr.. TELLER the Secretary OF the
Treasury WINS requested TO inform the Senate what
balance, ifnny, of the sum for the transportation of
the mails has been unprovldcd for by an appropria
tlon of Congress.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the
pending resolution with regard to the removal and
appointment of clerks and other employees In the
Office OF the Secretary and Sergeant ut Arms OF the
MIR. PENDGEroS had moved to amend Mr.. Ed
nhunds' resolution by adding the words, and ac-
ccpt0ble to 0jority of the Senate"
Mr.. EDMUNDs was rather surprised at the Ian
gunge of tho amendment proposed to his resolu-
ton which declared that in the opinion OF inc son
of the Senate is materially dependent on retaining
in its service corps of experiences; well trained
by security In their respective positions, so long IS
they continued faithful in the discharge their
aSS S mis- sesono iIU e words aSeesbC
10 majority Of the Senate"
Now his (Mr. Ednu,nds) resolution was substan-
Nally the language of the report made by Demo
cratic committee and adopted BY the Senate twenty
i've years ago, Wings as well as Democrats voting
for It. The rule proposed to be abrogated had been
lived up to until the present time. How were the
ulcers of the Senate TO be acceptable as proposed
ey the Senator from ohio2 Solely because OF
drinks or the absence of drinks, Of the use or non
use ofsnuf and tobacco, of the white or graham
oreOd,,or was 1t because Of rellgionl Ifso, what
teigion, and the sect of which the officers were TO
De membcrsT He did not understand this, but
when 1t came to politics he could understand the
amendment
Those who had been so long acceptable to this
body could not be acceptable any longer The
usage and tradition of this body were to be re-
Senator from Georgia (Nr. HID, who remarked
that there was no use in crying over spilled milk
especially when the bowl Is turned upside down.
and that there was no use for Republican Senators
to make wTy faces But why not adhere 10 the
present rule, and make appointments only In cases
such case both political parties would have their
share of patronage, according to which one should
be In power at the time the vacancies thus oc-
Cured.
Mr.. PENDLEToN. In reply to Mr.. Edmunds. said
The language of the amendment proposed by him;
the Senator'S" was quoted from the report to which
the Senator had referred and which had received
side who had heretofore taken part in the discus.
sion. The amendment declared that the appoint.
ment of subordinates aud the power of dismissal
should remain with the Secretary and Sergernt-at.
Arms respectively, who must be responsible for all
the service committed to their charge. He (Alr Pen
dleton) did not choose to enter into controversy
with the Senator as to the accepability of an officer
or employee Of the Senatelbecause of drink, snuff,
politics or religion. But he would say that i was
Just as necessary to the convenience of the Senate
that the officer should be acceptable as that he
should be faithful in the discharge of his duty.
ocer should be continued in service Il he We're un
acceptable? He (Nir. Pendeton) held that although
oSGf might dSEGihHrge AL ms duties ath
official duties. He might make improper remarks
on the course of Senators and their capacity for de
bate and on any pecularities they might possess
In such case would It not become q duty to remove
him? He would take the lead in doing So
cause he was in favor OF the Democratlcl doctrin,
OF 1851, in regard to the appointment and removal
OF officers that he was in favor OF the Democratic
doctrine on that subject In 1879, The Senator from
Ohio took fragment of the report only rs bas!
for repeating or reversing the wholesome rule Sc
long observed. 1t was strange method OF draw
ing conclusions and could not be justified by the
report In such cases as were cited by the Senator
an officer could be removed under the present rllt
for misconduct or unbecoming remarks on the fac
being reported TO the presiding officer of the Sen
ate. There would be Just cause, and he, (NIr. Ed
munds) would in that matter follow the lead of TIN
Senator from Ohio as a matter of duty. There
fore there was no need to change the present ru
unless 1t be to ''redrcss grievances" according t
the prevalent phrase, or to find places for polica
tayores in tnster manner than they could be fur
nished under the gradual working of tho presen
rule.
The Senate then voted on the first branch Of the
amendment Of Mr.. Pendleton, namely: And nc
to by q strictly party vote-yeas &c nays, %.
The Senate then agreed to the remainder of tn
amendmentI,yeas, 80 nays, 23-proposng, to re
ing that the several officers and others in the dc
partments of the Secretary of the Senate and tn
from Office by those officers respectively instead q
retaining the power of the presiding officer to AZ
prove. or dsapproye of removals and appoint
lncnts.
The question was now stated on agreeing to MI
Edmunds resolution as amended in the particular
Mr.. EpMUSDs said that under the amendmen
Just agreed TO all the employees under the SecrC
tary, and the scrgeAnt.at; Arms could be remove
hN nj tNyDn f fhnun hn1 hnn
elected by the Senate several weeks ago.
He proposed 70 add to the pending resolution
Senate who served in the military force of Tn
United states in suppressng the late rebellion sha
be removed except for cause, stated in writing
the Presldentof the Senate, and approved by hi
Mr. WALLACE, speaking for himself SAID thel
would be no such removals.
Mr. CoNKLlNG inquired whether he undersoo
the Senator TO say that the majority would not n
Mr. WALLACE replied that he thought II was M
the intention Of the majority to make removals
such persons.
Mr.. CoNKLING said he was surprised to hear thu
remark because there had already been removed
man who served in the army Of the Union, an
from which he was honorably discharged OWN
10 the injuries !he received and yet the Senate
from pennsylvania regarded the proposed amenC
mcnt of the Senator from Vermont as unncCCsSarl
Mr.. WALLACE asked the name of the person n
moved
Mr.. CoNKLING replied he referred to Mr.. Fit
who was removed from his position in the Office
the Secretary Of the Senate, and who had nevC
come short In the discharge his duty.
Mr. HERMAN said that he would act Justly tOwRr
the soldier and especially the wounded soldie
He would thus act, not because the other sid
would make n rule but because the majority shout
act according to their own Judgment and not /
called on TO follow rule which the other sid
never adopted, [Sght applause In the galleries
Mr., CoNKLIHG said his colleague seemed to hOy
earned the applause of somebody IN the gallery i
strangely forgetting or ignoring the truth of III
matter to which he referred
The President pro tenn. asked the Senator lroi
New York TO permit an interruption, and then sal
II there had been such removal as that TO whG
he referred he was wholly ignorant of II. He ha
seen statement in some newspaper that he Ina
sgnalized his taking position OF the chair By col
kehting to The removal of an officer of the Senate
NO such application having been made, hence thel
was no foundation for the report.
MT, CONKLING, resumng, said he had paused
near the statement from the Chair lie was glad
say mat ne uld not suppose the presiding officer ha
approved OF the removal, But he repeated that NJ
flH was some time ago informed by his oiliCi
superior That he must vacate and the time was hXC
for his doing so, Ills friend from Maine MIR Hau
linz had Just Informed him that the successor
Mr. Fitl was on the spot TO take his place
Mr. CoEKlISG said his colleague had declnr,
that he would act on his own Judgment and III
he would not vote with the Republicans because
some new rule. And his colleague had further sa
that the Republicans had never established a I'm
for such class of officers. Did not his colloael
know that the Republicans had affirmed and mai
talned ever since they had been In power the Who'll