The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-02-20

of last session failed to become law on account OF
this Brazilian mail subsidy being upon IL. Now the
House had sent to the Senate bill simply making
appropriations for post office purposes. and the
Senate proposed TO load it down with this Brazilian
subsidy
Mr. MAxEY. dem.) of Texas. said the House re-
fused t. consider the Post Route bill of last session.
not on account of the Brazilian subsidy. but on ac-
count of an amendment allowing foreign books free
through the mails the House regarding that as a
revenue measure
Mr. BAyAnp. ldem.) of Del. argued that this was
"a scheule to further commercial enterprise.
Mr. BLAINE, lrep) Of Me-. argued that the House
loaded the appropriation bills down to the guards
with general legislation and sent them to the Senate
He would always resist the idea OF the Senate stand
ing here and being spoon-fed by the House as TO
what should be passed on appropriation bills.
Mr. DORSEY. (rep.l of Ark said the Post Office APP
preparation bill full of Legislation from the first
to the last line. There had not been appropria-
ton bill passed during the last twenty years which
did not have important egislative provisions in it,
Mr. ANTHONY (rep.l of X. l.. said he voted against
the point raised by Mr.. Beck that the amendment
was not relevant He believed il was, but he thought
with the senator from Vermont tAfr. Edmunds. that
u was general legislation upon an appropriation BILL
and should vote to sustain his point of order.
The question being upon the point of order raised
by Mr.. lmunds, of Vermont. that the amendment
could not be considered because it proposed general
legislation the Senate. by vote of yeas 33. nays &C.
decided that it could be considered.
Mr. EATON. (dem) of Conn. submitted amend
nent to reduce the subsidy from s200O0O per annum
to 100000. Rejected--yeas IS. nays 20.
THE GENEVA
Pending discussion. Mr. Edmunds. of Vermont by
Judiciary, reported with amendment the House bill
Tor revising and continuing the Court of Commits
sioners OF Alabama Claims. and for the distribution
OF the unapproprated money of the Geneva award.
Placed OH the calendar.
IN submitting the report Mr.. EpMUNDs said he did
so AZ the organ of the committees but he felt no ur
ther responsibility personally in regard to it, as he
was opposed TO the bill as it stood.
Mr.. EATON. of Connecticut, submitted an amend
ment to the Brazilian subsidy amendment to
provide that the contract for such service shall be
for four years. instead OF ten years. proposed by
the committee.
Mr.. CoNKLING. Of New York. said there had been
something said about violation of contract, and
what should be done then? He to pro-
pose compromises. but why not amend the bill as
To provide that the service shall be performed by
Chinese company. and then Congress could end the
contract whenever it should choose to do so.
The amendment of Mr.. Eaton that the contract
snail run four years instead OF ten proposed by
the committee, was rejected-yeas ~ nays 80.
Mr.. BAILEY (dem.) of Tenn, then NOV ed to limit
the contract to five years instead of ten and said the
bill Of Last year proposed that the contract should
run i've years Why. in the time elapsed since, had
the friends put 1t up to ten years?
Further debate followed. at the conclusion OF
which, at FIVE p. NJ, on motion of Mr.. CAMERON, of
Pennsy lvania the Senate went into executive session.
and when the doors reopened Mt halt-past fivo
p. NJ, adjourned until tomorrow at four o clock.