The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-04-17
Radical False Prctenses.

In order TO snow tne true inward
ness" Of the Republican revolutionists,
who now so diligently disturb the public
peace by crying revolution" at the heels
of a Democratic majority of both houses
of Congress, we extract from the New
York World recitation of the proceed
ings of the session of 1872, when the Re-
publicans had majority in both houses.
Here are the extraordinary scenes Which
occurred on June the 11th, 1872. This
was the last day of one of the cast-iron
sessions of Grant and Blaine, Immediate
ly preceding the second Grant Presiden-
tial campaign, the new term beginning
on the 4th of March, 1878:
GA sundry civil appropriation bill had
been passed by the House of Representa-
tives several weeks previously which had
duly reached the Senate, where the fiat
of Conkling, Chandler, and others, had
added the amendatory provisions author
izing bayonets at the polls n'the South
and supervisors and deputy marshals
upon election day in the North. When
this amended bill was returned to the
House, which alone can originate appro-
priations, the Democrats resisted the
amendments. The bill reached the
House on Saturday morning, June s, and
Mr.. Garfield Immediately moved that it
be referred to the Committee on Appro-
priations. Mr.. Brooks, OF New York,
opposed the motion, on the ground that
it would facilitate the passage of the civil
appropriation bill with the Objectionable
amendment known as the enforcement
act. In reply to question by Mr.. Ed
ridge, Speaker Blaine stated that the bill
could not be reached without a two-thirds
majority, while it would require only a
majority vote to pass it if Mr.. Garfeld's
tactics prevailed. In order to respect
the necessity for the appropriations, Mr..
Kerr moved that all the Senate amend
merits upon appropriations be passed
upon by the majority vote, except as to
the Objectionable amendments, and that
these should take their chance of two
thirds vote. Mr.. Hoar made the point
of order that the House had no right to
adopt such a resolution, which Speaker
Blaine sustained.
"Mr. Beck then offered a resolution
which asserted that the Objectionable
Senate amendment was unconstitutional
because inserted in an appropriation bill,
and that therefore it be returned to the
Senate. Every Republican voted that
the course was constitutional. The reso-
luton of course was lost, and the prece-
dent stands upon the parliamentary re-
cord.
"Mr. Garfield then pressed his resolu-
tion to vote, but although the latter
stood 81 Republican yeas to 70 Demo
cratic nays, the motion was lost because
two thirds did not favor it. Other busi-
ness intervened, but when the morning
hour expired Mr.. Garfield renewed the
conflict. Mr.. Garfield moved to proceed
to the business upon the Speakers table.
This was a motion that required only a
majority vote, and its object was to lay
aside measure after measure until the
civil appropriation bill was reached and
referred to conference committee. I'm
mediately the Democrats commenced
dilatory motions, and after six hours had
been wasted with them, Mr.. Garfield
made an appeal to the House from what
he called the deadlock, and moved to
non concur in all the Senate amendments
and refer them to a committee of con-
ference with recess until Monday morn
ing, which was agreed to without
division. Speaker Blaine then appointed
Messrs. Garfield and Palmer, Republi-
cans, and Niblack, of Indiana, Democrat,
as the members of conference. During
the '6libustering' it was repeatedly stated
that President Grant is going openly
into Congress to-day to press this bill for
ward to its passage, and he is prepared to
force it through into law by an extra
session if he fails to secure its enactment
to-day
"What occurred over Sunday was
stated the next morning by Mr.. Kelly, of
Philadelphia, who with Farnsworth, of
Illinois, were the only Republicans who
opposed the arbitrary legislation in ques-
ton. The conference committees had
met and, of course with a Republican
majority upon them, had agreed to re-
commend the Senate bill intact. But in
asmuch as the rule had always been that
reports from conference committees were
subject to dilatory motions, no danger
was apprehended by the Democrats, but
to their surprise it was soon intimated by
the Speaker that he could hold the report
to be privileged question. And accord
ingly, when the House met on Monday
morning, the Speaker so decided and the
report was received. This brought Mr..
Kelly to an attitude of indignant elo-
quence, and he said:
~ move to recommit the conference
report. l make this motion under deep
sense of responsibility. lam constrained
to make this by proper sense OF self
respect The bill has attained in its
present state what, so far as my con-
sciousness is concerned, appears to be q
false pretense, characterized by all the
features of that offense which the law of
Pennsylvania Furnishes. On Saturday
last the minority of the House, in virtue
of parliamentary law and the usages of
the House, not by the weakness of the
Republican party or of the members of
that party, held this bill in their power.
Take from it one amendment and you
may have all the rest without objection
on our part was said. Take from it one
provision and you may have your ad-
journment and appropriation. There
came on this floor Senator, member
of the conference committee, (Cole, of
California; and he gave assurance to
gentlemen around ME that if the bill
could 90 to q conference committee the
Senate would recede from that amend
ment. 1t was known that he would be
chairman of the conference committee OF
this House, and that he disapproved OF
that amendment and had given open
and public assurance that he disapproved
of it as heartily as any gentleman on the
other side of the House. There had to
be, according to parliamentary usage,
two Democrats on the conference COM
mittec-one from the House and one
from the Senate-and there would, there
fore, it seemed to me and others, be no
possibility of the Objectionable amend
I I r Il IL