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

the committee.
Mr.. CoNKLINe. Of New York. said there had been
something said about violation of contract and
what should be done then? He not one to pro-
pose compromises. but why not amend the bill
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 AS proposed by
the committee rejected-yeas ~, nays 80
Mr.. BAILEY. (dem.) of Tenn, then moved to limit
the contract to five instead of ten and said the
bill Of Last year proposed that the contract should
run ive 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. motion of Mr.. CAMERON, of
the Senate went into executive session.
and when the doors were reopened, Mt half past Two
p. NJ, adjourned until tomorrow, ut four o clock
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
WASHINGTON Feb. 10, 1879.
The House at half-past eleven O'Clock went into
Committee Of the Whole (Mr. Blackburn, of Kon-
lucky in the chair the Legislative Appropriation
bill. Tho pending amendment that offered last
night by Mr. Herbert, of Alabama. fixing the pay of
jurors. regulating the method of drawing them and
repeating the statutes in regard to the jurors test
OATH upon which point of order had been raised by
Mr.. Hale. of Maine.
Mr.. HALE. trepD of Me-. argued that the amend.
mcnt was new Legislation and did retrench expen
ditures. He did not care whether sections $40 and
S2l repealed not. They were not followed in
many Of the Southern States. He had voted once to
repeal them and had objection to having them re-
pealed if it were done in the proper way.
Mr.. HERBERT. dem) Of Ala, argued that the
amendment clearly in order. and stated that its
object was have the laws fairly and honestly
carried out.
Mr. wooD. dem) of N Y, was surprised that the
point Of order should have been raised by the gen.
teman from Maine tMr. Hae,. He quoted from
civil sundry bill brought in by the Committee on
Appropriations of which tho gentleman from Ohio
mr. Garhcld) had been chairman. and Of which the
gentleman from Maine had been member, on
which had been placed various sections containing
legislation not gcrmane to the bill.
Mr. HALE. of Maine. thought there nothing
analogous In the two lii the bill referred to
by the gentleman there had been attempt to forco
through the House a matter upon which It was di-
vided by party lines at tho dictation of a caucus.
Mr. WOOD, Of New York, said that he could not see
any Observation-Disclosures the proposition came up as
the result of caucus or whether it came up in the
usual
Mr.. ATKINS (dem.) Of Tenn. argued that inssmuch
the amendment reduced the compensation of ju-
from s. to 80 per day it was clearly in order.
The CHAIRMAN then ovcrruled the point of order
Mr. HALE, of Maine. moved to amend the amend
ment by striking thcrefrom the clause regulating the
method Of selecting jurors. Rejected-yeas lo, nays
l22.
Mr.. HALE then moved to amend the amendment
providing for defraying the expenses which may bo
incurred in the enforcement of the act approved Feb
ruary 1871 to enforce the rights Of citizens to vote
ia the several States. Rejected
Mr.. RANDALL, (lem.) of Pa. called attention to tho
fact that for some reason other (which he not
aware OF the State of Pennsylvania had been excepted
from the operation of the sections which were pro-
posed be repealed and his suggestion the amend
inent was worded as to make its application gen.
eral.
Mr.. CoNGHR. (rep.) OF Mich. moved to strike out
of the amendment the clause repeating section 81.
That would allow the repeal of section s30. aud
would leave it i'll the discretion of the court to mako
connection with the rebellion cause OF challenge
motion.
Mr.. EIAs tdcm.) of L.. thought it was q rcmarka-
bic spectacle that the President the United States
might take the modified oath. but that jurors could
not. lie reminded the gentleman from Michigan
tMr. Conger that tho late war between the states
he did not call il n rebcllon-had ceased; but the
two sections of the country could never be recon-
cied cordially whilo this test oath remained on
the statute books.
Mr.. Congcrs amendment then rcjccted-G6 to
1ls Messrs. Chittenden of New York. Kelley of
Pennsylvania Cole Of Missouri. Metcafe o. Missouri.
Robinson, Rice and Grape of Massachusetts, ropubli
cans voted in the negative.
The question then recurring on Mr. Hcrbert's
amendment II was agreed to--yeas TT, nays SIS.
SUPERVISORS ELECTION.
The question then came up Mr. Southartl's
amendment repeating the section which authorizes
the appointment OF supervisors OF election.
Mr.. HALE. of Name. rose 10 point of order that
the amendment changed existing law and was not in
the interest OF economy. IL took boldly and violently
the whole body of criminal law guarding elections
and proposed TO repeal it, He had never known
bold and radical proposition to DO offered TO an al
preparation bill. But it had been resolved upon
in q democratic caucus and democratic caucus
was like the old Committee OF Public Safety In
the French Revolution which rendered nugaiory
all Legislation. removed commanders OF armies
aud assumed power over life aud death
was determined that this revolutionary Legislation
should not succeed Ten years experience had
taught HIM parliamentary wit. no device and
plan un,lcr tho rules the Housed which should not
rcsortci to IL the amendment were ruled to bo in
order. as to prevent its being embodied in the APP
pro priation bill.
MIR. sorrnhrp. (dciu.) OF Ohio. argued that the
amendment gcrmanc, and that IL in the di-
rccton of economy, because the cost OF these super
visors in the election OF 1876 $2DOO0O aud
tho same in 1873 The gentleman from Maine (Mr.
IIalc could not. he said, intmidatc his (tho dem
ocratc side Of the House. IL revolutionary to
repeal the sections now, their enactment when tho
republican party supreme also revolution
AIRY. The amendment had been offered by him in the
interest OF economy and also in the interest OF pure
and untrammelcd election.
The CHAIRMAN ovcrruled the point Of order on the
ground that tho amendment was not only gcrmanc.
but directly in the interest of economy.
Mr.. Southland then made an argument in advocacy
OF the amcndmcnt. II. was followed on the san
all the machinery Of elections ought to be controlled
by tho state governments not by the federal govern
mcnt.
srrHcu or NIL GARFIELD.
Mr.. GARFIELD, trvp.l of Ohio, said he had not
spoken Oh points Of order because no did not re-
gard the question that being considered
deliberately. Ordinarily this was hall OF deliber-
alton but now they were called upon merely TO reg
inc OF party caucus, untlcr rulc OF
o person who under orders to decide that tho
amendment came in under the rule
This remark caused immediate explosion of
anger the democratic side. and there calls to
order and demand that the obnoxious sentence be
reduced TO writing and read at the clerk desk but
the chairman (Mr. Blackburn, of Kentucky ex-
pressed the wish that point OF order should be
made. but that he (Nir. Backburn) should be per-
mittcd TO respond and that wish acccdcd to.
No PERSONAL REFLECTION.
Mr.. GARFIELD. OF Ohio proceeded with his speech.
exhibiting in its delivery much feeling and deter
mipaon. He said that tho chair will perfectly I'M
dcrstand that mean reelection on him personally
tlerisive laughter tho democratic sideD; what
mean TO say Is. that where party caucus resolves.
against the will OF It's own minority. that its whole
party must act here without re-
gard to the opponents within its own
party. then 10 ceases 10 be free dcliberation