The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-03-21
WASHINGTON.


the House, yesterday, OF the so-called
Garfield amendment to the federal
election laws, continues to be the
principal topic of conversation in
political circles. to-day, and there are
indications that i. will give rise 10 an
exciting contes. in the Senate. The
democrats are generally very iubil2nt
over the result in the House. Con-
gresham Springer Gays of it: This is
the greatest victory we have won.
We have regained all We lost by the
extra session, and great deal more.
We do not want any more riders now.
The republicans are completely de-
moralized and do not know what to
do. 1t is a sad blow 10 the Grant
boom, too, because there can be no
more talk about the democrats nulli-
flying the lsws. Under this amend
ment the court must appoint the
election marshais, and they must be
taken from different political parties,
that will prevent a partisan use Of the
laws, and it puts the democrats in
strong position before the country.
We have the republicans 10 full re-
treat, and they are blaming Garfield
for the bad management OF the mat
ter. We have got all we want now"
Congressman Frank Heard, of
Ohio, representing the out and out
Bourbons on this question, takes a
very different view OF it. He pre-
diets that the democrats of the House
will regret their action, because, in
the first place. it is a complete
abandonment of the positions taken
at the extra session, that the election
laws were unconstitutional and that
the democrats would never vote a
dollar to enforce them; and secondly,
because he believes that ii any demo-
cratic deputy marshals are appointed
by republican judges, they will be
class of men willing to work for the
republicans for S. q day. Several
prominent republican senators an
nounce an intention ID oppose this
amendment in the Senate as siren
uously as they fought the attempted
repeal Of the election laws at the
extra session. Messrs. Ccnkling and
Carpenter viii undoubtedly come TO
the front on this question, but it
is som eWhat doubtful whether they
will be able 10 command the entire
party strength IN the Senate, because
of the suspicion that their purpose,
in taking the lead, is 10 engineer the
debate SO as to help certain presi-
Dental candidate. At any rate, there
will be a heated political discussion
over this question in the Senate
which will revive some Of the memo
ries Of the extra session. Tho bill
cannot very we'll come up in the
Senate before Wednesday, as it must
first be acted on by the committee on
appropriations. There is a dlsposi-
ton OF both sides, however,t to bring it
| forward as sCoa se practicable, and it
will doubtless be taken up early next
week.
The Post, democratic organ, under
the head of San unequal bargain"
publishes an editorial showing that
by the Burlingame treaty We give
China great deal more than we
receive and that, in fact, it brings to
US nothing except a few rights Of
trade, which we should have if no
such treaty existed. The editorial
concludes as follows: The treaty
while it stands must be fu.-
filled; but it cannot be too soon
abrOgatsd, as to most of it's provisions.
V G must see that this country shall
not be overrun with a tnrbid tide of
Asiatic degra 1ation. China has shown
US how to do this By fixing up certain
ports where Americans may enter
and certain places where, under de-
fined conditions, they may reside. In
new treaty with that empire We
must follow this example. If we
have any single right as a people, it
is that OF self protection, and under
this right we are bound to say
that the millions of Asia shall
not occupy this country or clme
here in such numbers as to do US
harm. It ia stated that a commission
to negotiate new treaty with China
will soon be appointed. Il should be-
gin with a iaiE understanding that
China is incapable of giving Us much
that We would not possess were there
no international compact; that China
is too exclusive to fairly claim a
standing with the treaty-msking
powers; that We are ready to extend
our commercial relations on fair
terms, but do Eot intend TO ADOPT
and take home the miserable millions
of that God forssken land
The commissioners of the general
land office, to-day, decided the case
of John 81. Davis against the Seatou
Mining Company, Sacramento Dis
trict, California. The claim of Davis
is rejected, AMI the Seaton Company
are allowed to enter the mine on
completing proof.
Col. E. G. Brooks, OF the Indian
bureau, gave the Senate committee a
history OF the removal OF the Poncas,
which he claimed was in obedience to
the law, though in violation of the
treaty and against the Wishes of the