Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-03-12
THE PORTER BILL.
Its Further Consideration TempOrar
POStOOned


Its Further Consideration Temporarily
Postponed.
When the Fitz John Porter case came
up in the Senate yesterday, Mr.. Allison
wanted the bill informally laid aside. Mr..
Blaine asked in what position that would
leave the bill and the presiding officer said
that it would have NO place. but would be
subject to be called up. Mr.. Davis (W.
Va.) hoped the floor would be given to ap-
preparation bills after the speech Of the
senator from Florida (Mr Jones).
Mr.. Burnside said he desired to have an
opportunity to speak on the Porter bill.
Mr.. Logan said he would object to the
Porter bill being set aside.
Mr.. Allison said his intention was mere.
ly to ask that the Porter bill be informally
laid aside.
Mr.. Blaine. That takes unanimous con.
sent.
Mr.. Conkling. And the senator from
Illinois gives notice that he will object.
Mr.. Thurman. If the debate on this
Fitz John Porter bill is to extend for a
month, as it threatens to do, shall feel it
my duty at much earlier period than a
month from now to antagOnize it with the
Geneva award bill. Mr.. Thurman further
said that the bill cannot be allowed to take
precedence over more important business.
Mr.. Jones, of Florida, then proceeded to
support the bill. At the conclusion of his
speech, Mr.. Logan moved to indefinitely
postpone the bill. Mr.. Davis, of w. Va,
moved to lay the bill on the table. Presi-
dent pro tempore Edmunds ruled that this
motion superseded that of Mr.. Logan.
The motion was agreed to by a viva voce
vote and the bill was laid ON the table sub
ject to be called up by majority vote.
1t was not the intention either of Sena-
tor Davis, of West Virginia, who made the
motion for the postponement, nor of Sena-
tor Randolph, who consented, that the de-
bate should stop or that the bill should 60
over indefinitely; still this may be really
the result and it may not be again possible
to resume consideration Of the subject at
this session. There are enough senators
on the Democratic side who have
the courage of their convictions and will
vote to do justice to General Porter
as they think they have a right to do.
Careful inquiry shows that only one DEM
ocrat-Senator COckrell, of Missouri--was
so convinced of the lack of power OH the
part of Congress to pass such bill as that
which has been pending by Senator Car
penter's argument that he will vote with
the Republicans. If any others thought
as he did last Saturday they have appar-
emily had their objections satisfied by the
excellent arguments of Senators Bayard,
Mcdonald and Jones. What will deter
the Democratic senators from consentiag
to again taking up the bill this session is
the determination of the Republicans to
make a partisan question of the discussion
and to attempt to use the Democratic ac-
ton for campaign purposes. As a matter
of fact, the Southern Democrats feel that
they are put in a very delicate position.
They are convinced that General Porter
has suffered great injustice, but see very
clearly that their votes to relieve him
would only lead to intlammable speeches
by Republicans, and all this sort of thing
they are very desirous of giving no excuse
for. They have taken General Gordon 8
advice and stoutly maintained the policy
of silence on all sectional questions, and
they are really anxious to avoid being
made an issue of in the coming campaign.
Since Senator Hoar's return he has heard
of the Republican caucus and it's deter
mination, and has apparently changed his
views about voting for the bill.