The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1881-02-10
news BY TELEGRAPH.

WASHINGTON, February S.-SEN
ATE-Kirkwood, from theCommittet
on Postof1ces and Post Roads, re
ported back Senator Logan's joint
resolution providing for the exteR
sion ofthe franking privileges to the
communications received by MEM
bers of Congress from the executive
departments on business oftheir con
stituents. He said the committee
were equally divided on the merits
of the proposition and had conclud.
ed to report it back without recon-
mendation and asked that it be plac
ed on the calendar. 1t was so ordered
The bill introduced by Mr.. Plumb
to grant the right of way through
the Fort Bliss reservation to the RiC
Grande & Ell Paso Railroad Com.
pany, was referred to Committee
on Military Affairs.
On motion of Mr.. Morgan, the
concurrent resolution, introduced
by him June Is, 1880, declaring thai
the President of the Senate is moi
instructed by the Constitution Of
the United States with the right tc
count the vote of the electors
for President and Vice President oi
the United States, so as to determine
which votes shall be received and
counted, and what votes shall be
rejected, was taken up. Mr.. Nor
gan briefly explained the resolution
and added he was prepared to vote
upon 1t.
EdmuDds expressed the resolu,
ton as half way measure, and that
it did not cover one-third of the
whole question involved. ..
Thurman favored the action Of
the resolution without debate.
EdmuDds moved to lay the resolu.
tiOn on the table, but the motion
was rejected by a party vote of 81
to %. .I
At the expiration of the morning
hour, the consideration of the cal.
endar was postponed, and the dis.
cussion of Morgan's resolution was
continued.
After speech by Conkling, Ed.
munds moved to amend the resolu.
ton so as to make it read, Gin
the opinion of the Senate, neither
the Senate nor Senate and
House, nor the President of the Sem
ate is invested by the Constitution
with the right to make the count
This amendment was voted down
by party vote. Yeas, 18; nays, 2S..
Whyte said the duty Of the Presi.
dent of the Senate was a ministerial
one, and that the Constitution had
made no provision for the exercise
of the judicial power in case of two
returns from the same State. This
omission, he thought, 1t was the duty
of Congress to supply, and that he
should vote against the resolution
Conkling, in reply to Whyte, took
the ground that Congress had al.
ways exercised quasi judicial
power in the matter pertaining to
the count, and that the whole his.
tory of the government was q con.
tradiction of the idea that the Presi-
dent of the Senate could decide any.
thing on which might hinge the as,
certaining and declaring of the presi.
Dental vote.
After further remarks by Blaine
Morgan and Thurman, a vote was
taken upon agreeing to Morgan'i
resolution, and it resulted, yeas 80
nays 1-Whyte of Maryland. The
Republicans, with the exception OF
Conkling, who voted with the Dem
ocrats, refrained from voting. The
vote was then called to ascertain
whether a quorum was present
Forty senators responded to the sum.
mons. There were indications al
this point of a protracted session
the Republicans seeming determined
to adhere to their abstractive tactics
Morgan, however, finally moved. to
adjourn. The motion was carried.
HoUsE.-Anderson of Kansas, of
fered resolution providing that
every day after the morning hour
one hour shall be set aside, during
which members may ask for unani-
nous consent for consideration and
the passage of bills. Referred.
Brigham of New Jersey, offered a
resolution requiring the Committee
on Elections, to report upon con-
tested election cases within thirty
days of filing of papers in suci cases.
Referred. .a at laa.ii .lf
The House then resumed the coll
sideration of the apportionment bill.
Cox of New York, offered an
amendment fixing the number of
representative at three hundred
and seven, and it was ordered print
ed and considered pending. q .,s.
Sherwin of Illinois, a member of
the Census Committee, took the
floor on the bill. He said there was
no reason that an apportionment
should not be made at this session,
since all dates was in by which to
make a calculation. Comparing
various bills which had been pro-
posed,h he showed that at 301, the nu-
Der first suggested by Cox of New
York, the Democratic States would
gain Representatives and lose "a net
gain of 6: The Republican States
would gain 10 and lose 8. a net gain
of g. At the number selected by
the majority of the committee, 311,
the Democratic States would; gain
IL and lose none, the Republican
States would gain 10 and lose 4, a
net gain of 6. At 319, the
number recommended by min
ority, the Republican States would
each gain Is representatives. He
argued in support of the latter,
contending that mathematically, as
well as practically, it meted out
justice and fairness to every portion
of the country.
He also pointed out, that
under section 2 of the four
teenth amendment, voters, as well
as members, might be taken to ac-
count in the appointment or repre-
sentation, and whenever any State
denied to any male citizen twenty
one years of age the right TO vote, in
his judgment, thai State should be
denied a representation in the just
proportion in which it denied such
right to vote. lt,.rr... &
Thompson of Kentucky, said he
was in favor of increasing, rather
than decreasing, the numerical
strength of the House. In alluding
to the second section of the four
teenth amendment, he stated that
it was utterly impossible to enforce
it by legislation or in any practical
way, and then proceeded to com.
pare the various apportionments
bills - Sai -.
Mr.. Hawley, of New York, op~
posed the increase in the number of
representatives in Congress, and he
thought the House was already in q
majority, and the bill being the
best and ,fairest, as it is fair to every
State and if, any -ef-the sections
should receive any advantage from