Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-03-17


mittee recommended the adoption of
the amendments increasing the
amount appropriated from 100000
te s150,000, and authorizing the Sec
retary of War to expend such part
thereof, as is proper for labor in
strengthening the levees of the
Mississippi River, but providing that
he shall only employ persons to
whom he is issuing rations on ac>
count of the destitution. The clause
in the amendment referring to the
repairing of levees gave rise to a
warm debate, some of the members
seeing in it the beginning of move
ment upon the United States Treas
ury for a general system of levee
building, at the expense of the coun-
try at large.
In course of the debate the action
of the Governors of Illinois and
Kentucky in asking for aid for the
overflow sufferers in their States was
criticized, as it was held that these
States were abundantly able to care
for their own distressed citizens.
Finally Mr.. Hiscock modified the
amendment so as to read, "and the
Secretary of War is hereby author
lied to expend such part thereof as
he may deem advisable for labor
only in strengthening the levees
of the Mississippi, where there
is danger of immediate
breaks at points in his discretion,
but he shall only employ persons to
whom he is issuing rations on ac-
count of the destitution caused by
the overflow of said river and it's
tributaries "
This amendment was adopted, as
was also that increasing the appro>
priation.
On motion of Mrs Cameron, of Hi
nois, an amendment was adopted
providing that nothing herein con-
tanned shall commit the United States
to the improvement or maintenance
of che Mississippi River levees.
The bill was then passed as amend
ed, and the House resumed con
sideration of the Chinese bill.
Mr.. Money of Mississippi, sent to
the clerks desk and had read an
official notice of the Speakers re-
marks when he Money was at
| tempting to get the floor this after
noon to speak on the bill for the res
lief of the sufferers from the Mis-
sissippi overflow. He was preceding
to.comment upon what he called the
very remarkable declaration by
the Speaker, when he was called to
order by the chair, upon the ground
that he rose to a question of priv
ilege and had no right under that
cover to criticize the actions or
rulings of the Speaker.
An excited, and at times some>
what acrimonious, debate followed
with regard to the right of the
Speaker to reprimand a member of
the House.
Mr. Money contended that this was
right of the House of itself, and not
of the Speaker, and declared he
would not submit to it.
The Speaker said he had the right
to preserve order, and when a mem
Der persistently and fagrantly vio>
lated the order of the House, it was
his right and his duty to call him to
order.
Mr. Money rejoined that there was
no rule which permitted a member
of the House to be reprimanded, ex
cept by order of the House, and thai
no Speaker had a right to arrogate
to himself and usurp the powers O.
the House.
After some further discussion
the subject was dropped by the
House. -
WASHINGTON, D. c., March 10
Immediately after the reading of the
Journal, Mr.. McLane of Maryland
rose to a question of privilege. The
question he made was, that the
Speaker, in language addressed tc
the gentlemen from Mississippi
Money has invaded the privileges
of the House, and subsequently had
entertained motion to adjourn
before he had responded to TIA,
question of privilege raised by hin
(Mr. McLane).
The Speaker replied that the gen
tleman was in error at the time tn
House adjourned last night.
The whole matter had been sus-
pended and the Chair had made sue
answer as he desired.
Mr. McLane said that he woul'
not declare that the Chair had evade,
the reply to his question.
} The Chair had not concluded hi
answer, and would recognize tn
fact that he was under obligation t
submit the question to the House.
! Speaker: The chair does not un
derstand that the gentleman rises
a new question.
J Mr.. McLane: I do rise to ne,
question of privilege. l am avoid
ing disrespectful expression whe
I refrain from saying that the Chai
evaded the point at issue. Th
question I rise to now is that th
; Chair failed in it's obligation to sub
NIT the question to the House.
Speaker: The gentleman wi
give attention.
McLane: I am entitled to
: heard by the speaker, and I hav
e that respect for the chair and fo
i my brother-members, that am sur
r that I will be allowed to state m
0 case.
The Speakers chair desires
t state, if he understands the gentle
man to make the point, that it we
S the duty of the chair to submit th
e question of privilege to the hous,
e and that is wholly matter of dis
o cretion.
McLane appealed from the dscis