Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-02-15
AT TIE NATIONS CAPITAL
MIR. TURNER WORKING FOR
DARlEN'S APPROPRIATION.

Long Debate over the Chalmers. Man
ming COntest-SurgeOn General HamiI.
ton Deals the National Board of HeaItb
Hard Blow-The Extra Months Paw
! Not to be Allowed.
WASHINGTON, Feb. I4.-Mr. Nichols
has introduced bill for a survey. with a
view to an appropriation, of Darien har-
Dor and the river just below that city.
IN THE SENATE.
w AsHINGTON, Feb. 14.-The Chair To-
uay lald before the Senate a communica-
toh tIoh from the Secretary of the Treasury
transmitting, in compliance with the re-
cent resolution of the Senate. the testi-
mony taken by the committee of the
treasury officers relating to the perform
ance OF the duties of the office of the ST.
perYlslng Architect. The letter was or
uefed 10 be printed, and with accom-
panylng papers was referred to the Com
mIItee on Public Buildings and Grounds.
Inc senate then took up the bill making
all public roads and highways post
routes, which was debated by Messrs.
Plumb, Hale, MaXey and SAWYER. and
alter slight amendment, passed.
consideration of the bill debated yester-
day relating to national bank circulation
was resumed. Mr.. Beck spoke at Iengtb in
taVor OF the bill. MIR. Morrill, opposed it
at equal length, and in fact nearly all the
speeches delivered during the discussion
nave Deen long. Several amendments
were offered and advocated in speeches of
greater or less length by Messrs. Morrill,
Aldrlch, Vest and Morgan. Mr.: MOrgan's
amendment provides for the use of State
ponds IN the same manner that United
otates ponds are now used as security for
national banking circulation.
Mr.. Plumb was about to address the
Senate on the bill reported from the com
mlttee when the Senate went into an ex-
ecutlVe session, and when the doors were
reopened, adjourned.
IN THE HOUSE.
In the House to-day, Mr.. Mckinney. of
OHIO, presented a telegram from Cieve-
land, Ohio, detailing the destruction occa
stoned by the Ohio floods, and recommend
ing that Congress increasetO 81, ,000. 900 the
Appropriation for the relief of the sufferers,
and it was referred to the Committee on
appropriations.
On motion of Mr.. Singleton, of Missis-
slppi, the Senate bill for the construction
OF library building was taken up from
the Speakers table and referred to ihe
Committee on the Library.
The House then resumed consideration
OF the contested election case of Chalmers
against Manning.
Mr.: Belford, of Colorado, spoke in op-
pOsitlon to the admission of Mr.. Manning
IN the interest, he said, of political mo-
rality and political decency. In these
election cases the Republican party had
committed blistering Outrages only equal
ed by the Outrages committed by the
Democratic party. 1t was time that hon
est and honorable men should determine
these cases as an upright Judge would
determIne cause pending before him.
On two occasions the Democratic party.
Dy Drute force and political power, had
seated MIR. Chalmers when he had not
been elected, and now it practically re-
fused to seat him when he was elected.
and that IN the face of the fact that MIR.
Manning had confessed that he had no
case.
Mr.. Ray, Of New Hampshire, opposed
the minority resolution and the resolution
offered by MIR. Curtin, of Pennsylvania,
and supported that reported by the ma
jOrity of the Committee on Elections.
Mr.. Long, of Massachusetts, took the
same view, and asserted that the COM
mittee had not exceeded the authority
conferred upon it by the House. It had
been gravely argued that Mr. Manniug's
admissions made in his reply in the notice
OF the contest should not estOp him so far
as to deprive his constituents and his dis
trIct OF Representative. That was true.
but that was not the significance of the
admissions. The only significance of his
admissions was the piece of testimony
going to show that he was not entitled to
the seat. To say that in view of the
circumstances of the case the
decision should be confined TO
the certificate, would be to
insult the intelligence and honesty Of the
House. lie did not propose to stultify
himself by voting against half a dozen
essential facts that were known to him.
Mr.. Clardy, of Missouri, argued that there
was nothing contained in Mr. Manning's
admissions that could initiate against
his prinld fdcie right. But, even admit
ting that Mr.. Manning's right to the seat
had confessed his case. it could have no
bearing on the decision of the question.
The idea OF invoking the doctrine of es-
t0ppel in this case was a mere absurditv.
The legality of the certificate was not for
Mr.. Manning, but for the House to de-
eide.
Mr.. Coob, of Iowa, reported q resolu-
ton for seating Mr.. Manning, cOntending
that the Committee on Elections was re-
strlcted IN It's examination to the question
OF who had been returned, and the only
evidence bearing on that question was
the credentials Of the Governor of Missls-
sippi, certifying that Mr.. Manning had
been elected.
Mr.. Adams, of New York. said that
there were three reasons why Mr.. Man
ning was not entitled to a seat under the
certificate. First, because it was fraudu-
lent; second, because 1T was issued in vi
olatlOn OF an injunction of a competent
court, and third, because he had refused
and still refused to accept it.
Mr.. Randall said that there seemed to
be great disagree. .ment among the men,
n no 4 fCr aar1,ff TO. o.,, ~.
that the disagreement had passed through
the House. AS to the purpose of the
House in referring this matter to them. it
was clear that somebody ought to repre-
sent the Second district of Mississippi.
and While he conceded that a majority Of
the committee had acted fairly, honestly
and to its best judgment, he thought that
1t would be wiser and more satisfactory
that this question should be recommitted
under the resolution of Mr.. Curtin. No
injustice would be done to either party bv
this action, while a delay to decide the
prlDld fdcle case would work an Injustice
to the people of the Second Mississippi
district.
Mr.. Hepburn, of Iowa, supported the
majority resolution, and was followed bv
Mr.. Lowry, of Indiana, with an argument
on the same side of the case, asserting
that the right of the House in deciding the
~ ma AetCAC CdSc LOOk Db1O0u q mere
coming from the Governor
and examining to see whether it was not
founded on fraud or mistake.
Mr.. Hart, of Ohio, considered the doc
trine which the minority upheld, that a
certificate must be accepted even though
it was dripping with fraud, as offensive
and insulting to the intelligence of the
American people. He would never vote
to seat man under a certificate when
that certificate was issued in disregard to
the court, and by trampling under foot
every sense OF equity, decency and JUS
tice,
Pending further discussion the House
HAMILTON'S REPLY.
Defending Himself and Charging an At /
tempt to Pack Committee.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14.-The House |