National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-02-15

Mr.. Mckinley presented telegram from Cleve-
land Ohio, detailing the destruction occasloned
by the Ohio floods. and recommending that con-
gress increase to 100000 the appropriation for
the relief Of the sufferers, and 1t was referred TO
the committee on appropriations.
On motion of Mr.. Singleton the senate bill for
the construction of a library building was taken
up from the speakers table and referred to the
committee on the library.
The house then resumed the consideration of
the contested election case OF Chalmers against
Manning.
Mr.. Bedford spoke in opposition to the admission
of Manning, in the interest he said OF political
morality ana political decency. In these election
eases the republican party had committed blister
ing outlages only equaled by the outrages commit
ted by the democratic party. " was time that
honest and honorable men should determine
these cases as mn upright Judge would determine
democratic party, by brute force ana political
power, had seated Chalmers when he had not been
elected and now IL practically refused to seat him
When he was elected, ana that IN lace of the fact
that Manning had confessed that he had no case.
Mr.. Ray, ofNew Hampshire, opposed the minority
resolution and the resolution offered by Mr.. Cur
tin, of Pennsylvania, and supported that reported
by the majority of the committee on elections.
Mr.. Long took the same view, and asserted that
conferred upon 1t by the house. II had been
gravely argued that Munning's admissions, made
in his reply t. the notice Of contest, should not
his district of q representative. That was true
but that was not the significance of the admissions
The only Significance was that his admissions
were piece OF testimony going to show that he
was not entitled to the seat. 10 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.
He did not propos& 10 stultify himself by voting
against the half dozen essential facts that were
known to him,
Mr.. Clardy argued that there was nothing con-
tanned in Mannng's admissions that could mill
tate against his prima iace right tO the seat. Bu
even admitting that Manning had confessed his
case II could have no bearing on the decision of
the question. The idea OF invoking the doctrine
of estOppel in this case was mere absurdty The
legality of the certificate was not for Manning,
but Tor the house, to decide.
Mr. Cook supported the resolution for the seat
ing of Manning contendlng TINT the committee
on elections was restricted III It's examination to
the question of who had been returned, aud the
only evidence bearing on that question was the
credentials OF the governor of Mississippi certify
lug that Manning had been elected.
Mr. Adams said that there were three reasons
why Manning was not entitled TO seat under
the certificate: First, because II was fraudulent;
second, because II was Issued IN violation of an
| injunction OF competent court, and third be-
cause he had refused, and still refused, to accept
| it,
| Mr. Randall said there seemed to be great dis
agreement among the members of the iommitlee
| Oh elections and that disagreement had spread
through the house, us to the purpose of the house
in referring this matter TO them. TWAS clear that
somebody ought Ia represent the second district of
| Mississippi, and while he conceded that the ma
jOrty OF the committee had acted fairly honestly,
and to It's best Judgment he thought that IL would
be far wiser aud more satisfactory that this qnes-
| ton should be reGommitled under the resolution
| of Mr.. Curtin, No injustice w6uld be done to
either party by this action, while delay u decide
| the prima fuCie case would work an Injustice TO
the people of the second Mississippi district.
Mr.. Hepburn supported the majority resolution,
ana was followed by Mr., Lowry with an argument