Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-02-14

SENATE

NDL ulktee on PRIVILEGES aud Electious
fspertsd resolution allowing Georrs
Z Spencer, formerly Senator from Ala.
bans, k1l3z, being bis actual and ne-
eessary expenses ia maintaining his tfsle
to his sat.
sauis5nFy said, a. a. mhsr OF the
COMMITTEES. be did no -oneur n the
resolution
On the objection Of Cocksriu the rss-
ol1tfoa vent over one DAY.
Hoar. FROM the Conferences Commit
tee on the Electoral Count bill. reported
the House and Senate conferences una
Ole 90 agres. The disAzrsement, Hoar
SAID, had taken place in the hrs, week
Of the session.
The Texas Paci6c land grant forfeit
are bill. the pending spsclal order, vas
placed before the Senate.
Blair asked unanimous consent 70
take up the aIti-foreiRn contract labor
bill.
Van Wyek declined to yield. He said
the senate and the country understood
the nature of the bill. He did not wish
TO Pot II IN further peril. IL bad b<en
II peril already. II had boen displaced
by taking up another bill, whose princi-
pal feature made IL impossible 10 get the
concurrence of the other House. The
principal features of this forfeiture bill
we're 50 pl Iin that. If Van Wyck might
be allowed, he would say that they had
been passed by the House of Represent
stives almost unanimously.
The chair said IL vas not in order TO
make references TO the proceedings of
the House Of Representatives.
Van Wyok said he merely wanted to
get an idea in SOME way before the SEN
ate. Some things, Van Wyck said, were
very remaTkAole. The vely moment a
land grant forfeiture bill doomed up in
this body, terror seized in some direc-
lions. The bill was demanded by the
consent of the American
people. There was st least unanimity.
There had or had not been unanimity
In the other place which he Wan Wyck)
had not been permitted TO refer to. We
could not juRgle in 4 double sense with
4 matter of this kind. The people had
and the platforms OF both
political parties had demanded that
there should be action in the direction
Of this bill; prompt and speedy action
Every days delay imperilled the bill.
IL VIC old soeD be met by appropriation
would by long speeches be able to pre-
vent its consideration. Only one of the
forfeiture bills had been able to get
'hrouRh Congress, and that was a bill
hat the railroad company itself had
been anxious to get passed. Had the
forgotten the celebrated letters
written by the celebrated historian
OF the Central Pacific, as
70 what was done about the Texas Paci-
&c when he was lobbying hereI We
should be adm0nished by that history to
furnish no opportunity for any other
historian like Huntington, or possibly
himself, 20 duplicate or re-
produce q similar historical chapter.
Van wyck wished t. say this much now,
because be did not know whether, owing
20 rules" and the processes of obstruc
ion, he would have chance TO say any
hing more ON the subject.
Blair moved that the Senate proceed
o the consideration of the labor bill.
Van Wyek asked the Chair II this would
1ot again displace the Texas Pacific for
'eiture bill and releRate it to the calen-
lar.
The Chair said it would.
Van wyek-" Then l want that dis |
inctly understood"
Van Wyck called Or the yeas and nays
IN Blair's motion and it was agreed to, |
Ieas 30, nays 10. The labor bill was |
therefore, taken up aud its consideration |
proceeded with. The detailed vote was |
u follows: yeas-Aldrich, Allison, Blair, |
Bowen. Call, Conger, Cullom, Dawes,
Oolph, Edmunds. Frye. Hale, Harrison,
dawley. Howe, Ingalls,, jackson, Lap |
lam, Henderson, Mitchell, Morgan,
Morrill,, Palmer, Pike, Plat, Pugh, |
sawyer, Sewell, Sherman and Wilson
Nays:-Bayard, Beck, Butler, Cam
ron Wis. }, Cockerell. Coke, FAIR. Gar
and, Hampton. Hill. Jonas, Jones |
Fla.), haxey, Miller (Cal.), Slater, |
lance, Van Wyck, Vest and Williams
The labor bill Is House bill and is |
AN act to prohibit the impor- |
stiou and migration Of foreigners and |
Iliens under CONTROL or agreement to |
,erform labor In the United States, its |
Territories and the District of Colum- |
,ia."
Considerable debate arose on the bin. !
dawley thought IL would prevent people |
rom coming here even a. colonists.
Blair said the working Glasses should |
10 protected from the ELECTS of import |
d gangs of laborers. In the course Of |
lis remarks Blair alleded 20 the recent |
in the Hooking Valley, |
ghich were attribsted TO the GLASS Of |
,eople that this bill would exclude. |
fhese disturbances bad already resulted |
n the loss of Si.O00000.
Ingalls, said be sympathized with |
dawiey in his regard for natural rights, |
nut we are confronted with o porten- |
ious exiRency. We should soon be |
allied on 10 decide whether every man,
somAn and child on the face of the |
,arth, no matter in what condition of |
physical or intellectual development |
,r moral standing. las a natural right !
o come TO the United States and do |
md act as he pleased TO the detrirnent |
" those already here. There were az |
he present moment, Ingalls, said. 5O0, GOO |
wage workers in this country, who were |
die but we're willing to labor. With their |
dependant Women and children. That |
would make three million people, who |
lmid the extraordinary rigors of an |
Indictment winter are suffer |
ng for the neoessaries Of life. They |
reed shelter. They needed clothing |
hat might be manufactured from the |
nrplus production OF our factories nov |
tored in Warehouses awaiting purchas- |
re. They were In need Of the corn that |
Eas today being used for fuel on the
,lains of Nebraska, and the wheat that |
sas being fed to hogs in the |
alleys OF Kansas. The question was.
lad We right TO protect our |
lvn citizens against dangerous and |
lstrims NJ Il composition when forced |
n rs by the ambition of those desiring |
O improve THAR condition, or by the |
stupidity Of the great employers who |
IRE Indifferent a. 90 the means they EN- |
,loytd 10 swell their already eGregious /
.ains. The nations of this earth under I
his doctrine Of natural right" had |
,een dumping their paupers and cFimi- |
lals and dangerous and uneasy classes |
lpon rs until. IN Ingalls, opinion. IN
TisW Of the recent events In New York,
Apcinnati and Chicago. the tue had |
'ome 10 consider whether We might not |
v called on % modify in some degree |
lur views a. 10 tho significance OF the |
Of American Independence |
md the universal rights OF man.
Bayard did not see the present direct /
application Of Ingalls, remarks were di-
ected against the cor ununistle forces
Fhioh proposed 20 array Numbers |
against property. IL vas not, however,
" bills Of this character that such |
ores were % be met bat by measures