The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1885-01-15
XLvIII Congress.
SENATE.

XLvIII Congress.
SENATE.
WASHINGTON, Jan. l3.-Mr. HALE
from the committee on appropriations
reported back the last naval appropia
ton bill sent over by the house, amended
by striking out all provisions for
change in existing laws. Mr.. Hale sale
he would call it up tomorrow.
Mr.. DOLPH, from the committee OF
public lands, reported favorably hous,
bill repeating the presumption, timber
culture and desert land acts, and the
modifying homestead act.
Mr.. EDMUNDS introduced a bill au
thorizing the president to appoint a
place on the retired list OF the army one
person from among those who had
been generals commanding armies OF
the United States as the general-in-
chief of said army. MIR. Edmunds eX-
pressed the hope that unanimous con-
sent would be given for immediate con-
sideration of tho bill. Every senator,
he said, would see the object, the pur-
pose and the application OF the bill. 1t
would au 'horiZe the president to appoint
General Grant to the retired list. In its
form it obviated the difficulty encoun-
tered in the Fitz John Porter case.
Mr.. COCKRELL asked that it should
lie over till tomorrow.
On motion of Mr.. HAWLEY the sem
ate took up tho Sherman-Davis resolu-
ton, and
MIR. VANCE spoke upon it. He
quoted from Gen. Sherman's letter the
illusions To finding Gov. Vance's Off
cial correspondence in tho exec
utive mansion. He said no
part of his official correspondence and
works were ever kept in the executive
mansion. The letter referred to by
Gen. Sherman was not found in the
copy book referred to, for the reason
that no such letter was ever there. He
asserted, upon the honor of gentl =
man, Ghat 40 letter making the threats
Gen. Sherman alleges to have been
made ~ as ever received by the speaker
from j. ifersUn Davis.
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Vance's re-
marks,
Mr.. HAWLEY said the purpose of
his resolution was simply to make ac-
cessible what he regarded as infOrma-
ton of historic value. He did not seek
this debate, nor did he wish to prolong
it. He had not the disposition to wan
tonly assail or eXult over
the men who had lost;
but whenever the issues were pre-
this discussion he must maintain tho
standard he had maintained in war, and
as conspirators and traitors
those who engaged in conspiracy and
treason.
The debate continued at some length,
when finally the resolution passed-52
to /.
Consideration of the Interstate COM
merce bill was resumed, the pending
question being Mr.. Browns amend
ment to the amendment of Mr.. Vance.
Mr.. Vance's amendment was that no
company be allowed to charge
a higher proportionate rate for carriage
of small than large parcels, and Mr..
Browns amendment proposed to ex
tend the principle to all mer-
camille business, and so forbid mer-
chants from charging proportionately
more for retail parcel than for a
a wholesale
Mr.. VANCE said he would have
Mr.. Browns amendment a joke
If he had not known Mr.. Brown had
never perpetrated successful joke in
his life. Laughter.]
Mr.. Browns amendment was not
agreed to.
Mr.. BAYARD opposed Mr.. Vance's
as an attempt to do what
neither congress nor any human power
could do-deprive property of its nat
ural strength and take from weakness
it's inherent defect.
Mr., SHEFFIELD and Mr.. SEWELL
also opposed the amendment, and
Mr.. VANCE defended it.
The amendment was not agreed to.
Mr.. SLATER proposed an amend
ment making all rebates unlawful.
Not agreed to.
A message was received from the
president recommending provision for
special electoral messen-
gers. Referred to the committee on APP
Also, message from the government
engineer in charge of the Yorktown
reporting its completion.
After executive session the senate adj
journed.
HOUSE.
Mr.. STOCKSLAGER, rising to ques.
ton of personal privilege, sent to the
clerks desk and had read an article in
New York Sun, charging
The committee on public buildings with
to pass bills for the erection
of public buildings, involving
Sis, 100000, and giving Mr.. Randall
great credit for fighting and exposing
the job. The statement in the article,
said Mr.. Stockslager, is not true. The
amount involved in the bills was not
$l5, 600, 900, but $6,227,OOO. The assertion
binding together of these bills, SO far as
it referred to him or to his committee,
was wholly Jgratuitous, entirely I'M
called for, and utterly false.
The SPEAKER laid before the house
q message from the president, trans
mitting the report of the government
directors of the Union Pacific Railway