Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-02-24
Open ap The ohIAhsua lands i t..

Randall moved that tie Hooss es IN.
committee of the Whole fos further con
sidsration Of the Naval Appropriation
I'LL. and, thouQh opposed by the sup
portsfs Of the River and Hsrbor bill
the motion was carried by yeas I36. nav
LIS, and the Hsoss vent INTO commits.
as indicated
Lang concluded his speech In SUP
port Of the proposition 20 increase tks
navy. He said be thoaaht he spoke fol
his side Of the House when he said b
was ready 10 engage in the work Of
banding az the navy. even IL that vorh
took place under Q Democratic admin
issrssion, and the prestige Of ressorinE
tns navy 10 ifs former glory attached te
that administration.
Hewitt Of New Ycrk vas ready &c
vote e30.OO0.000 for the restoration o.
toe American Navy. Il vas a s1m the
Governments vas bound 70 expend
within the next I'VE years, and be was
willing 10 give pledge today that the
American Congress had the patriotism
20 vote the necessary money.
Cannon. while be wanted an Amsri
can navy, did not consider the pending
bill proper and orderly way for secur-
ing one. be criticized the provision
for the creation OF board composed
IN part Of civilians. and the consequent
abeiftion of the present Naval Advisory
Board. The only result Of the bin
would be the building Of four ships at a
cost of-the Lord only knows what. He
wanted Q navy, bot he did net see any
means Of getting 1t by the plan pro.
posed, and II IL were not that the gen.
tlemen from Pennsylvania and New
York randall and HutchinsJ had the
reputation Of being candid, hsnest
men, he should say they wanted 10 re-
sort to 9 subterfuge 20 prevent the
building OF a navy. He wanted the
Democratic administration to be an
honest one, but such q reckless sppro-
priation of money as was proposed
would wreck any administration and
debaaeh any service.
Holman saw no necessity for any
haste In building navy, and thought
Congress should wait until the new
cruisers were completed and their utility
demonstrated.
Tovnshend expressed bis readiness 10
respond TO the demand OF the people for
rebuilding the American navy, and his
anxiety to the see flag hoatiBg aboard a
navy a. formidable as when borne on
land, bat be could not see why the Dem
ociatic party In this House should be-
come so quickly panic stricken and
should leap from the conservative
policy which they had followed 90 many
years into the opposite extreme. There
fore be would move at the proper time
TO limit the amount for rebuilding the
navy 20 100000. de regarded the
proposition as q vote Of want Of conf
denee in the ability and integrity Of the
future President and Secretary Of the
Navy. IL would result IN opening the
doers Of the Treasury 10 John Roach,
and would in effect substitute him to the
full extent Of $l50,000, 900. the surplus
which remained In the Treasury.
Hiscock favored buildinR up the navy,
but opposed the plan brought forward
by the Committee on Appropriations.
Reed said this was an astonishing
proposition. Both In matter and man
neF II indicted and convicted the next
administration Of incompetsncy before
II was born. He ridiculed the compo-
sitiop Of the proposed board and the
duties assigned II. The board wss TO
give prizes. The hrst prize What for
For q vessel We we're going 10 bald.
The second pFize-What for For a
vessel We we're not going to build.
Laughter. That was consistent With
the life of the Democratic party. IL
was always giving ehromo for ineom
potency.
Thomas opposed the proposition to
build the hnlls of four vessels at unlim-
tied cost. Ii vas not known whether
they we're 10 be Of wood, iron or steel,
or whether they we're TO be frieates, gun
boats or rams. There vas net one cent
given for guns. or for machinery, or for
rigging. There vas nothing In the
proposition bat q provision for places
for lot Of Democratic politicians who
are alleged naval architects.
Keller opposed tue provisions Of the
bill a. they would not give the country
q navy.
Randall said an effort had been made
20 create the impression that the Demo
cratic party vas hostile 10 the navy. Its
history was the reverse. Farther effort
had been made TO show that the Com.
mitttee ON Appropriations ct the last
session had been hostile to building up
the navy. This be denied and appealed
to the record Of that committee 90 sus
tain that denial. He argued In support
OF the pending provisions Of the bill.
II they were faulty In details. they
could be corrected. He for one did not
object 10 q Limitation Of the appropria-
ton, II the limitation was large enough
TO make 1t certain the desired result
would be secured. Il Wss an exception
10 make an unlimited appropriation,
and he was not afraid 20 make an sx-
ception when q great national result
was TO be achieved and the honor Of the
nation 10 be elevated. He was poor
representative who would not do the
same thing Rnder the circumstances.
McAdoo gave notice that he would
oaer an amendment for the rehabilita.
ton Of the navy yards, ~ that in baild-
ing an American navy OF American ma.
tsrial, IL might be built In American
navy yards
Ellis gave bis perfect adherence to
the plan for the reconstruction of the
navy proposed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Randalil.
This closed the general debate on the
second section Of the bill, and Thomas
raised point Of order against the sec-
ton, that 10 changed existing lag, and
Vas not In the interest Of economy.
Stone raised further point, that the
subject matter OF the section should
have been property reported BY the
Committee on Naval Affairs, and
vas NOT within the Jurisdiction
Of She Appropriation Committee.
The chair declined 10 rule on this latter
point OF order, but sustained that raised
b. Thomas sad the section was stricken
from the bill.
Randall then wished 10 postpone the
further consideration 81 the bill for the
present. and 70 proceed 70 the eonsidera-
dion Of the deficiency bill. bat an objss-
ton was made.
Taihot ofIered an amendment ammo