Orange County observer. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1880-1918, 1885-05-02
THE SILVER QUESTION.
HOW THE MEMBERS OF CONG RESS
STAND CONCERNING: 1T.
The Vote Anaiszed and the Features IL
Brought to Light.
lEyom the New York Tribune.

In the vote Of the House on the silver
question some curious features are
found. Counting the pairs announced,
285 members were recorded, 125 for Mr.
Randalls motion, and 80 against it,
while the Speaker did not vote and 40
members were absent, 90 of whom were
elected by Republican and 20 by Demo
cratic votes. Though no pairs swere
specially announced for these, probably
most OF them were paired on political
questions, but not on. the silver bill.
Two of the Republican absentees were
from Massachusetts and 3 from Ohio,
with 6 others from the West and from
the South. The absence of Mr.. Dor
sheimer of New York State, Curtin of
Pennsylvania, Hurd. Jordan and Paige
of Ohio, and Morrison and two other
members from Illinois, was noticed
among the Democrats.
Reckoning Maryland and Delaware
with the Eastern States their vote was
thus divided: For Mr. Randall's notion,
As Republicans. 39 Democrats and Mr..
Lyman total, 81. Against it, 2 Re-
publicans and 3 Democrats, includ-
ing Mr.. Bayard's representative from
Delaware total. s. The other Southern
States, including Missouri, voted as fol-
lows: For the motion, Republicans
md 10 Democrats ; total, II. Against
it, Republicans and Il Democrats !;
total, 81 The vote of the Solid South
was thus cast almost unitedly against
Mr. Cleveland's first expressed desire.
In this computation, Messrs York and
Ochiltree, who were elected mainly by
Republican votes, are reckoned with the
Republicans.
The Western vote shows curious
streaks. The entire vote of the Pacific
States, Democrats and l Republican,
was recorded for the coinage of silver
and against the motion. Kansas, Ne
braska and Colorado voted solidly
against the motion, and 6 ont OF the 7
Republicans of Iowa, with Democrats,
voted the same way. But in the north
ernmost States different division pre-
vailed; in Michigan 3 Republicans voted
for the motion, and only | voted with
6 Democrats against it; in Minnesota
| 3 Republicans voted for the motion
and only one against it. But, Gu.
rously enough, in Wisconsin Demo
cratic confidence in Mr.. Cleveland seems
70 hIx- Inv
! Cabinet hopes, for 5 Democrats from
that State voted for the motion and only
| | against it, while 2 out of 3 Repnbli-
! cans voted against it. In Ohio, 10 ou,
12Democrats voted against the motion,
all the Democrats Of Indiana and all but
| one of the Democrats Of Illinois. Thus
the vote of the West, including the Pa
! cific States, stood as follows For the
motion-15 Republicans and 9 Demo
| Gratis; total, q. Against it-2S Repub
icans and II Democrats; total, 20. Thus
with the immense preponderance of sill
yer worshiplng Democrats at the South
the majority against the motion was 81
Speaker Carlisle not voting.
It will interest many to know that o1
I22 Democrats who were paired or voted
against Mr.. Randali's motion, 79 have
been reelected, and Il have not. Blu
OF the s. Democrats who voted, or wer,
paired for the motion, only % have beer
!. reelected, and SO were not. The Re
pnblicans who have been reelected were
more equally divided, 80 for the motion
and q against it, while II Republican
and II Democrats (including Mr.
Carlisle) who were absent without de
clared pairs were reelected. OF th.
members of the next House, therefore
% did not vote, 102 voted against Mr.
Randall's motion, and only So voted TO
it. But some of the Republicans VIII,
voted against Mr.. Randall's motiol
would have supported direct an
straightforward proposition to suspen'
the coinage.