National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-04-03

Mr. Grain, OF Texas member OF the
committee on labor, defended the bill
against the adverse criticism, aud argued
In support Of its constitutionality.
Mr. WorthingtOn, Of llliuOis, was dis
posed to vote for the bill, but he could not
but feel that there was possibility that 10
would go out TO the world a legislative
nondescript, which bore on its face an apol-
tgy fer lis own existence.
Mr. Tarsrey, OF Michigan, member OF
the committee on labor, defended the bill,
which appealed to the highest arbitration
there was in the land-to public opinion
and public Judgment
Mr. Anderson, of Kansas, said that the
labor question in it's broad sense was not
the real question at issue, but that the real
question pressing upon Congress was
whether legislation should be enacted to
compel common carriers to perform their
obligations. The great problem TO be
solved was the protection OF the people
during the great struggles between capital
and labor. His opposition to the bill was
that It was purely temporary measure.
Mr.. Long, OF Massachusetts,, regarded the
bill as n well.drawn measure. II was In
line with prudent legislation and sound
thinking, and was applicable to the present
exigency. II was wise measure In what
II did not attempt to do, quite as much us
in what It did attempt to do, and 1t ought
the committee had reported II.
Mr.. Bound, OF Pennsylvania, looked upon
the bill as establishing a poor mans court,
and therefore advocated Its passage.
Mr.. Cannon, of Illinois, earnestly sup
ported the bill, and thought that II would
be effective Of much good.
In closing the debate Mr.. O'Neill, Of Mis-
souri,, said that every compulsory law placed
| on the statute books OF any country had
proven a failure. The desired result could
only be secured by Cancellation. When pnb-
Tic opinion was behind measure II was
powerful.
In speaking TO verbal amendment, Mr..
Hammond, of Georgia, attacked the bill,
which, he asserted, instead Of being bill to
protect labor, was one to prevent strikes,
In the interest of the corporations and at
the expense of the United States.
Mr.. Kelley, OF Pennsylvania, said that,
by his remarks yesterday, he did not mean
that the gentlemen on the committee on
| labor had deliberately perpetrated a trick
and fraud. He knew that gentlemen,
who could submit this bill to the working
men Of the country as q provision for the
| speedy settlement Of employers and en-
ployes, were quite too innocent to .deliber-
| ately attempt fraud or trick. Laugh
ter. "Mr. Powderly had done more TO ad-
vance the principle OF arbitration than all
| the frothy eloquence that he (Mr. Kelley
and his associates had uttered yesterday and
to-day"
Mr.. Powderly's paper had been read and
considered by the heads Of corporations,
and they had said, "if this is the spirit Of
workingmen we must regard it.n For
many years he (Kelley) had denounced as
| frauds and tricks just such bills rs this
which pretended to be In the interest of the
workingmen but which were not OF any
practicable benefit to them. He had seen
so many frauds and tricks perpetrated on
workingmen that he had incontinently used
the words for which he now apologized to
the innocent members Of the committee on
labor.
Pending vote on Mr.. O'Neill's motion
to limit to one minute all debate on the
first section Of the bill the House lat 5:4s
o'clock) adjourned.