Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-06-08
xIIx. CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, June :, 1885,
renate.


Mr.. Miller moved the reference OF the
oleomargarine bill to the Committee on
Agriculture.
MIR. Morrill, said tho motion should not
,,rcyail. lie would move 10 refer II TO the
GommIitee on Finance. II IL was 10 be
considered ~ 4 revenue bill the Finance
Committee was The proper committee 10 con-
sidcr II. OF course II II was to be considered
A. fl bin on agriculture il would properly
90 10 The Committee on Agriculture.
Then cnsacd 4 long struggle over the
uCcs:iCn OF reference, the argument being
about equal in the number and earnestness
If the -ptakers 10 favor OF both the com.
rni'tces. During the debate II was charged
bv Messrs. Miller and Van Nyck tbai the
imitation. butter Interests were seeking 10
send the bill 70 the committee on Finance
In order that nothing might DC done on II.
A vote Was finally reached, giving ?. Tor
Mr.. Miller's motiol and 81 against. The
measure was referred 10 the Committee on
Agriculture. The vote In detail Is A. ioi-
lows
YEAs.-MessrS. Allison, Blair, Cameron,
Conger. Dawes, DOlph, Eyarts, haie, lar
rison, liOar, Kenua, Logan. Mcmillan. Ma
hone. Miller. Mitchell Of Oregon. sherman
Spooner, Teller, Van Wycs, Whilthorne'
and " ilson Of IOwa-22.
NAYs.-MessTs. AlGreh, Beck, Berry,
Brown, Butler, Call, Coke, Edmunds, Etis-
tie. Harris. Haw ley, Jones % Arkansas,
Msxev. Morrill,, Payne, Pugd, Eiddleber-
Ger, Vance, Vest, Waiihali, and Wilson Of
Maryland--2l.
A number q pair were announced. The
cousuiar md diplomatic appropriation bill
wss then passed. Tbs done. the Senate
procee ded aAh measures in their order on
the calendar. On reaching Mr.. Plau'S res0-
Union providing for open executive ses-
sions, the words Objected TO" were
heard. so the resolution went over.
some debate arose on the bill reported
hy Mr.. Brown, from the Committee on
Railroads, 10 provide for the settlement OF
accounts with railroad companies that had
received property from the United States
during lsG5-'t6.
Mr.. Hawley called attention 70 the re-
mort accompanying the bill. II referred.
lie said, 10 the Union army aS "the III
Vading army" lie knew there bad been
a time when the term "invading army
U-s spp(icd ia the south 10 the army OF the
Iulon before Il was found out which side
lad wLipped. He had not known that
The term was used since. He tliaWieyl
was a member 0f the Railroad Commute
and knew that the committee had ordered
The lin 10 be reported. leaving TO Mf.
Brown the matter OF writing the report
but he did not believe any committee .
majority 81 whose members We're Repubh-
cans would have consented 70 the sub
mission 10 The senate a report In which the
defenders OF the UnloD were styled can
invading army" Mr.. llawley regarded
The language Of The report Is q great dis
courtesy 10 the committee. The Senator
nom Georgia had had an opportunity -
apologize for Il, and had not done 30.
Mr.. Brown disclaimed any offence By the
words used. lie did not know that be bad
read the report 70 the commlt,ee, but he
knew that be had stated 10 the committee
the l,asl. OF the report. As TO the language
referred to, Mr.. brown did not understand
that the committee vas bound by Il. Prooa-
bly, IL was an inadyerience 10 use II under
the circumstances. II bad been common in
the South during the war to say that " the
invading army" had reached certain point,
md the language was used In that sense and
not v it'll any other meaning. IL Il was al
Rli offensive, Mr.. Brown wa quite ~iilipa
80 withdraw that Iart Of il, and TO say In.
s!,ao, s~ben the Unisn army had secured
POSSESSION II ihe stateS," or any other Ian
gusse that would be satisfactory TO the
senate.
NJ. Harrison did no, think Il proper that