National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-06-02

Tlno bllls
On motion OF Mr.. Miller, the Senate
promptly passed the bill extending the
elghthour law to letter carriers.
The remainder of the morning hour was
devoted TO the consideration OF the North
ern Pacific land forfeiture bill, Messrs.
Dolph and George delivering speeches
thereon.
At o'clock, Mr.. George still having the
floor. the matter went over until to-day,
and the bankruptcy bill was placed before
the Senate.
after Mr.. Hoar, by unanimous consent,
had secured some verbal amendments TO
the bill, Mr.. George moved TO strike out
all the sections that provide for involuntary
proceedings IN bankruptcy. Mr.. George
said he was willing to vote for bill that
would allow an unfortunate debtor to
start again In life by a surrender OF his
property and getting an acqulttal He was
not willing TO vote for any scheme Of In
voluntary bankruptcy, especially when
characterized by the harsh proceedings
provided for by this bill. The theory of
the bill, Mr.. George said, seemed to DO
That every man who became insolvent was
either knave or afool. That was not
correct theory; calamities, for which they
were not responsible, sometimes overlook
the most efficient and energetic business
men-oalamities sometimes induced by the
government, sometimes by the agents Of
the government-tbe banks. Putting such
men into bankruptcy, and taking the man
agement Of their business out OF their own
hands and putting IL In the hands OF a
court, was the worst possible thing TO do.
Mr.. Hoar believed the bill secured a more
neull 1T To-. I.l Ia,
terests than 1t was possible for the debtor
to secure without the bill. He instanced
number Of conditions and rights which the
bill secured for the debtor. Among those, he
stated that the bill gave the man his free
dom; II gave him $500 to put in his pocket
II gave his family a maintenance for six
months, and It saved his estate from being
"gobbled up" by one creditor after another,
thus having his burdens increased by heavy
costs. II also gave day laborer lien for
his wages before payment of the other
creditors. The only thing 1t did not do was
that Il did not allow aShylock to say to the
debtor, ~ will get all this property for my
self' without regard to the rights Of either
the debtor or the other creditors.
Mr.. Hoar moved to lay Mr.. Georges
amendment on the table.
Before the announcement of the vote on
this motion, It being clear that the reeult
would be strongly against It, Mr.. Hoar
Mtbutu luO pObbDOuCu ~
seemed to him, be said, that the opinion OF
the Senate was against the fundamental
feature Of the bill, and II he should be OF
that opinion oday he might move to post.
pone the bill until December. He did not
wish to do that without consultation with
his colleagues on the committee reporting
the bill. He asked unanimous consent that
the bill be postponed until today.
Mr.. Coke objected,
The vote ON Mr.. Hoar's motion was
yeas IA, nays 25. So the Senate declined
to lay Mr.. Georges amendment on the
table.
The bill then went over until to-day.
A resolution offered by Mr.. George was,
at hls own suggestion, allowed to lie over
one day, providing for the recommittal to
the committee on the judiciary Of the bank
ruptcy bill, with instructions to so amend
1t as to provide for voluntary proceedings
only.
On motion Of Mr.. Plumb, the Senate then
took up the bill "to prevent the acquisition
Of real property by aliens"
Mr.. Plumb said he would personally
prefer. to have had a bill In some respects
more restrictive than the present one, but
the bill represented the views OF the com
mittee on public lands The bill was passed.
MI. Sherman called up the supplemental
Chinese immigration bill-that which ex-
plains the meaning OF the original bills on
the same subject passed In 1882 and 1884.
Mr.. Mitchell supported the bill, not as
being the best bill that could be passed by
Congress on the Chinese immigration
question, but as being the best that this
Congress would probably pass. The pres
ent bill he believed to be very great i'm.
provement on former legislation ON the
subject. He believed that the proper rem
edy for our Chinese troubles, however, was
an enactment Of absolute exclusion.
The bill was passed as reported from the
committee. -.r-
Mr.. Sherman called up the bill to indem-
Nifty the Chinese for losses incurred by the
rot at Rock Springs, Wyo.
Mr.. Sherman did not suppose that any
ne would object to the passage OF this bill
who had read the Presidents message and
the official correspondence relating to the
subject. After briefly explaining the cir
cumstances OF the riot, Mr.. Sherman said
that in three different instances the United
States had enforced against the Chinese
government the same rule that was applied
IN this bill. The Chinese government had
responded In every case.
Mr.. Cockrell asked whether those cases
had been cases Of foreigners IN China as.
~ saulting Americans In that country.
Mr.. Sherman said the distinction at
tempted TO be drawn by Mr.. Cockrell was
not to the point The committee on foreign
relations had unanimously agreed on this
bill; He (Mr. shermanl regarded i as good
ity, TO reimburse the injured parties.
Mr.. Cockrell did not think the United
States taxpayers should be made to pay
damages for the torts and malicious acts OF
Bohemians imported az serfs by the same
corporations that had imported Cinnamon,
also as serfs, TO interfere with American
labor. No principle Of law, equity, or
morality required this indemnity.
Mr.. Edmunds said We could not escape
our responsibility by saying that the wrong
doors In this instance were BohemiSns. 1t
was not question OF who the wrongdoers
were. The persons who suffered were
under the projection OF the United States.
demnity from China, We should have the
manhood aud the honor 10 do all we could
to repair the wrong done In this case.
Even this administration, conservative as
II was-he would not use any offensive
phrase-recommended this measure.
Mr.. Mitchell saw no principle of lnterna-
tional law or treaty provision to justify
the measure. There had never been Sec
rotary OF State who had not argued against
the legal liability OF the United States In
such cases. This measure II adopted
would be mere piece OF charity.
Mr. Ingalls, asked whether Mr.. Mitchell
was opposed TO the idemnity as a matter OF
charity.
Mr.. Mitchell replied that he was de
cidedly. We were getting on our knees
before the government OF China. He (Mr
Mitchell) wanted to speak against the bill
but was not prepared at the moment with
the figures, &C., necessary to enable him &c
do so fully.
Mr.. Sherman said Mr.. Mitchell had al
ready occupied several hours on different
occasions talking on this Chinese question
lie thought It was stretching the courtesy
Of the Senate TO ask another day for an
other speech. The Presidents arguments
Mr.. Sherman said, were sound, and wei
all he wanted.
Mr.. Cockrell criticised Mr., Edmunds's ref
erence TO the administration as beng a sly
attempt to cast an imputation on Demo