The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-01-17

ton. 1t was admitted also that this dis
elimination was made for the purpose Of
encouraging the expectation OF grain by
way OF Montreal; but Canadian officials
claimed that such discrimination was not
in violation of treaty rights. II was as
serted that so long as the Canadian gov
ernment did not discriminate against
American vessels as such, but only against
American ports, there was no such viola
ton. This ground Mr.. Dingley contended
TO be untenable. He had offered the res
olution in the hope that at an early day
the President would call the attention OF
the British authorities to this discrimina-
ton in violation of treaty, and in order
that Congress might be informed OF the
facts and take such action as il might con-
slider advisable. The resolution was
adopted.
Mr.. Richardson of Tennessee, chairman
OF the committee on printing, submitted
the report of that committee on the Gros-
venor resolution directing il to inquire
into the cause OF the delay in supplying TO
members copies OF the daily Record. The
report contains letter from the public
printer stating that delay has only hap
pened upon two occasions, and in each
case was caused by failure OF the clerks
Office of the House to furnish copy until n
late hour. There is also letter from the
clerk OF the House stating that this failure
was due 10 the immense number of private
bills introduced through the petition box.
tlemcn that there will be no delay in the
future in the delivery Of the Record.
Mr.. Hopkins, OF Illinois, moved TO re-
mai th.. ,.s;g 40.
the committee 10 extend its inquiry TO the
delay in the printing OF bills and other
public documents.
Mr.. Springer, of Illinois, defended the
public printer, and asserted that ii there
was any delay in the printing Of the bills
II was due entirely TO the large number Of
measures introduced.
MIR. Grosvcnor, OF Ohio, criticised the
printing Office for the tardincss with which
the printing required by Congress was fur
nished -
Mr.. Rodgers, of Arkansas, regarded this
criticism as u part and parcel Of the ar
raignment Of the Democratic party before
II came into power. Before the election
the country was going 10 the "dcmnition
bow-wows" II the Democrats were success
ful. But they had waggcd along through
couple OF years without any serious COM
plants having been made. The treasury
hadn't been raided, the soldiers had been
taken care Of, the public debt was being
paid of and the country seemed 10 bc
safe. But there was always somebody Ia
complain Of something. II gentlemen de
sired 20 investigate the acts Of any public
officer they ought 10 ask for the investiga-
ton in manly way.
Mr.. Grosvenor inquired OF Mr.. Springer
whether there was anytruth IN the remark
that he had heard that at the request Of
certain members the public printer had
printed their bills out Of the regular order.
Mr.. Springer denied having any inior-
nation on the subject
Mr.. Cox, OF New York, thought that
the House aud its committees were largely
responsible for the delay in printing.
During the last fiscal year the public
printer had disposed Of large amount Of
pressing ordered by previous Congresses
most OF II improvidcnt
Mr.. Henderson, OF Illinois, referred 10
the fact that the engineers reports were
not yet printed, and charged il either Ia
the incllicicncy Of the public printer or 10
u failure on the part OF the engineers Of
flee TO furnish the reports.
Mr.. blanchard, of Louisiana, stated that
the delay In the printing Of these reports
was due 10 the fact that they had not been
received at the printing office at NJ carly n
day rs they should have been.
Mr.. McNillin, OF Tennessee. declared
that II was the custom OF the public printer
90 print bills in the regular order Oi their
introduction. lie thought that Congress
was 10 blame for the delay Of the printing
office, because IL ordered the printing OF
quantities OF stuff which none hut q crank
would write and none but a fool would
read
Mr.. Grosvenor. referring 10 Mr.. Rodgers
remarks, suggested that that gentleman
didn't agree with the statement made to
the House on the sccon1 day of the scs-
sion that there was hangingOycr the coun-
try porientious cloud, about 10 break In
thunder storms and earthquakes Of COM
mercial disaster and cyclones Of CONNER
cial ruin.
Mr.. Hopkins motion was defeated -
yeas, l31; nays, li0; the report Of the COM
mittcc on printing agreed TO- and the COM
miitce discharged from the further consid-
cnition Of the subject
ON motion Of Mr. Richardson q rcsolu-
ton wis adopted directing the committee
on printing 10 inquire what amount II do
laycd work ordered by formcrlnws remains
at the printing Office, and II Il Is iound that
the work is not worth carrying out 10 ~
port bill repeating such former laws.
WHEAT BOUNTY.
The wheat bounty bill introduced by
| Representative Iandcs proposes 81 rcduct'
81
per bushel on all wheat exported 10 for
oign countries.
SOLDIERS PAY.
Representative Hovey, Of Indiana, In
iroduced bill in the House 10 pay soldiers
oi the late war n sum equal 10 10 per cent.
Of the amount Of their original pay, to
make good the difference between the
value Of the grccnbacks, In which they
were paid, and tho gold coin in which the
| greenbacks were eventually redeemed.
Under the call of States the following
bills and resolutions were introduced and
| referred:
by Mr.. Rodgers, Of Arkansas For the
protection Of United States officials in the
Indian Territory; also TO protect Indian
! lands from unlawful grazing
By Mr.. Iandcs, Of Illinois To reduce
the treasury surplus and to grant bouniies
10 wheat growers.
by Mr.. Anderson, Of Illinois 10 o..
tablish national cemeterya at Quincy, III.
By Mr. Cannon, OF Illinois For the re-.
lief Of purchasers Of swampand oycrilowcd
lands.
By Mr. Baker, Of Illinois For the cree.
tion Of public building at East ~. Louis.
BY Mr.. Mason, Of illinois, To provide
4 "A. Z. ...ii.n,..n,,l nI IiniInl GIninn I.nuIa