The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1888-01-21
SPRINGER AND KELLY SPARRING.
THE THOEBECARLISLE CONTEST
ED ELECTION CASE.
Debate Over the Action nj the Commit
tee-So ouorum-The Republicans
Refrain from Voting.

| WASHINGTON, January 2O--On mo
ton of Mr.. Payson, of Illinois, bill wa,
passed providing that letters patent ant
copyrights may. by direction OF the Sec
retary of the Interior, be signed by one
of the assistant secretaries.
| Mr. Dunnam. of Illinois, presented q
memorial of the National Board oi
Trade now in session at Washington, in
favor of adequate appropriations for the
improvement of navigable rivers and
harbors, Referred.
A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr.. Springer, of Illinois, rising to a
question of privilege, sent to the Clerk
desk and had read an extract from a
speech made yesterday by Mr.. Kelly, of
Pennsylvania, to the effect that a MEM
Der of the Congress which had made the
| appropriation for the Philadelphia Cen
tennial (and who was a member of the
present House) had claimed a fee of
$4,000 for having acutely inserted a
clause in the bill making the loan upon
which he could go into the court and
| enforce its payment.
4 Mr.. Springer explained his connec-
| ton with the Philadelphia appropriation.
As originally drawn the bill in effect do
mated 81 800 900, for the Centennial Ex-
hibition, but at Mr.. Springer's instance
a clause was inserted making it a loan.
After the exposition was ended and the
time for settlement came, there was
disposition to claim this amount as the
property of the stockholders of the ex-
position. Mr.. Springer had called the
attention of the Attorney General to the
provisions of the bill, and at the Attor-
ney Generals solicitation. he (SpriIiger)
had argued the case before the Supreme
Court. The result was a decision that
the 81, 500, 900 was a loan and it was re-
paid to the United States. Springer had
filed his petition asking that his case be
referred to the Court of Claims for de-
termination whether his services had
been of value; but his claim had never
been acted on.
KELLY REFUSES TO RETRACT.
Mr.. Kelly declined to retrsct his state
ment of yesterday, reaffirming his
opinion that no man was entitled to
fee in litigation which he had ensen-
dared.
INQUIRING CATEGoRICALLY.
Mr.. Springer inquired categorically
whether the gentlemen insisted that he
had claimed fee for the insertion of the
amendment.
MR.. KEI.LY'S REPLY.
Mr.. Kelly replied that he did not
think that the gentlemen claimed a fee
for inserting that clause. What he
meant to say was that. knowing the
purport of his own clause, the gentle
man was the one man among fifty mil
lion American citizens who felt that the
subscribers to the exposition stock ought
to be made to pay. and who following
his own tracks hunted them until he
stripped them of their investment, pa
triotic as it was.
HIS PRoUDEST RECORD.
Mr.. Springer replied that if the gentle
man stated that he demanded n fee for
inserting the clause he stated what was
not true. III gentleman meant to say
that he pur, ued the case with all the
skill and ability of which he was posses
sed, he admitted it. 1t was the proudesr
record he had made since he had been a
member of Congress-. and that was the
opinion of his constituents, who had re-
turned him six times since he had made
the record.
PROTECTION OF AMERICAN INDUSTRY.
Mr.. O'Neill, of Pennsylvania, presented
resolutions of the Board of Trade of Phil
adelphia. insisting upon the necessity of
a tariff for the protection of American
industry. Referred.
THoEBE-CARLIsLE CASE.
Consideration of private business was
of Georgia. called up the Thoebe-Car-
Isle contested election case.
Mr.. Crisp opened the debate by review
ing the proceedings before the Com
mittee on Elections with regard to the
reopening of the case. He justified the
ma ajority of the committee in deciding
that the case should not be reopened.
The contestant had submitted affidavits
charging fraud, and the contestee sub
mitted affidavits and records in reply,
which in the minds of the people over
whelminsly established the fact that if
the case were reopened the contestant
could not prove single charge he had
made.
| REPUBLICANS VIEW.
Mr.. Lyman, of Iowa, knew of no rea-
son why the House should not reopen
the case. Grave charges had been made
| by the contestant in affidsvits-ex parte
| affidavits, il was true-and they had
| been answered by other ex-parte affida-
Wits. Strong efforts had been made To
| prevent an investigation of these
! charges. Were the contestee and his
friends afraid of the truth! Did his
friends doubt their ability to go into he
Sixth District of Kentucky and establish
beyond controversy that the charges of
the contestant Were not true? The fact
that there was such a constant determin-
| alton that the events of the election
4 should not be investigated suggested to
hiss mind that there was something
wrong
| FAILED OF SUBSTANTIATION.
Mr.. Cooper, of Ohio, spoke in support
of the majority report There should be
some time during members term when
he should be free from the dread of