The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1888-12-20

OgniZed the Senator from North Carolina. Mr.
Vance had not proceeded far in his argument
when point of order" was again raised by
Mr.. Riddleberger The Presiding Officer Mr.
Ingallsl asked Mr.. Vance to pause until the
point of order should be stated.
And take his seat, interrupted Mr.. Riddle
| berger.
"The Chair will attend to the enforcement
Of the rules Of order" said the Presiding OIL
Ger, in a tone of rebuke. 1.-The Senator from
Virginia will state his point of order"
Mr.. RiddlebergeT did not persist much fur
Their, but stated his point Of order-to the effect
that the morning business had not been gone
through with. The Presiding Officer declared
that the point was not we'll taken, aud directed
the Senator from Virginia to take his seat. Mr.
| Riddleberger however, did not comply with
the order, but persisted in his objection.
Z" If the Senator from Virginia does not take
his seat" said the Presiding Officer, in asevere
and resolute manner 1.-THE Chair will call on
the Executive Officer of the Senate to enforce
the rules"
Mr.. Coke's amendment was rejected by a
strict party vote.
The Senate went into Executive Session, and
adjourned at 4:30 o'clock p. m. until Monday,
Dec II.
In the House, after the morning hour, the
Committee of the Whole proceeded to the con-
sideration of the Oklahoma bill. Mr.. Payson
(Ill.i offered the following amendment:
1t IS expressly provided that the rights of hon
orablydischarged Union soldiers and sailors in the
late civil war to make homes the public lands
under the existing homestead laws shall in any
degree be impaired by the passage of this bill and
the right of such hunorably discharged Union sol
diers and sailors to make homestead entry and
perfect the same by occupancy under the existing
homestead law shall extend 10 any and all lands
which shall be open to any settlement by the pro-
visions of this bill.
Mr.. PaysOn in explaining his amendment
said that under existing law every hOnOrabiy-
discharged Union soldier had the right. when
he, in good faith goes upon piece of public
land not exceeding $50 acres in area, the sur
veys composing it being of compact form aud
| makes his home upon it for five successive
years less the term that he was in actual sery-
ice, to have the Government of the United
States make him title 10 that land. That is
existing law. Prior to the passage Of section
23O5 of the Revised Statutes soldier, like any
body else, was compelled 10 reside for Eve years
on the land before a title could issue to him.
Mr.. Weaver Iowa said he yielded to no
man in his devotion to those who followed the
flag daring the war, bat thought this a propo-
sItiOn to stab the bill under the pretense Of
fayoring the Union soldier.
Mr.. Warner MOI opposed the amendment,
and said he thought he had some acquaintance
with the wishes of the soldiers of the country
He believed the men who fought the battles of
the country, the old soldiers we talk so much
about, simply ask justice at the hands of Con-
gress. They want legislation that shall apply
to all, They are not beggars and he hoped to
God they never would be. They ask no aims
| They simply demand justice, and he hoped
there would soon be a elapping of hands on
each side of this Chamber, when the Govern
ment of the United States shall do equal justice
to the men who preserved the Union, when
adequate pension legislation will be enacted.
lie opposed this amendment in the interest of
the soldiers upon whose backs it was tackled
and claimed to be in theirinterests. He believed
the soldiers would be benefited by the opening
of this Territory, but they do not want this
| measure killed by pretended friends Gentle
men might take their course. but he stood upon
the record as opposed to the amendment as a
man who did some little fighting for this coun-
try and who has the right at least to speak as
a soldier.
AIr. Cutcheon (Mich.) favored the amend
ment, and thought it should be adopted in the
interest of the soldier element of the country,
as it was no more than just that the eouutry's
defenders should have the benefits which are
now allowed them by the homestead laws, even
if the Government has to buy these lands from
the Indians