The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1888-08-07

WASHINGTON, July 31.--In the house, Mrs
Dibble, of South Carolina, called up the
conference report on the Omaha. Neb., public
building bill. The bill, as originally passed
by the senate, limited the cost for site and
building TO 100000. The house amended
this by fixing the limit for site at 100000,
without making any provision for the building
aud site, with further proyiso that the site
shall not exceed in cost 100000
Mr.. Crisp, Of Georgia, severely criticised the
practice which, lac said, had grown up of
house conferences yielding to senate conferen-
Cos i'll the matter OF public buildings, without
even semblance of insisting on the wishes OF
the house. The house had the right TO expect
that its conferences would endeayor TO support
and maintain the views Of the house; and If
the conlerees in this case had cndeavored ~
do so, the house had 40 information OF it.
This case presented such daring instance
Of the absolute defeat of the will of the house,
that he felt it his duty to cali attention to it.
There seemed to be an idea in the house that
because there was large amount Of money i'll
the treasury all kinds Of schemes should 60
through in order TO take it out. Bills were in
troduced for public buildings in towns so insig-
nificant that there could be no reason for hope
in the mind Of the introducer, except the fact
that such measures were not very carefully
considered and that there was large surplus
III the treasury.
Mr.. Dibble replied 60 what he termed the
lecture which the gentleman had given the
house conlcrees for their alleged delinquency
of duty. The question between the
two houses was not question Of
amount. 1T was question Of policy whether
to provide for site and building, or Ear n site
alone. After three conferences the commit
tee had decided upon what was substantially
a compromise The house yielded to the sem
ate in providing for n site and building, while
the senate had agreed to the house proposition
limiting the cost Of the site to 100000. 1t
vas 10 surrender On the part Of the house, and
he repealed the insinuation that the house
conierees had been unmndful OF their duty
as servants Of the house, or had been reckless
in their assaults upon the public treasury.
Mr. Crisp ridiculed the claim that tie con-
ference report was in the nature Of a coInpro-
mise and argued that II was a complete
surrender to the senate.
After argument by MIR. Dorsey, Of Nebraska,
In favor Of its adoption, the report was re-
iected-yeaS 81, nays ", and the bill was again
sent to the conference.
Mr. Bount, OF Georgia, argued that under
the rules Of the house the subject Of fortifica-
tons came under the jurisdiction OF the APP
preparation committee and was subject with
which the committee on military affairs had
nothing TO do The action Of the senate sought
TO set those rules at naught. Something was
due from that iron body ut the other end Of the
capitol 10 the representatives Of the Ameri-
can people. Was IL worthy Of the senate 10
attempt to do that thing? Was IT worthy Of
the house 10 submit to H.? Ho wanted
to see the house conierecs Instructed
10 inform tie senate oonierees that
the house would never yield. lie would a
thousand times rather see the army bill fail
than see the senate dominating this body. lie
was willing TO resort " every parliamentary
method 10 prevent perpetration Of this OUT
rage Of the house.
Mr. Reed, n Maine, characterized as absurd
the position taken by the gentleman from
Georgia. That position was taken because the
rules Of tho house sent certain bills 70 certain
committees, thesanate must conform 10 those
rules in the amendment Of those bills. The
position was IN conflict not only with the SEN
ate-that the house could stand-but with
common sense--and that the house could not
stand. He then spoke Of the importance Of
the proposed legislation. lie admitted that
there was not one chance In a hundred Of war,
but II war should come, the United States
would undergo national humiliation.