Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, Ramsey Co., Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1905, 1889-02-16

mission of New Mexico should not be
made dependent on the admission OF
South Dakota. Every territory should
stand on its own bottom. (Applause.l.
MI. Springer insisted on retaining in
the bill the ~prlvision for the admission
Of New Mexico.
Mr.. Symes declared no petition had
been presented or no bill introduced
that tho people of New Mexico desired
into the Union by having q
provision tackled on the Dakota bill for
political purposes.
Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, argued.
against the exclusion Of New Mexico.
Nj. Wilson, Of Minnesota. spoke.
against the proposition that the house
should yield in regard to New Mexico.
If it was known that the house was firm
in its position the senate would recede
from its disagreement to the house
amendment.
Mr.. Josephs, of New Mexico. said the
oldest territory In tho Union came
knocking for the fourth time at the
doors of congress, asking for admission.
He would rather be a citizen of a Re.
publican state than Of a Democratic
territory.
Mr.. Rogers thought the time had
arrived when the whole territorial sys-
tenn ought to be wiped out. If he
had his way he would adopt a constitu-
tlonal amendment preventing Utah as an
empire sister from coming into the sls.
terhood of states and then admit every
other territory Oh a state. 1t was time
that every foot Of territory in tho Union
should tear of tho swaddling clothes Of
territorial infancy and put on the full
crinoline Of the sisterhood Of states.
Mr.. Baker accepted Mr.. Cox's resoll-
ton as a substitute for his own.
Mr.. Breckenridge demanded division
Of the question, and a vote vas first
taken upon that portion Of the resolution
instructing the conferees to eliminate
New Mexico from the bill. It was agreed
to-yeas l65, nays 100, but ut tho last
moment Mr.. Breckenridge changed his
vote from negative to affirmative for the
purpose of moving q reconsideration.
On motion OF Mr.. Baker the motion
to reconsider ives laid on the table.
The next clause ofthe resolution which
was voted upon, was that instructing the
conferoes &C to amend the bill as to pro-
vide for the admission Of South Dakota
by proclamation without further vote on
the question OF division. This clause
was agreed to-yeas 1877, nays l02.
Motions to reconsider and lay upon
the table were made by Mr.. Baker and
yeas and nays were ordered on tho latter
mo,"o". Mr.. Breckenridge interjected
u motion to adjourn, but this was voted
down.
Mi. Baker appealed In the nance of the
appropriation bills to Mr.. Breckenridge
not to tlibuster against this measure.
Mr.. Breckenridge replied that he did
not intent % flibuster auy longer than
was necessary to secure a full house to
vote upon the measure. That could be
secured tomorrow.
Mr.. MoMillin, Of Tennessee. then III.
terpolatou another motion to adjourn
and demanded yeas and nays which
were ordered. This motion having been
voted ~down-yeas 81, NAYS l42. Mr.,
Breckenridge followed 1t up with a
motion for . soess until 1880 tomorrow
and raised the point Of no quorum.
Messrs. Baker and Breckenridge then
attempted to reach an agreement by
which the vote on motion to reconsider
should be taken now, hut the demand
tor Irregular business" from the Repub.
lican side cut short any agreement and
Mr.. Mcmillan again moved an adjourn.
ment. The motion to adjourn hsying
been voted down an arrangement wa
effected whereby the vote on resolution
shall be taken tomorrow at l2:45, and
the house then adjourned.