Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-11
AT THE CAPITOL TO-DAY.
SENATE In SECRET SESSION.
SOUTH CAROLINA CONTEST.
The SmallS-ElliOt Case in the House.
The Senate.


The credentials of Mr. Coke for his new sena-
torial term were presented and placed on file in
the Senate to-day.
PETITION FROM INDIAN STUDENTS.
Mr.. Dawes presented a petition from 100 In
dian students at Hampton, Va, against the con-
tinuance of the ration system to Indians, as an
encouragement to idleness, and recommending
their equivalent in farming implements and
stock. He spoke of the suggestion being wise
and Judlcious, and said that it was doubly re-
markable from the fact that the memorial was
In the handwriting of one of the students, was
signed In their own handwriting by all but
thlrty or the l20 and was their own impromptu
idea. 1t was little singular that there should
pc any law IN the way of an Indian changing
his rations into agricultural or other imple-
ments so that he might, by his own labor, sup
port himself; but such was the fact. He asked
to have the petition referred to the committee
on appropriations, and hoped that that commit
tee would make the necessary recommen-
cations. The petition was so referred.
CLOSED DOORS.
MIR. Sherman said that he had been instructed
by the committee on foreign relations to move
an executive session. He made the motion,
which was agreed to, and thereupon Cat 12:25)
the galleries were cleared, the doors closed,
and the Senate proceeded to executive busi-
ness.
House of Representatives.
On motion of Mr.. Caswell, of Wisconsin, the
House insisted on its amendments to the direct
tax bill and conference was ordered
On motion of Mr. Morrill,. of Kansas, the
Senate bill was passed authorizing the con-
struction of bridge across the Missouri river
at Leavenworth, Kan.
After an objection by Mr. Oates (Ala) to the
request Of Mr.. Johnston Ind.) for the immedi-
ate consideration of a Senate bill for the relief
OF Warren Hall; and after brief passage of
words between Messrs. Hopkins Ull.) and
Hooker (Miss.) over another war claim bill,
which was not taken up, the House was called
upon to decide what business it would proceed
to transact
Mr. Hemphill Is. CO was on the floor de-
manding recognition on behalf of the commit
tee on the District of Columbia, and Mr.. Blount
(Ga. brought forth the post-ofice appropria-
ton bill for consideration.
Mr.. Crisp GA antagonized both these gen.
tlemen, and, as question of the highest privi-
lege, called up
THE sMALLs-ELLIoTT CONTESTED ELECTION CASE.
Mr.. Blount thereupon raised the question of
consideration.
The House determined-yeas 131, nays So
to consider the election case Twenty-four
democrats-Messrs. Bynum, Chapman, Crisp,
Cummings. Dargan, Glass, Holman. Hooker,
Johnston (N:C.), Landes, Lawler, Macdonald,
Mckinney, Moore. Morse, O'Ferrall, Outh-
waite, Spinola. Taulbee, Thompson (CaI.0.
Tracey, Walker, Wise and Yoder-voted with
the republicans in the affirmative.
ME-. CRISP THEN TOOK THE FLOOR
for the presentation Of the case, promising
his remarks with the statement that at 2o'clock
tomorrow he would ask the House to sustain
the demand for the previous question In con-
slderlng the case, he said, the committee had
considered it in the light of established law.
In considering the evidence the commit
tee had applied. the rule estab-
lished in courts of justice. He would
not ask the House to apply to the
consideration of the any rule which
would not be applied in a court Of justice. He
protested against that other so-called rule,
which was sometimes invoked in the House
IN the trial of election cases, that the House
was bound by no rule of law or evidence but
that because its decision was absolutely final
and conclusive it had the right to arrive at
that conclusion in a manner at variance to the
rules established by the courts. He
then proceeded to review the evidence in
the case, first calling the attention of the House
TO the
ALLEGED FRAUD IN THE PoCoTALAGo PRECINCT.
There more ballots were found in the box
than there were names on the poll-list. There
was no evidence to show who put in the sur
plus ballots. At the suggestion of 3arryfeld,
who was the son-in-law of the contestant,
enough ballots were drawn from the box
to make the number remaining tally with
the number on the poll-list The
drawing out of the excess seemed to have been
done in accordance with the law. in the pres
ence of the federal supervisors of election and
the son-in-law of the contestant. In the Green
Pond precinct, no allegations of fraud were
made until after the vote had been counted.
and 100 votes given to Elliott and 80 to Smalls.
Contestant then brought forward 130 with esses
to swear that they had voted for Smalls.
As specimen of this testimony given by these
witnesses he quoted the evidence given by
Matthew Edwards, who. after swearing that he
voted for Smalls, declared that he didn't have
nary ticket