Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1889-03-21

Mr.. Priosett called attention to a clause
In the pending bill expressly designed to
break up the use Of liquor at clubs.
The meeting closed about 10. 6, but some
OF the participants fingered for half an
hour to discuss, In conversational way,
the respective merits OF high license and
prohibition.
Dover, March l9.--In the presence Of
the members of the Senate, which DELHI.
crate body had taken recess to hear
what the House had to say, Mr.. Down.
ham, ct ii 10 O. M, called up the special
order of the Representations CON.
vention.
Mr.. Lodge moved the adoption OF his
minority report, which consists simply of
an amendment to the majority report
giving Wilmington one more delegate
five instead of four. He regarded this as
according New Castle county as little as
he could conscientiously accept.
Mr.. Downham said that he went into
the committee with the view of giving
Wilmington Eve delegates. This was her
due, by every consideration Of populs-
ton, industry and business. But he
could not find members enough to agree
with him in this proposition, without
come risk to the bill, Nevertheless he
had proposed to Mr.. Lodge that If the
latter would come on the floor aud sup
port this bill with Eve delegates from
Wilmington in II, he Mr.. Downham) would
stand by him. But he had not been able
to find out whether Mr.. Lodge would vote
for the bill il his 1--WE delegates amend
ment were accepted.
Mr.. Eokles said that in introducing
bill seven weeks ago, calling conven-
tion, he had in his mind fair and rea-
sonable measure 1t seemed satisfactory
to the members from Kent county, until a
few days ago. It was q non. partisan
measure. He would not say that the bill
now proposed is partisan measure; but
he feared IL was. The Downham bill to-
day bears no resemblance to its original
shape. 1t has undergone changes which
brings Il to day to what he might cali the
Eckles- Downham bill.
Mr.. Downham asked Mr.. Lodge TO ex-
plain, for the benefit Of others than com
mittee members, wherein the majority
and minority reports differ.
Mr.. Lodge hardly thought lengthy
explanation necessary. The only differ
enoe hinges on five or four delegates from
Wilmington.
Mr.. Downham was CORY to hear the
committee bill called partisan measure.
He did not stand here TO advocate par.
tisan measure; but one wanted by nearly
everybody in Sussex, except ofise hold
ers and office seekers. lie attributed the
decadence of the Democratic vote in his
county to the desire for convention and
the feeling that 1t would be easier to get
a convention fhNn,.f,1, Pa
bers. He combatted MIR. Eckles' asser-
ton that the bill has been amended out
Of all resemblance to it's former self, by
dissecing the apportionment of dele.
gates and comparing it with'the original
superintendent contemplated in the Eekles
bill.
MIR. Eckles replied that he had offered
the most unobjectionable bill and that
neither Kent nor New Castle had OBJ
jected to the representation accorded
therein being too small. Because Kent
has been granted two more delegates,
rural New Castle two more and Whining
ton one more, that neither had asked for,
he thought the bill had taken on politi-
cal aspect.
W. e. Davis thought that those WHO
favored five delegates 10 Wilmington
should vote for the (Lodge) amendment,
regardless of the report Of the majority
OF the committee.
Mr. Hynson would be glad to vote for
the Lodge amendment were he not afraid
of jeopardi2iug the measure. Individually,
he was uneqnivocally in favor Of allow
ing Wilmington five delegates.
Mr.. Maull thought ii an outrage that
Wilmington should mot he accorded five
delegates, but if he couldn't get five he
would take one. He wanted convention
in any shSps he could get it.
w. x. Davis said that as he had been
held chiefly responsible for the reduction
OF Wilmipgton's delegation from five to
four, he would ask every member who
thought Wilmington shoold havs Ave del.
egates to vote for Mr.. Lodges amend
mRnt and should majority so vote he
would heartily support the bill with Ave
delegates in it.
The vote on the amendment was then
taken and resulted:
Ayes-Downham, Eckles, Lodge, Maull,
Morgan, Sackett, Whiteman u.
Noes-Olark, Il. A. Davis, w. q. Davis,
Hynson, Lingo, Masten, Richardson,
Short, Wallace, Speaker--10.
Not voting -Armstrong, Biggs, Brock
son, Gray-4.
THEY EXPLAIN THEIR VOTES.
Some OF the members explained their |
votes or refusal to vote.
Mr. Armstrong took the ground "that
we are not here clothed with authority
to vote for any convention"
Mr.. Biggs--'I decline to vote for the
or for the bill.n
Mr.. Brockson half rose when his name
was called, but settled back in his ssat
without speaking.
Mr.. Olark-'T feel glad that have an
opportunity to vote and I shall vote
against the amendment"
MIR. Downhsm--'tTheam amendment offers
o proposition which am heartily in favor
of, but which at one time feared would
endanger the bill. / now vote YEA"
Mr.. Gray-"I will leave this matter to
the people to say by their ballots whether
OF not and when and where we shail have
q convention"
Mr.. aynson-'I would be very much
pleased to vote AYE but as the matter
has assumed shape where It might
Affect the passage of the bill I vote no."
Mr.. Wallace-"I Am in accord with the
amendment and willing to delegate to
ell the representation she is
entitled 10, but fear that vote for this
amendment would antagonize the bill
and oonst duently shall vote no."
THE DEBATH RESUMED.
Mr.. Downhsm thsn called for the read
ing of the amendments reported by the
majority OF the committee, which were
adopted without dissent. He then called
'or the reading of the bill by paragraphs
N order that it should pass the House
Speaking on this motion, Mr.. Down.
nam said that if he wanted an argument
IN this bill, ne would refer TO tbs debates
u the conYanfion Of 1852 and ash oh.