The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-03-12
CALL'SWAR0N CHANDLER
THE DEBATE ON INTERPOLATION
WAKES WARM.

That Senators Have a Right to Re-
wise Their Speeohes-Senator Hoar
Points Out That Mr.. George Ia on
the Wrong Track-A Vote but No
Quorum.
WASHINGTON, March 1.-THE attend
ance of senator's at the opening prayer was
so small that a call of the senator's was
ordered. and after quorum was thus OBJ
tanned the journal of yesterday was read
and approved. The credentials of Mr..
Allison for his new term, commencing
March 4, 1891, were presented and ordered
to be placed on fle.
Among the petitions presented and re-
ferred was one from Florida asking a duty
Of 81 per box on foreign oranges.
Mr.. Hoar called up the resolution, reported
by him yesterday, for the exclusion from
the record of sentences interpolated by Mr..
Call in the report OF his remarks in his dis
cussion with Mr.. Chandler some weeks ago.
MR.. GEORGE OPPOSES IT.
Mr.. George opposed the resolution as be-
ing, so far as his experience in the Senate
went, without precedent While it did not
expressly contain censure, it was certainly
capable of that Interpretation. He had re-
Gently looked over the debate in question,
and found it to have been characterized by
extreme acrimony and by bitter personal
allusions-contained in more speeches than
one. For instance, he found that the sem
ator from Connecticut, Mr.. Hawley-a
very able and discreet senator-had
characterized MIR. Pasco's speech as ''a sort
Of premature apology for murder" He had
looked over the report of Mr.. Calls re-
marks, and found that what he did actually
say contained every allegation, distinctly,
and unequivocalv, that was contained in
the clause which the committee recon-
mended to have expunged from the Record.
He read some Of the extracts, and asked
M. Hoar why the committee had not
ordered them to be struck out, they being
just as Objectionable as the clause that had
been interpolated.
STUCK TO THE INSTRUCTIONS.
Mr.. Hoar replied that the committee had
felt restricted to the sentences set forth in
the resolution under which it acted.
Mr.. George went on to compare the words
actually spoken with those inserted in the
Record, and argued that while there was
verbal change, there was no change of mean
ing. The same idea, he said, was expressed
in the paragraph introduced de noUo, as in
the words actually spoken, but without as
much precision and force. 1t was mere
rhetorical amplification. Mr.. George
N6ub Ou 10 bDelk Vi bIlo ULll6 Wneu p6TSOldl-
tiles in the Senate led to personal conflicts,
but said that now there was no safer place
in all Gods creation for a man who desired
to insult another with impunity than the
American Senate Everybody knew that.
NO EVIDENCE OF BRAVERY.
And it was no evidence of spirit. no evil
dence of courage for a senator to get up
and use insulting and abusive language to
another senator. Nor was it an evidence of
want of spirit, or Of want of courage, that
the senator about whom such insulting and
personal language was used did not call the
other senator to personal account. The
duello was clearly out Of question now. A
personal conflict on the street was equally
out of question. How then had the senator
from New Hampshire been injured by
the change of phrase! Was it because he
ought to have had an opportunity to answer
back? Because he had not the fish
womans opportunity to blackguard back?
That was all; and that was the way the
thing stood. The adoption of the resolution
would be an implied censure on as amiable,
and as truthful. and a good a man as ever
sat in the American Senate.
MIsCoNCEPTIoN.
Mr. Hoar said that the observations of
the senator from Mississippi had proceeded
on an entire misconception of the effect of
the resolution, of the opinion of the COM
mittee and of the practice of the Senate.
One thing settled by general parliamentary
law and affirmed by O rule of the Senate
itself was that no senator was amenable to
censure or to a call to order for any
thing said in debate except when the point
was made Immediately at the time of the
utterance and the words taken down. The
committee on privileges and elections had
been unanimously of the opinion that neither
bv parliamentary law nor by the usage of
the Senate was it permitted to make sub
staDtial changes in the report, which was
security and protection of public character
of all the senators, and on the Photographic
accuracy of which they had to stand or fall
in the judgment of their countrymen,
aud OF their contemporaries, and OF the
future For himself he acquitted
the Senator from Florida of any
desire to escape censure or responsibility by
a change of language, because the language
which the senator did actually use repelled
any such idea. But at the same time the
senator from Florida had done something
quite other and different. 1t was not true,
in his judgment, that there was no substan-
tial difference between the words uttered
and the words printed. There was most
substantial and important difference.
EUsTIs DEMANDS AN EXPLANATION.
Mr.. Eustis said that he proposed to con-
slider the real question without passion. The
complaint in the resolution offered by Mr..
Chandler was, not that the senator from
Florida had used unparliamentary language
toward him, or had violated the customs of
the Senate by indulging in harsh, and
severe, and personally abusive language
toward him, but that certain language pub
lished in the Record had never been uttered
in the chamber. That was the entire COM
plaint made by the senator from New
Hampshire; and that was the only
question within the jurisdiction of
the committee on privileges and
elections; and the demand made by
him was that an order should be reported
censuring the Senator from Florida. There
was no censure reported, but the order i'm
piled censure and had no other meaning.
~ ask what it is chat the committee has
found him guilty ofa Is it Justification of
the recordl Is it that he has violated
custom of the SenateW
On this question the committee INDUCES
in a soluue and serene silence, leaving every
one at liberty to draw his own conclusions.
EDMUNDs OPPOSES THE RESOLUTION.
Mr. Edmunds, after an extended exposi-
tion of his views Of what the standard Of
decOrum in the Senate ought TO be, con-
cluded by saying that, under all the circum-
stances OF the case, he did not think that it
would be proper 10 place on the records of
the Senate a resolution which would inevi-
tably be construed as censure on the sena-
tor from Florida.
Mr.. Gray, a democratic member Of the
committee on privileges and elections, de-