The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-01-15
In the House.

Mr.. Mckinley Of Ohio, from the commit
tee on ways and means, reported back the
bill to simplify the laws in relation to the
collection of revenue 1t was ordered
printed and recommitted, and Mr.. McKin-
ley stated that he hoped to call it up during
the present week.
Mr.. Perkins of Kansas moved that
the House go into committee of the
whole for the consideration of the bill to
provide for town site entries of lands in
Oklahoma. This was antagonized by Mr..
Adams Of Illinois, who wished the House to
consider the Silcott matter and the motion
was defeated by vote of 65 to 81.
sILCoTT REPORT CALLED UP.
Mr.. Bland of Missouri demanded
tellers, declaring that matter
involving the interest of 100000 people
should be considered prior to one which
involved only individual interests of MEM
bers. The friends of the Oklahoma bill
were again defeated by q vote of SO to 10S,
and Mr.. Adams called up the Silcott report,
accompanied by bill appropriating SIS, 600
to reimburse members for losses incurred
through the Silcott defalcation.
Mr.. Adams argued in favor of the bill,
holding that the sergeant-at-arms was a
public officer charged, first by custom and
afterward by sanction of law, with the
duty of disbursing the salaries of members
of the House. He referred to the defalca-
tion which occurred in the Twenty-second
congress, and called attention to the fact
that the House at that time voted to reim-
burse members out of the contingent fund.
NOT a QUESTION OF TEoHNICALITIEs.
The real question presenting itself now
was not a question of technical right or
technical wrong. 1t was a question whether
the members were in some way to blame
for signing their receipts whe ther the gov
had fbn 1Nv ~
their fault, and whether they should forfeit
their money on account of that fault. New
members had signed receipts before they
had any legislative power to change the
law. The certificates were presented to
them, and they were requested to sign them
in order to get their salaries. If any men,
Der had protested against signing his GER
tificate he must go without his salary.
NEW MEMBERS NOT TO BLAME.
The new members were in nowise to
blame, and he could not see how an old
member could vote against on appropria-
ton to pay new members what they were
entitled to. If an old member felt himse If
to blame, his only course was to vote for
the appropriation, and afterward deter
mine between himself and his conscience,
whether he would receive the money him
self. Mr.. Butterworth inquired whether
any member believed that the sergeant-at-
arms was his personal agent.
Mr.. Adams thought that there was such
a member. No one believed that he had
made the sergeant-at-arms his personal
agent, though some might believe that by
a technical rule of law the sergeant-at-
arms was constituted an agent of the mem
bers.
BILL TO BRING SUIT.
Mr.. Hemphlll, of South Carolina, advo-
Gated the adoption of his bill permitting
members to bring suit in the court Of
claims for the recovery of their salaries,
and opposed the bill of the majority because
he could find no statute declaring the ser
geant-at-arms to be disbursing officer.
Congress had utterly failed, though the
matter had been called to its attention by
report after report Of the United
States' Treasury, TO make any provision
for the protection of the government in
case there was a defalcation. the plain
duty had rested on congress to provide that
the money taken from the treasury should
be safely guarded, and it had not performed
that duty. There was about $4,000 private
money on deposit in the sergeant-at-arms'
Office. Surely no one would hold that that
officer was a disbursing officer so far as
that money was concerned, and he thought
the House should not appropriate public
money to pay private debts.
OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT is DUE.
If the House was going to appropriate
money to pay members salaries, it ought to
be able to tell the amount due, and until it
was ascertained how much Of the money
left in the safe was applicable to the pay
ment of private debts it could not tell how
much was necessary to pay salaries. The
committee could not ascertain positively
what money Silcott had taken away with
him-whether it was all public money, or
whether some of it was private funds.
Mr., Butterworth-That is a question be-
tween Silcott and the government. What
we want is what is due us. Laughter
REPRESENT BOTH PARTIES.
Mr., Hemphil-We are here not only TO
represent ourselves, but the government as
well. [Applause.]
MIR. Butterworth-And when a member
is afraid to vote himself what is due him,
NAV not the government feel little anxi-
Gus in the presence of moral cowardice OF
that character! [Laughter.l
Mr.. Hemphill-There will be plenty OF
opportunities to show our moral courage
There is a good deal Of difference between
the kind of independence which people ad-
mire and the kind which rams your hand
into the treasury and puts money into your
pocket. [ADplagse.1 TherR VIII be on22s-