Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-06-21
trRoM A STAFF CORRESPONDENT

rFRoM A STAFF CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON, June 20.-Again for
nearly the whole of an afternoon the House
of Representatives wrangled over the prob
lem oE the position of the silver bill. The
Democrats claimed that the action of the
House in erasing from the journal all record
of the reference of the bill to the Committee
on Coinage left the bill where it was pre-
vious to the reference, and that was on the
Speakers table.
The Republicans claimed that the action
of the House merely erased a fact from the
journal, and that that act did not affect the
position of the bill. Every motion bearing
on the subject was carried against the po-
sition of the Republicans, but when it came
to the point of a test vote as to whether the
bill should be taken up, which would have
finally disclosed the Speakers opinion as to
the position of the bill, the Speaker ruled
that the bill could not properly be taken
up. as this was day set apart for the con-
sideratIon of private bills, and after dispos-
ing of the question of the reading of the
journal there was nothing else in order eX-
cept the consideration of private bills.
ACCORDING TO THE RULES.
In this, as in his other rulings, the
Speaker was clearly in accordance with the
rules, though it is the opinion of many that
if the bill had been in accordance with the
Speakers views he might have strained
point in the other direction. 1t is probable
that the question of the location of the bill
will be settled tomorrow, and that some
action will be taken to show the exact
temper OF the House in regard to the
measure.
The contest in the House was renewed
to-day after tie Chaplain's prayer. The
journal of yesterdays proceedings was not
read, and the Speaker announced the pend
ing question to be ordering the previous
question on the motion made by Mr.. Mills,
OfTe1as, to approve the journal of Wednes-
day as amended BY the resolution OF yester-
day. The previous question was ordered
yeas, 126; nays, 122. Mr.. Mckinley, of
Ohio, before the announcement o. the vote,
changed his vote to the affirmative (amid
suggestions of "6libustering" and jeers from
the Democratic side), and then moved a re-
consideration.
ONE DEMOCRATIC BoLTER.
Mr.. Tracy, of New York. voted with the
Republicans. Republicans voting with the
Democrats in the affirmative were Messrs.
Bartine, Carter, Dehaven, Hermann, Kel-
ley, Morrow snd Townsend, of Colorado.
Mr.. Mckinley also voted in the affirmative
for the purpose stated. Mr.. Mills moved to
table the motion to reconsider. The motion
to reconsider was tabled-yeas, 131; nays,
129. The question then recurred on approv-
ing the journal of Wednesdays proceed
ings, as amended, and Mr.. Mckinley de-
manded the yeas and nays.
Before the vote on this motion had been
announced, it was whispered about that it
had resulted in tie, which really defeated
the motion Mr. Dargin, OF South Carolina,
and Mr.. Tracy, OF New York, (Democrats),
voted mo" with the Republicans. Mr.
Dargan at once became the center of attrac-
tion. Democratic leaders gathered about
him and implored him to change his vote,
and their efforts were successful. Dargan
was recognized before the result was an
nounced, and stated that he desired to
change his vote from ''no" to ''aye." Then
the Speaker announced that the yeas were
49, hhS 4OOs anu ehC JOuAAd4 de
amended was approved.
BLAND TO THE FRONT.
Mr.. Bland, of Missouri, then offered his
resolution to take up the silver bill. Mr.,
Mckinley, of Ohio, made the point OF order
that the motion was not privileged and that
the only way to reach the Speakers table
was to follow the order of morning business.
Mr.. Conger, of Iowa, added, as urther
point amid sarcastic Democratic laughter,
that the bill was uot on the Speakers table,
but In the hands OF the Coinage Committee
Mr.. Bland argued in opposition TO The point
of order, aud held that the bill was on the
Speakers table and therefore within reach,
Mr.. Springer, Of Illinois, said that the
effect of the special order under which the
bill was originally considered was to take
the bill out of the committee of the whole.
The only question was whether the Senate
had added new matter-an amendment that
was subject to consideration in the COM
mittee OF the whole. The original House
bill had an indefinite appropriation clause
the bill as it came from the Senate had an
identical clause, except that the order of the
words was slightly changed.
FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES.
Mr.. Peters, OF Kansas, asked if the appro-
priations were not for different purposes-
one for Tree coinage ana the other or some-
thing else. Mr.. Springer did not think So
The Senate appropriation clause would not
involve the expenditure of 2 per cent of the
sum appropriated by the House bill but
the purpose WAS identical. The new matter
inserted by the Senate was not subject to
reference TO the committee of the whole. If
the friends OF free silver would vote in the
proper direction they would soon have an
opportunity to vote directly upon the bill
as II came from the Senate
Mr.. Conger, of Iowa, maintained that the |
appropriations were for different purposes.
But aside from that all that the House had |
done so far was to blot out or erase the refer |
ence of the bill. How did that affect the |
facts? There was record evidence that the |
Speaker had referred the bill to the Commit |
tee on Coinage; that it has been delivered by |
the journal Clerk TO the clerk of the Coin
age Committee, and that he had it in his
possession. If the House wanted to recall
the bill from the Coinage Committee IL conld
90 so by proceeding under the rules.
NO EVIDENCE OF 1T.
Mr.. Crisp, of Georgia, wanted to lnov
where the evidince was that the hill b.d |
been referred. The House smoke onIr
through its journal
Mr.. Conger said that the gentlemen could
see the bill in the committee room.
Mr.. Crisp replied that that made no DIFF
ference in the legislative situation. Mr..