The daily critic., 1890-07-01
VIGOROUS DEBATE ON THE Ma
TI9NAL ELECTION BILL
IEHLBBCHS AMENDMENT DEFEATED
By the Negligence, if Not Treason
to Their Party,
OF EIGHT ABSENT DEHOCRlTlC MEMBERS
Opposition o the Measure Logical and
sent Clara Morris Refuses to
Get Out In the Senate.

The House, Immediately after the
reading Of the journal, resumed the
debate on the Federal Election bill, the
pending amendment being that offered
by Mr.. Lehlback Of New Jersey, pro.
viding that the chief supervisor of
election Of each judicial district Of the
United States shall take such action as
Is requisite 10 secure supervision in
every Congressional district as Is pro.
provided by the laws Of the United
States
Mr. Holman of Indiana contende
that there was no occasion for the enact
ment Of tSe proposed law Every mem.
Der who l,.d spoken had repudiated the
bill, as g as bis own district was con-
Cerned.
Mr.. Tia or of Illinois said that he
wanted q law in his district, because
Il was u
nlEDED IN CHICAGO,
which wa in a part Of his district.
There new, had been an election held
In Chicago in which there was not
cheating az d illegal voting. He did not
believe II yas needed in any other dis
trict In Illinois.
Mr.. Springer of Illinois said the Chi.
cago Election law had worked satisfac-
iorily. He denied the assertion of Mr..
Houk Yesterday that in a contested
election REPORT Vim the Forty fifth Con-
gress he (Bpringer) had taken the very
position oScupied by this bill.
Mr.. HH of Illinois opposed the
Mr.. St he Of Missouri made consti-
tutional Argument against the bill He
asserted at It's promoters were as
G .TY OF HIGH TREASON
as those n no, thirty years ago, took up
arms aE tinst the Government
Mr.. ltchanan Of New Jersey eX-
pressed hgrct that the amendment EN-.
anated tIDm the Republican side, be.
cause did not tend to perfect the
BIZ
M Iemphill Of South Carolina said
that it toe bin was so bad that gentle
men were afraid 10 vote for its general
application. why were they such cow
urds as To throw upon the people Of a
particular district the odium Of the law.
Congress should take the responsibility
and NOT place Il In the hands Of fifty
or hundred men In any one district.
The amendment was reiected--yeas,
1872 nays, l3s.
Nh HEArHGLL's AMENDMENT.
Mr. Hemphill Of South Carolina
offered an amendment eliminating from
the hll the United States boards OF
CanvBssers, and providing that from
the returns Of the supervisors the chief
supervisor shall tabulate and forward
20 the Speaker of the House, to be sub
mitted by him TO the House, the results
as they appear theTefrom In each Con
cres I0ual district under his jurisdiction
in which this act has been In force.
Mr BuCEalew Of Pennsylvania fav.
ored the amendment as preserving a
system which, In substance. had been
always IN force and under which, with
very few exceptions, had there been
any complaint Of the action Of the State
authorities.
Mr. Rowell Of Illinois opposed the
amendment and favored the bill.
Mr.. Breckinridge Of Kentucky said
that the bin put II in the power of the
United States courts 10 substantially
control The House Of Representatives.
Mr. McComas of Maryland opposed
the amendment and favored the bill as
In the interest Of free and fair elections.
MT. Mills Of Texas pointed out the
DANGERS WHICH MIGHT ARISE
from the application Of the law. Sup
pose the House was Democratic by
twenty-five majority and was so shown
by certificates Of the various Governors;
suppose the supervisors certified
twenty five majority the other way,
and he Clerk Of the House acted upon
this certificate, what would be the re-
sultY Gentlemen ought not 10 forget
that this was the Anglo-SaX0n race,
y which was jealous Of its rights, and
never counted the cost Of holding and
asserting them.
Mr. Kerr Of Iowa said It was the duty
Of the House 10 see to II that the people
Of the country were represented by the
men whom they bad In fact elected to
represent them
Mr.. Camlh OF Kentucky said that he
lad heard a good deal about
FREE BALLOT