St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-02

had spoken had repudiated the bill as
far as his own district was concerned.
Mr.. Taylor. of Illinois, said that
he wanted the law in his district, be-
cause it was needed in Chicago, which
was in part of his district. There
never had been an election held i'll Chi
ergo in which there was not cheating
and illegal voting. He did not believe
it was needed in any other district in
Illinois. Mr.. Springer. of Illinois. said
the Chicago election law had worked
satisfactorily. He denied the assertion
of Mr.. Houk yesterday that in contest
ed election report in the Forty-fiIth con-
gress he (Springer) had taken the very
position occupied by this bill. Mr.. Hill,
of Illinois, opposed the amendment.
Mr.. Stone, of Missouri, made consti-
tutional argument against the bill. He
asserted that it's promoters were as
Guilty of High Treason
aa those who, thirty years ago. took up
arms against the government. Mr.. Bu-
chanan, of New Jersey, expressed re-
gret that the amendment had been
made. Mr.. Hemphill, of South Caro-
lima, said that if the bill was so bad that
the gentlemen were afraid to vote for Its
general application. why were they
such towards as to throw upon the peO-
pie of particular district the odium of
the law. Congress should take the re-
SpOnSibility and not place it in the
hands of 80 or 100 men i'll any one dis
trict. The amendment was rejected
yeas, 1872; nays, 1873. Mr.. Hemphill of
fered an amendment eliminating from
the bill the provision fer the United
states boards of canvass, and providing
that from the returns of the SuperviS-
orS, the chief supervisor shall tabulate
and forward to the speaker of the house
to be submitted by him to the house,
the results appearing therefrom in
each congressional district under his
jurisdiction in which this act has been
in force. Mr.. Buckalew, of Pennsyl-
vania, favored the amendment as pre-
serving a system which illS substance
had always been In force, and under
which with very few eXceptions) there
had been no complaint of the action
of state authorities. Mr.. Breckinridge,
of Kentucky, said that the bill put it in
to 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. MIR. 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 the certificates of the various gov
ernors; suppose the supervisors certl-
fed twenty-five majority the other way
this certificate. what would be the re-
suit? Gentlemen ought not to forget
that the Anglo-SaXon race 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 to see to it that the people
of the country were represented by the
men whom they had, in fact, elected to
represent them. Mr.. Caruth, of Ken
lucky, said that he had heard a
good deal about free ballot
and fair count. According
to the Republican doctrine, "a free bal
lot is one that ele cts our ticket, and a
fair count is on that account certain"
He claimed that the Republican party
had done nothing for the negro. After
some discussion this amendment was
adopted, yeas 140, nays 134, Messrs.
Frank, Harmer, Lelhbacb and Lin vot-
ing with the Democrats in the affirma-
tive. Mr. IucKer, OF virginia. OHeTeu
an amendment that when application
for a supervision is made. the chief SUI
pervisor shall lay the application before
the circuit court, leaving the court to
decide after a hearing, wtether to
grant the application. Pending vote
on this amendment, the house at
5 o'clock took a recess till s p. m.
Mr.. Peters, of Kansas, acted as speaker
pro tenn of the evening session. Mr..
Dockery of Missouri, denounced the
bill as being founded on sectional hat
red. Mr.. Kilgore, of Texas, character
lied it as a partisan measure. After
further debate the house at 11:15 ad-
journed.