The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-02-20
HOUSE.


Not more than two dozen members were
present when the house met at IL o'clock
in continuation of Thursdays session. Mr..
Stewart Dem.) of Georgia, and Mr.. Reilly
(Dem.) of Pennsylvania entered emphatic
protests against the adoption of the pro-
posed code, and the action of Speaker
Reed was defended and upheld by Mr..
Raines (Rep.) of New York.
Mr.. Barnes Dem.) of Georgia, said the
Democrats had been told that the Jeffer-
sonian system of government was to be
inaugurated. No one could go further
than he in admiration of Hamilton, but he
could not forget that Hamilton's system
had been unqualifiedly rejected by the
fathers of the republic. He (Mr Barnes)
objected to the removal of the obstruction
which had tor hundred years stood as a
barrier against lnroads upon the public
treasury; against the advocates of subsi-
dies; against those men who would build
up money power. Now the school of
Jefferson was to be relegated to the rear
and new school of policy was to be ush-
cred into existence.
Mr.. Pendleton, dem. of West Virginia,
said that while he had strongly dissented
from the rulings OF the speaker, he had al
ways done so in gentlemanly manner:
Applause Therefore he was surprised
largelyin his district (where he had 300 or
400 warm Republican friends) statement
that when he was unseated the Democrats
would lose valuable man. as he had been
foremost in hurting violent epithets at the
speaker. This statement he denied. He
was unaware of having spoken discour-
teously of the gentleman who occupied the
chair though he did most radically disagree
with the speakers construction of parlia-
mentary law.
Thursdays session then ended and the
session of Friday was opened with reading
of the journal.
The journal was approved, yeas 1885, nays
1, the speaker counting quorum.
Mr.. Chandler of Massachusetts, from the
committee on Words fair, submitted re-
port, which was ordered printed and re-
committed. Consideration of the rules was
then proceeded with.
Mr.. Bynum, (Dem.) of Indiana, offered
an amendment providing that when any
bill for the purpose of pension or for the
granting of pensions not formerly provided
foris pending it shall be in order to offer an
amendment providing by taxation for the
payment thereof.
Mr.. Thomas (Rep.) of Wisconsin, OPP
posed the amendment, declaring that its
object was to bury all pension legislation
in the house.
Mr.. Spinola (Dem.) of New York, con-
troverted this proposition and asserted that
the Democratic side of the house would be
found true as steel to the real interests of
the veterans of the country, but we believe
that tax should be placed especially for
the purpose of paying pensions.
Mr.. Allen (Rep.) of Michigan, was glad
this heinous amendment sprang from the
brain of gentleman trained in Indiana poll
tics, belonging to Ghatc class ofmen whDwere
peace men IN war and war men in peace.
This proposition, disguised as it might be,
was intended to thwart an attempt to allie
viate the condition of the soldiers by fur
ther pension legislation.
Mr.. Clements (Dem.) of Georgia, in sup
porting the amendment, expressed the be-
lief that the soldiers did not demand ex-
travagance in the granting of pensions
The hour of 5 o'clock having arrived the
speaker stated that the previous question
was ordered on the adoption of the rules.
Mr. Springer, of Illinois, inquired
whether motion to recommIt with in
structions was in order, and received neg
alive reply. The rules were then adopted
by strict party vote of yeas 16l nays 145,
and the house adjourned.
All hemorrhages are quickly con-
trolled by that household remedy,
Ponds Extract.