St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-25
CHANDLER FEELS HURT.
Senator Call's BIistering Ian
guage Anglers the New Hamp
shire Man

CHANDLER FEELS HURT.
Senator CalPs BIistering Lam
guage Anglers the New Hamp-
shire Man.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24.-Mr. Chand-
ler in the senate to-day, rising to a
question of personal privilege, called
attention to the fact that Senator Call
last Thursday had uttered words per-
sonally offensive to him. which he had
not then beard, and had followed up
that breach of order by changing and
| adding to the official report of
hls remarks a paragraph still
| more offensive. He therefore Of
| fered a preamble and resolution
stating that the senator from Florida has
| charged him in debate with personal
responsibility for the 0utraging OF
women and the numbering of children
| and the destruction of the happiness of
| households in the South by men who
were the emIssaries behind him, ana
that the senator had in addition inserted
| the following paragraph. which he had
not spoken: "The blood of Saunders.
il tile evidence shall show his death was
in any way connected with the prosecu-
tions in United States courts, will rest
on his conscience. The shrieking ghosts
Of outraged and murdered women and
children, the victims of the
| WILD LUSTS AND PASSIONS
| of a race who owe all that they know of
| religion and civilization to the Southern
| white people and not to the senator
| from New Hampshire, will disturb his
| sleeping and his waking hours. Like
! BanquO's ghost. il will not down; and
| the ocean will not wash his blood
| stained hands from the guilt of the rape
and murder of these tender white
women and children" The resolution
| condemns such action as breach of
| privilege for which the senator MIR.
| CalD is censured. and orders the words
| added to be stricken from the
report In the Congressional Record.
Mr.. Call defended his course i'm the
matter, asserting that had in debate
expressed substantially the same idea
as was expressed in the additional paFa-
graph. He had simply changed the
| phraseology, as he had right to do;
| therefore the statement made by the
| senator from New Hampshire was not
true. Mr.. Chandler repealed the inti-
nation that anything he had stated was
not true. and he wanted the senate to
| decide whether such language might be
used by one senator in relation to
| another. He sent the original of
the Objectionable paragraph by a
page to Mr.. Call and asked
| whether it was in his handwriting.
Mr.. Call repeated his assertion that he
had in debate clearly, and distinctly
| charged that senator with responsible
| ity for the death of Saunders and for
the other iniquities in the South. The
| report, when it came to him, was not.
hn coi1 ft1n
his remarks, and he was authorized by
the common practice of the senate to
CORRECT AND TO TRANSPosE.
| and he had done no more than that.
Mr.. Teller expressed the opinion that
| there should be no tampering with the
| Record, except to correct grammatical
mistakes. Certainly nothing of a de-
nunciatory character ought to be added
to the report. Mr.. Hoar spoke of the
necessity that the Record should be one
| of Photographic correctness, as therein
lay the sole safety of every
in the senate. '" Mr.. " Vest 'S ridieuIed nssied
| the idea of Photographic correct
ness of the Record. and alluded to the
| fact that a few years ago the same
| speech was published as having been
| made by two different representatives,
| and had been prepared by neither. MIR.
| Sherman thought that the proper dis
| position of the resolution would be its
reference to the committee on privileges
| and elections, and said that the estab-
| lished custom of the senate had been
that nothing of personal charac-
| should be injected into the
report. Finally, on objection of Mr..
Harris, the resolution went over until
tomorrow. A communication from the
| attorney general with the report of
| Marshal Mizell about the assassination
of Deputy Marshal Saunders was pre-
sented and referred, and at 2 D. m. the
| educational bill came up as unfinished
business, and Mr.. Faulkner addressed
the senate in opposition to it. The bill
PRESENTED THREE QUESTIONS
which would be answered in the affirm
| ative by those who supported the bill.
| These were: First-IS the bill sane
| toned by the provisions of the federal
| constitution? Second-Are its provis-
| ions, which affect the distribution of
| the fund between the states, and be-
| tween the two races in the states. lust
| and beneficial? Thirds it the part of
| wisdom and of practical craftsmanship
| for the national government to en-
| bark on this bOundless sea of un-
| restrained and unlimited legislation?
he GOOK the negative OF these three
pro positions, and went on to argue in
support OF his view of the question,
| quoting largely from the debates in the
| federal convention, from the decisions
of judges and from the writings of rec
ognized publicists and statesmen. From
these he argued that the establishment
of common school system was necas-
| sarily committed to the care and con-
troll of the state. MI. Faulkner point
ed out the Inconsistency of first
distributing the fund to the states ON
| the basis of illiteracy. and then distrib-
uting the fund within the states be-
| tween the two races on the basis of the
school population of each; so that while
on the basis of illiteracy the coIored
| schools at the South ought to receive
| S36,000.000 and the white schools SIS, ,OU0.-
600. those figures Ton the other basis
| would be reversed and the white schools
would receive S16,e00,0OO more than
| the colored schools. Believing, he
| said. in conclusion, the bill to be uncon-
stitutional in its purpose. unfair and
inequitable in its methods of distribu-.
| tion, Hnwise and hurtful in the policy
inaugurated by 1t. he appealed to all