Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-07-18

conference.
Mr.. Rogers ARK objected
THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE Bill.
Mr.. Cannon QlL) from the committee on
rules, reported resolution providing that the
House shall Immediately proceed to the con-
sideration Of the ''original package bill;" the
previous question to be considered as ordered
on Monday after the reading Of the journal,
and that the House shall consider the bank
ruptcy bill; the previous question to be con-
sidered as ordered on Wednesday after the
reading Of the journal
Mr. Breckenridge (Ky.) raised the question Of
consideration. The House decided-yeas lis:
nays, 55-to consider the resolution One hum
dred and twenty-four members were announced
as paired on this vote.
THE HOUSE NO LONGER DELIBFRArryR BODY
Mr.. McMillin (Tenn-) said that the order
provided two days for the consideration of
each OF these important measures But excep-
ton was made Of conference reports on the
appropriation bills. The conference report on
the District of Columbia appropriation bill
was now pending. Its consideration might
consume three-quarters OF the time set apart
for the consideration Of the original package
and bankruptcy bills. A time was fixed for q
nnal vote on these measures without regard to
the status In which they were when that time
arrived. He believed that the House of Rep
resentatives ought to be House Of Represent
arrives 1t ought no longer to be government
OF the House by the committee on rules, but
ought to be government of the House by the
House itself.
1t was the method Of proceeding to which he
objected The House was no longer deliber-
ative body; the only deliberative body which
the people had was the Senate of the United
States. Measures of the importance Of
those mentioned in the resolution should re-
celve the deliberate consideration Of the
House.
IMPORTANCE OF THE BANKRUPTCY BILL
Mr.. Outhwaite (Ohio) urged the importance
OF the bankruptcy bill, and Of its careful con-
sideration. After thorough study of the
measure it had met with his approval, though
he thought it should be amended in some par
tlcuars. But if it was to be rushed through
the House under the resolution Of the commit
tee, he would have to oppose its passage.
Mr.. +. b. Taylor (Ohio) inquired how the
gentleman who favored the bill could. under
his oath, vote against it because he was
offended. Mr.. Cultivate replied that he would
oppose it because it was probable that there
were neutrality-suspicious. who had not given
the measure a careful consideration.
MIR. Z. b. Taylor reiterated his query and
asked how the gentleman could oppose the
measure because Of the action of the House
In some other respect.
MIR. Cultivate replied that he would do so
because there would be no opportunity to
amend the bill in some vital particulars.
THE MINORITY NOT HAPPY
Mr.. Cannon did not conceive that it was in
the power Of the committee on rules or any
other committee to propose any legislation
that would meet with the appreciation of
the gentleman from Tennessee 1lr
McMillin) or of any gentleman on the other
side. The minority was performing its func-
tions and something more than its functions
The minority had not been happy at the be-
ginning OF the session; it was not happy now
and 1t would not be happy when adjournment
came. He had hoped that there would have
been no objection to the pending resolution.
Mr.. McMilin said that he was not objecting
to the two measures, but he was
OPPOSED TO THE GAG LAW PROPOSED.
Mr.. Cannon said that when a gentleman from
Texas, whose name he would not mention and
gentleman from Arkansas, whose name he
would not mention, assumed q leadership
which meant obstruction and delay-frequently
to the disgust of their fellows-there was moth
ing left the majority but to report orders OF
this kind.
Mr.. E. D. Taylor said that the whole country
was interested in the passage of the two meas
ures, and while he would like to have longer
time given to the consideration of the bank
ruptcy bill, he was in favor of the resolution.
THE RESOLUTION MODIFIED AND ADOPTED.
At the suggestion of Mr.. Adams Of Illinois
the resolution was modified SO as to provide
that appropriation bills shall not interfere
with the consideration of the two bills and the
resolution was then adopted.
THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE BILL
was then taken UP. Mr.. E. b. Taylor, in advo-
eating the measure, said that never had such
blow been given to state sovereignty and state
rights as had been given by the ascer-
tainment that under the Constitu-
tion Of the United States the citizen
Of foreign state might take into
another state any property that was a subject
OF commerce, and there sell it without liability
of taxation or the burden of taxation He did
not advocate the bill in the interest of any pro-
hibition party or any prohibition sentiment,
but because the best interests of the whole
people demanded its passage While he
infinitely preferred the House substitute he
feared that its adoption would endanger the
legislation. and consequently he advised the
adoption of the Senate bill.