New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-07-02
TO TAKE THE FOTE TODAY.
THE PASSAGE OF THE LODGE BILL A FORE
GONE CONCLUSION.
ONLY REPUBLICAN ABsENTEEIsM CAN pEFEA1
1.-TWO REPUBLICANS WHO WILL VOTE
No-A LONG DEBATE IN
lBr TELEGRAPH TO THE rR,BUSE.,
THE HOUSE.

Washington, July This is tho Of the day
on which the House is 10 vote on the Lodge biil.
The result Of the vote tomorrow is foregonc con-
clusion II every Republican is in his seat the
measure will be passed By satisfactory majority There
is reason fear however, that few Republicans, by
careless pairing, have given advantage TO the DEM
ocratic side which it is not entitled. The number
Of Republicans who will oppose the measure out
right Will be found 10 be insignihcantiy SMALL
Il will certainly not be than four and NAV noe
even more than two Nj Lchlbach. OK
New Jersey, and Mr. Coleman of Louisiana may be
depended upon to vote squarely against the BILL
Those VINO know Mr.. Cheade. however. say that
though opposed TO many features of the bill. mo
Indiana Representative will IN the hnal vote be
found among those supporting the measure Mr.
Ewart Of North Carolina. lacking the courage of fac
ing the situation, is said to have run away without
pair-a course infinitely more open to criticism than
Il he had boldly def ID the decision of caucus anu
voted against his party
Nothing in the debate today tended 10 develop the
actual strength Of the Republican majority. vote
Of some significance however. was had on provision
in the bill 10 intrust supervisors with the du'y OF
certifying to the election of members OF the House OK
Reprcsentatives-a duty which devolves upon the
,1o,crnOrs of the States The proposition to Stlike
out this feature Of the bill defeated by majority
Of sever votes, II Is needless OF course. thar
this does not represent the actual strength OF the
majority because every Republican did not vote. but
il indicates with reasonable certainty that the measure
will be passed morrow. The other amendments
voted on were minor importance except. perhaps,
that which sought 10 conlne the duty Of drawing
the panel Of Jurors in trials offences against elec
lion laws to the clerk of the conrt, and not as
the statutes provide now, TO the clerk Oh
the court and commissioned Of jurors conformity.
This amendment was beaten ty the Democrats with
the aid of number Of Republicans. who evidently
we're Of the opinion that the amendment was 'on-
ono
conflict with provisions Of different state laws Among
these Republicans were Leh!Lach, Frank, Lind ana
IIarmer. That they were wholly mistaken miShs
easily be shown. The law confcrrinC upon the clerk
of a court fhc duty Of drawing the panel for Jury
vas the law of the land up TO 1879, when the Demo
crat, had control Of both houses Of Congress II WAS
then that Mr. Bayard proposed the Scra.e an amend
ment to the existing law, which divid,i the duty OF
drawing the panel between the clerk ana COM
missioner Of jurors who should be OF dlhercn' par
les thus for the first time i'll thc history OF fhe coun
fry introducing the elerent Of politics INTO the ad
minstration Of justice. since the enactment OF this
statute. proposed by Mr.. Eayad, rot Slngls
conviction has been had IN the courts
for crime against the election laws.
and there never will be. because mo
Democratic Commissioners Of Jurors IN the >ou'h
will always see TO it that men are not placed in the
Jury box who in the least suspected OF possessing
independence Of judgment.
The discussion began Oday with remarks, more or
les, appropriate upon the Lehlbach amendment pro-
vidnc that the chief supervisor of election Tor each
judicial district shall take such action as Is requisite 10
SECURE such supervision in every Congressional dis
tict a, is provided by the laws IF the United states
Mr. Holman. of Indiana. said that every memoer
who had spoken had rcpudated the bill as far as MS
individual district was concerned
Mr. TAYLOR of Illinois. said that he supported tho
bill because lie wanted il in his district lie wanted
II for thc city he in part represented on this floor
Law NJ hiS
,d bcen an election held in Chicago where there had
NOT bccn Illegal voting and cheating at the polls WHO
mi, law wa, needed in Chicago, ne did not oeHeVe
If wa, needed in any other district in the state OF IL
lnoiS. ., ,,,.
election law had worked TO the satsidctJh vi e PVpA'
of the city withou; regard to party
Nr Hill of Illinois. opposed the amendment and
satrically twitted the Democrats for denounlhg uo
LII and then rushing pcl nell in support OF a pop''
ston which made the provisions oi the measure oou'
pul,ory instead Of voluntary.
Mr. stone, Of Missouri, nld"c +" '''9'''
ment against the bill.
Mr. Buchanan, Of NewJersey, was sorry that .n'
amendment came from the Republican sIuc VI 'ae
House because did not tend 10 perfect the Dill
MA, designed TO harass and obstruct the pass's'
81 tho hill: If it was designed TO make the bill more
o ,i, and odious in effect he could understand why
,bo amendment might be offered By the Denoerauo
side Ru, knowing his colleague a he dld' ne couIo
believe only that his colleague was not aware OF INC
effect OF his proposition.
Mr. Payne of New-York. said that the Democrats
Nere proceeding upon the theory that because
plaster was a good thing on sore spot IL shouia Y"
extended over the whole body. -
ON a rising vote the amendment was relected-i-o
N 1914 and on vote by teers il was also loSt-yeas'
1872; nays, l3S. .
Mr.. IIemphill, of south Carolina. offered an amend
ment eliminating from the bill provisions LOT -"
~d- Of "a.
s ,ho rsturns Of the supervisor, the chief super
visor shall tabulae and forward TO the speaker ot
the House. to be submitted by him TO the House, t'
results as they appear thcrerom in each
district under MS jurisdiction in which thiS aot Has
been in force
Mr.. Buckaew, Of Pennsylvania favored @ae S