St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-01-25
Two Republican Senator'S Ar
que the Force Bill Pro
and Con.
The Measure More Prejudicial
to Human Liberty Than
Secession.
Sanders, Of Montana, De-
serlbes the Bill as an Olive
Branch Of Peace.
The Silver Pool Investigation
Warns Up to a Certain
Degree.

notice on Thursday. 1t contains three
propositions, the first being to strike out
OF the proposed rule the words land the
question shall be put upon the amend
ments, if any, then pending, and upon
the measure in its successive stages, ac-
cording to the rules of the senate, but
without debate" and to substitute the
words "and debate on pending amend
ments and such amendments as may
be offered while the measure is under
consideration, shall be limited as pro-
vded under rule s." the second to in
sert in the sentence providing
that no motion shall be in order.
but motion to adjourn, or take
a recess, the words Ito recommit with
or without instructions to lay on the
table," etc. and the third being aclauSe
that, pending proceedings under the
proposed rule, rule II shall be sus-
pended. Rule 8, referred to in the first
proposition, provides an ''order OF buSl-
ness" after the morning hour, and rule
II is that when an amendment pro-
posed to any pending measure is laid on
the table, it shall not carry with it or
prejudice such measure" Mr.Faulkner
demanded the yeas and nays on the
amendment aud they were ordered.
Mr.. Stewart then commenced his argu-
ment against the proposed rule and
against the election bill.
Stewart on Force.
If he understood the elections bill cor
rectIv,itS principle, if carried into effect,
would be more prejudicial to human
liberty than secession itself, because
secession would have still retained local
governments But with federal officers
to superintend local elections in every
state in the Union, there would be no
more home rule for America, and that
removed, all was lost. He repeated that
the proposition lying at the foundation
of the elections bill was more dangerous
than secession. He went on to argue,
at length, against the conStitutlonallty
of the elections bill, and was asked by
Mr.. Mitchell how he reconciled his
argument with the act of congress
providing for the manner in which
United Senators are elected. He
replied that in regard 10 the
election Of senators there was no federal
interference words Of approval from
Democratic senators) and that congress
had confined itself lin that act eXclu-
sively within the provisions OF the con-
stitution. 1t had fixed the time. and
manner of election, and had left it to
the state legislatures to provide how the
election should be conducted. 1t had
placed no federal officials over state
legislatureS-no marShalS and no su-
peryisors. The proposed rule. he said,
could not be adopted without the VIC
latlon of all rules, and without taking
from the floor some senator entitled to
it. those who opposed such proceed
ing stood by the precedents of
presidents of Great Britain for
500 years, and those presidents
had never been violated except in one
single instance, when they were vio-
lated to suppress the home rule Struggle
In Ireland If the rules of the senate
were violated and the proposed rule
passed, that would not be the eud of
the discussion. The people would be
alarmed. They would rise up. and SEN
ators would hear louder voice than
they heard in the last election.
Not louder than we hear now, Mr.. Hoar
suggested in q sarcastic tone.
Il am glad,'' was Mr.. Stewards retort,
that am able to speak so that the senator
from Massachusetts is able to hear. sup
posed that he was entirely deaf to reason. /
supposed that his anxiety to trample on the
rights of the people was SO intense that he
could hear nothing but policemen's clubs
and the clank of chains to be used at cleo
TONS
In conclusion, Mr.. Stewart appealed
to Republican senators to stop in their
mad career before they stepped over
the precipice and destroyed their party.
At the close of Mr.. Stewards speech
MI Sanders took the floor, but yielded
to Mr.. Aldrch, who asked unanimous
consent, first, to limit the debate to hall
an hour: then to limit the length OF
speeches to one hour, and then to have
the vote taken Monday next; but tC
each of these requests objection was
made on the Democratic side. Then
Mr.. A ldrich asked whether the senator
from Nevada and the senators on the
other side were prepared to fix any time
for taking the-vot He was told by
Mr.. Faulkner that several senators de
sired to speak, and that 1t would be i'm
possible, until they had all spoken, t
fix any time for taking the vote. Mr.
Sanders then proceeded with his speecl
in advocacy of the proposed rule and o
the elections bill.
s. Bill of Peace.
He reminded Democratic senator
that there was difference between free
dom of debate and unlimited debate
He declared that the elections bill was
bill of peace. 1t might be beaten, bn
that would be simply postponing thu
question. If it were beaten then con
gress would adjourn on the 4th O
March next leaving deep and grlev
Gus wrong ranking in the bosomS of i
per cent of the people of the country
and with the consciousness that an in
light of day. He would not say HOY
long that condition of affairs might cor
tinue, but inaSmuch as citizens WUul
be divided into classes, and portion O
them allowed to he denied participa
ton in the conduct of govern
ment the gulf would be widene'
between those who are admitte'
to citizenship and those who are de
MED that boon; and there would b
built up. within the limits of the com
monweaIth, prOtetarat and set o
pariahs. Referring to newspaper oppC
sition to the elections bill, Mr.. Sander
said that no newspaper had been ap
pointed as tribunal to express tn
popular will Their opinions were a
variable as the shade by the light
ouivering aspen made" He did no
know how to better characterize til
condition of public sentiment whic
they produced than to call it a conditio
of moral CLEANLINESS. The people them
selves had, however, expressed with II
uncertain sound Gin the national plai
forms of the Republican party thei
purpose and desire that the amendment
TO the constitution shall stand as bu
wark and shield against all forms of OF
preston, no matter how humble the il
diYidual oppressed might be.
SIandered the South.
Mr.. Morgan spoke in opposition t
the proposed rule. Some senators, h
said, had made themselves conspicuou
and notorious in uttering calumne
against the South. But the South ha
not used money in their elections, a
though lot of silver dollars would d
much in carrying All election there, bt
cause what was it that could not h
bought of the Republican party in tn
South? But they had not done 1t. N
such accusation had been brougf
against the South. But how was it o
tho other side. of the line? What Wa