The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-01-13
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.
Petty Disputes Over Silver Pool Inves-
cation and the Army Appropriation.


WAsHINGroN CRY, Jan. 12.-In the
House, Dockery, rising to a question of
privilege, offered a resolution reciting the
fact of the presentation of his silver pool
resolution to the committee on rules, and
the fact that the committee refused to re-
port the same, and directing the commit
tee to report the resolution to the House
for consideration.
Dingley of Maine made the point that
the resolution did not involve a question
of privilege. He changed the phraseology
of the pending resolution so as to dis
charge the committee on rules from fur
ther consideration of the resolution, SO as
to bring it now before the House.
Mckinley of Ohio said that whether or
not the ariginal resolution involved a mat
ter of privilege, it had nothing to do with
the pending question. 1t was referred to
the committee on rules, and that commit
tee is now considering the matter. He
had not the slightest objection to the
broadest investigation, but until the COM
mittee made Its report a motion to call the
resolution was not question of privilege.
Mills of Texas contended that the origi-
nal resolution reflected on the dignity and
integrity of members of the House. Tho
House did not lose jurisdiction on the
question because it referred its considera-
tion to committee. The question for
the House to determine was whether it
should recall the subject. There was no
doubt as to the power of the House. The
question was one ofpropriety, and this
question ought to be considered with re-
ference to the length of time the resolution
would be before the committee. The reso-
luton had been referred on the first day
of the session. The session was now half
gone, and nothing had been done. The
House ought not to adjourn until it excul-
pated the innocent and placed condemna-
ton where it rightfully belonged
Adams of Illinois argued that the reso-
luton did not involve question of privi-
lege.
press rule authorizing the discharge of
the committee, but this was not an or
dinary case. The original resolution was
unqueStionably question of the highest
privilege. If the committee refused to re-
port the resolution, the motion TO dis
charge was privileged.
The speaker inquired whether the gen
tleman believed the original resolution
one of privilege.
Crisp replied that he had assumed that
the speaker had so held.
The speaker stated that he had not. On
the contrary, in somewhat similar case,
he had ruled, and the House had sustained
his ruling, that the resolution did not
present question of privilege.
After some further debate the House
decided, by a vote of 14S to so, that the
question raised by Dockery was one of
privilege.
During further debate Mckinley said
the committee had desired to make a
thorough investigation, but the mover of
the resolution had dlsclaimed any personal
knowledge in the matter, and the corre-
spondents of the Globe-Dcmocrat refused to
make any statement, or even TO say who
was the author of the article. The COM
,,,41 - - b<, hot
tom of the matter and ascertain facts
enough to justify recommendation to
the House.
Finally Rogers of Arkansas offered
resolution as an amendment to the
Dockery resolution. providing for the
appointment of a special committee or
five members to investigate the alleged
connection of members of congress with
the silver pool and to inquire into the
ownership of the II, 600, 900 ounces of silver
bullion which the United States was asked
to purchase; adopted.
The diplomatic and consular appropria-
tion bill was reported and placed on the
calendar.
The House went into committee of the
whole on the army appropriation bill.
Stone of Missouri taking advantage Of
the wide scope of the debate, entered upon
a general denunciation of the elections bill.
In the course of his remarks he referred to
Mr.. Lodge as representing the Oscar Wilde
type of craftsmanship, and Mr.. Hoar as
the maternal masculinity who represented
New England's pecksniffs.
Grosvenor then took occasion to speak
on the plea of non-sectionalism brought
up by Lanham of Texas Saturday. The
debate then drifted into general political
and sectional talk, in which Grosvenor
arraigned the Democratic party for not
honoring worthy ex-Confederates. and
Spinola wanted to know why Northern Re-
publicans did not give offices TO negroes.
Finally the army bill was taken up.
Bland offered an amendment providing
that none of the appropriations for pay of
the army shall be paid to officers detailed
to state colleges and institutions. This
was ruled out on a point of order, from
which Bland appealed, pending which the
committee rose and the House adjourned.