The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-01-14
THAT Big SILVER POOL.
A Great Dissemination to
Investigate.
Speaker Reeds Remarka-
BILE Ruling Defeated,
And McKinley's Committee
Fails to Act.
Democrats Demand That the
Exposure Be Made.
A New Force BiII-Other Capital
News.

WASHINGTON, Jan. Fin the house to-
day, Mr.. Dockery, rising to a question of
privilege, offered resolution reciting the
fact Of the reference OF his "silver pool"
resolution item to the committee on rules,
and the fact that that committee had
refused to report the same, and directing
the committee on rules TO report
the resolution to the house for
consideration. The resolution 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 had excul-
pated the innocent and placed condemna-
ton where it rightfully belonged.
Mr.. Mills contended that the original
resolution referred to the dignity and in
tegrity Of the members of the house. The
house did not loose Jurisdiction OF the
question because it referred its considera-
tion to one OF the committees. 1t was a
question for the house to determine
whether it should recall the subject
There was no doubt as to the power of the
house. The question was one of proprie-
ty and this question must be considered
with reference to the length of time that
the resolution had been before the COM
mittee.
Mr.. Adams 1ll.) argued that the argu-
ment did not, under the rules, involve a
question of privilege.
Mr. Crisp (Ga.) said that there was no
express rule authorizing the discharge OF
the committee. But this was not an ordi-
nary case. The original resolution was
unquestionably a question of the highest
privilege. If the committee refused to re-
port the resolution a motion to discharge
was privileged. The speaker inquired
whether the gentleman believed that the
original resolution was one of privilege.
Mr.. Crisp replied that he had assumed
that the speaker had so held. The speaker
stated that he had not. On the contrary.
in a somewhat similar case, he had ruled
land the house had sustained his ruling)
that the resolution did not present ques-
tion of privilege.
Mr.. Heard Mo- said it was but Just
20 the Missouri delegation that the inves-
tigation be ordered, inasmuch as the news
paper article on which the resolution was
based said that one member OF that dele
cation was a member of the pool"
The speaker said that he had ruled upon
question somewhat similar TO this on
resolution presented by Mr.. Oates, ALA
reciting various newspaper allegations,
and had pointed out the inconvenience
which would result to the business OF the
house il a resolution reciting allegations
notfOrtifed by a members personal bene-
tit, should be held TO be one of privilege.
The chair desired that in this case the
matter should be disposed of by the house
and he, therefore, submitted the question
As to whether or not the pending resolu-
ton was one OF privilege. The house de-
cided-yeas, 14S; nays, S0-that the ques-
ton was one of privilege.
Mr.. Mckinley said that when the reso-
luton was referred to the committee on
rules, the committee supposed that it was
referred to 1t for purpose, not simply to
ascertain whether there was such a pub
lication as alleged, but for the purpose of
ascertaining whether there was any foun-
dation for the accusation. No names had
been mentioned, no member of the house
had been designated, no distinct charge
had been made against any member
The committee had gone to work to find
out whether there was any basis for the
allegation. The mover of the resolution
had disclaimed any personal knowledge
OF the matter the two correspondents
of the St. Louis GIObe- Democrat had re-
fused 20 make any statement, or even to
say who was the author of the article.
The committee had had the intention to
20 to the bottom of the matter, and to as
certain facts enough to justify recon-
mendation to the house. Ii had presumed
that the house wanted to know whether
the committee had information enough to
Justify an investigation. From the very
first he had desired TO have this matter
opened up aud thoroughly investigated.
NJ. DOckery-"The gentleman has al
ways expressed himself to that effect"
Mr.. Mckinley, continuing said that he
desired only that the action OF the COM
mittee should be understood. There bad
been no purpose from the beginning to
suppress an investigation. God knew he
invited investigation. Gentlemen must
so conduct themselves that they would be
ever ready for an investigation committee
[Applause. 1t WAS easy to make charges
IN newspapers. 1t was an easy thing to
put a paragraph on the wires to the effect
that this was corrupt and yenal body.
That was done over and over again. As a
utuDtI OH tLlS llOOT lOF ullee0 years, IL
he were called upon TO designate member
who could be bribed or bought he could
not do so, for he knew of no such men,
All he wanted to do was TO set the com
mittee right.
Mr.. Dockery said that he had no personal
knowledge whatever that any member
on this floor was connected with the sill
yer pool prior to the passage of tie silver
bill His reason for Onering the resolu-
ton was that certain charges had been
made by the correspondents of the Globe-
DemOcrdt-men of acknowledged credit
and ability. The situation was this:
The statement had been made by Mr.
Conger, and his statement would be cor
roborated by at least one other gentleman
(Mr. Grosvenor) that silver pool had ex-
isted pending the passage of the silver
bill. He (Mr. DockeryJ had no interest
in this matter further than the interest of
every gentleman on the floor. The news