The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-01-29
SENATOR'S ANEWTACK
~HE APPORTIONMENF BILL NOW
UNDER DEBATE.

senator Carlisle Raises a Point ss to
the Make Up of the Next Electoral
College-The Republicans Want 1t
Based on the New Apportionment
Scheme.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2S.-The Senate met
atll O'Clock this morning. which is to be
the hour of meeting for the remainder Of
the session, unless otherwise ordered.
Mr.. Stewart said that inasmuch as there
was some uncertainty as to Senator Stan
fordis position on the vote (Mondayl to lay
aside the cloture rule, he wished to have
read telegram sent to him by Senator
Stanford Monday morning, but not deliv-
cred on account Of interrupted telegraphic
business The telegram, which has already
been published, was read.
The House amendments to the Senate bill
referring TO the court of claims the claim
of the Chesapeake Female College Of
Virginia for the use and occupation of its
property from 1861 to 1869 by the military
authorities of the United States were con-
Cured in and the bill now goes to the Presi-
dent.
The House joint resolutions increasing
from fifty to 100 the copies of the eulogies
10 be specially bound and delivered to the
widows of Representatives Randall, Kelley,
ard Cox were repointed and passed.
The conference report on the bill for
public building at Columbus, Ca, was pre-
sented and agreed to.
THE APPoRTIoNMENT BILL.
The House apportionment bill was then
taken UP and Mr.. Hale, who had reported it
from the census committee, explained and
advocated the House bill. and argued
against the amendment proposed by the
minority of the committee.
MIR. Davis replied to Mr.. Hale and re-
stated some of the considerations why the
amendments of the minority OF the COM
mittee should be agreed to.
GoRMAN ON THE CENSUS.
Mr. German agreed with Mr.. Hale and
Mr. Washburn that there was no politics in
the bill The only question was whether its
framework did exact justice to all the
states of the union. he expressed
his belief that, on the whole,
the superintendent of the census
had performed his work fairly and well; !;
but nevertheless, he was convinced that
the enumeration of New York city was de-
fectiVe to the extent of 100000; and he
thought that no sufficient reason had been
given why the request of the state and mu-
nicipal authorities for a recount had not
been complied with.
CARLISLE MAKES A POINT.
Mr.. Carlisle suggested a question which
occurred to him as likely to arise from the
fact Of the apportionment being made IN
the same year that the census was taken.
That was whether the election of presi-
dental electors in November, 1892, would
be based on the then number of represents
tives in congress, or on the number as it
XOuld ha A
Mr. Davis said he had not considered that
question, but that the same question must
4 have arisen every ten years.
THE FIRST TIME 1T HAS ARISEN.
Mr.. Carlisle insisted that it had not arisen
before, as this was the first time that the
apportionment bill paased the same year
that the census was taken. He submitted
the question to the consideration of the SEN
atorS on the other side.
Mr.. German remarked that he had not
given close attention to that question,
which was, however, a very important one.
Ii the bill required to be amended in that
respect the amendment ought to be made
now.
Mr.. Vance argued, from the facts devel-
oped In the state of North Carolina, that the
census was not correct; and that if the ep-
pHrtlonment was made on that census il
would be asfalse and incorrect one.
Mr. Pasco made similar argument
# naSed on defective enumeration in Florida.
HALE DISPUTES CARLISLE.
Mr.. Hale took up the question suggested
py Mr.. Carlisle as to the operation OF the
Dill upon the electoral college, and stated
mat there was perfect analogy between the
present bill and the apportionment bill
passed IN 1872 under the ninth census, and
mat In that case the electoral college was
On % tne tasis OF the increased representation
q 2SS instead of 43
Mr. Carlisle remarked that If the next presi
aentlal election were very close, and if Ne
3 hraska, for instance. should choose in No
Vember, 1892. three more electors than she
was entitled to, and if the other states
suoulu elect one or two more electors than
u eney were now entitled to, the result Of the
PRESIDENTIAL election might be determined
W 'ne vote OF those additional electors.
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
he submitted that under the constitution
Mnich could not be changed by any law
~ ~ matter what language might be en-
plo!eal each state was entitled only to that
ugnoer or electors which correspondec
WIN WIN us number of representatives and sem
chosen,
.Mr; Hale, besides the analogy in 1872
aouau ll snalogies il 1852 and 1882, and sub
United that there was an unbroken chain OF
mseGeuents ~ in favor of having the number
tonment 4 ~ ~FPO-
mr. Carlisle admitted that such prece.
vents vents were of great weight, but still thought
'D%S ~ eney were not conclusive.
,rd aue olll was laid aside after u statement
mn ;ar. .ur. Hale that he would ask q vott
AZ az noon tomorrow.
s,a ater brief executive session, the Sen
"uJourned until II o'clock tomorrow.