Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-01-24

(Tellerl had misstated his (Ald.ich,sj pur-
pose He did not pretend TO have il Of
fcially. but IL seemed TO be well under
stood in the Capitol and was stated In the
newspapers and everywhere that there was
10 be an arbitrary closing of the debate.
He did not suppose that the Senator from
Rhode Island was sensitive about that
statement or would disputeit. He(Teller)
wanted 20 know when IL was to take place.
If the Senator from Rhode Island couId
not tell him. of course he would have to 90
on in the dark until that superior mind
which controlled the Senate would giveIn-
formation.
AN EARLY DETERMINATION SOUGHT.
Mr.. Aldrich said that il was not his in
tention, nor the intention Of any senator
on the Republican side. 10 press determi-
nation Of the question In any manner ex-
cept such as would be recognized as pro-
per and correct by any person who had a
proper understanding and appreciation Of
the situation. He expected and intend
cd, so far az he had coQtrol Of the matter,
20 use every reasonable effort TO secure an
early disposition Of tho resolution.
VOTE TO-DAY AGAIN ASKED.
Mr. Teller asked Mr.. Aldrich 10 give
some idea of what he considered reason
able time for the debate to proceed. Mr.
Aldrich said that he had already indicated
in his proposition that vote be taken
at o'clock tomorrow, and he again asked
unanimous consent to have that time
fixed.
The presiding officer (Mr. Frye asked il
there was any objection TO this request.
Mr.. ooRMAN OBJECTS.
Mr.. German objected. He was glad
however, that unanimous consent had been
asked, because that had been the universal
custom of the Senate. 1t was the way in
which all public business had been done in
the Senate. 1t was the orderly, sure way
of securing action. But the length Of de.
bate on proposition was to be determined
10y the importance of the measure.
MR.. CocKRELL RESUMES.
Mr.. Cockrell resumed his argument
against the proposed rule and asked why,
if il was such q good rule, it was to end
with this session Why was II not pro-
posed TO make it permanent9 1t was use.
less to try TO disguise its purpose. Its
only object was to pass the force bill7the
Lodge bill, the bill which had grappled the
Senator from Massachusetts, and had him
in its deadly embrace. He would be NOR
tilted and ashamed if the old Republican
party should 90 before the nations Of the
earth contessing that the American people
were no longer capable of self-govern-
ment.
BUT THE LODGE VIRUS
seemed 20 have put the Senator from
Massachusetts, in the condition of the rat
tlesnake blinded by its own virus. The
silver bill, the finance bill, the appropria-
ton bill, and everything else, was made
to the whims and caprices OF
the Senator from Massachusetts,, until he
was now trampling on his entire life record,
and was stultifying the noble sentiments
addressed by him to theyouth of the coun-
try. =,
Apostrophizing Mr.. Hoar. Mr.. Cockrel
"Oh, shame upon you, my
friend from Massachusetts, who now at
tempts to force upon the people of Mas
and upon the country the hui
initiating confession that they are no longer
capable OF holding their town elections! y
He then read from the st. Louis
ReDltbIc q letter addressed to Mr..
Edmunds by former Republican
constituent of his now living in Weather
ford, Tex, Francis Granger, appealing
against the passage of the elections bill.
EDMUNDs's "DENIGEs OF" IT.
Mr.. Edmunds said that he had never re-
ceived such a letter and believed that was
fabricated in order 20 promote the opera
tons of the resistance to the bill that was
now going on in the Senate chamber.
Applause
for itself and was a genuine letter. lie also
read from the Washington Post of July 10,
1890. an article giving the inside history
of the Lodge force bill" an extract from a
letter of Blalne's adverse 10 the bill, and
extracts from various Republican news
paper articles condemning it, and he
wound up his speech by expressing the
tomb where it might rest for all time to
come. IApplause.t
GRAY AGAINST THE RESOLUTION.
Mr.. GRAY next took the floor and occu-
pied the remainder of the afternoon IN
arguing against Mr.. Aldrich's resolution.
II was, he said, a matter OF sincere re-
gret to him that the debate on the cleo
tiops bill, which had been proceeding re-
gularly to the edifcation of the Senate and
of the country, had not been allowed to
proceed uninteTruptedly without the In
deposition of the grasping, rude, violent
proposition now before the Sen
ate. There had oeen no necessity
for it. IL has been a violation of oil pre-
cedents that had obtained in the Senate
for a hundred years. Nothing had occur
red in the course of debate on the elections
bill that was any warrant for turning back
the current of history. violating American
traditions, trespasslng on
THAT LIBERTY OF LIBERTIES, THE LIBERTY OF
DEBATE.
Freedom in the Senate was as dear and
as sacred and as important TO the mantle
nance OF American institutions as the cor
relative freedom of the press. The senators
who were opposing the elections bill and
trying TO show its mopportuneneSs and
improperly had not violated any of the
Droprieties of debate. They had not
transgressed the rules that govern the
orderly conduct of business and OF debate
IN fundamentally bodies among English
speaking people. There was no necessity
on the face of things that would justify
the interposition OF the rude arbitrary
proposition now before the Senate.
THE BAYoSET BILL.
Coming 10 tho elections ILL, Mr.. Gray
asked what public opinion did its pro
moters represent outside of that opinion
which came from tight and close party or
ganizations? What public demand dc
they represent?
PHILADELPHIA AGAINST TIE MEASURE.
The great city of Philadelphia, with it!
able and well-established press, hac
spoken with no uncertain sound as TO thu
policy of the bill. That great city, which
was often called the stronghold of the Re
publican party in the country lat least as
far as the great cities were concerned)
with its constant, unvarying, and ,enor;
NOUS Republican maiorit1es, repudlateo
the bill. OF It's ten daily newspapers only
one supported it. The papers against 1t
were the Inquirer, always unfalterlng IL
lis devotion TO the fortunes of the Repub-
Eean party; the ably-couducted and wide
lv-circulated EUeBing Telegraph, another
paper Of large circulation always support
ing the Republican party; the EoenintS
B,sIefiu. another paper of Republican faith
of long standing, conducted with ability
and fairness in the treatment of public
questions; the EUeniag Cal, likewise Re
nublican paper; the Philadelphia Record, a
Democratic paper with as large clrcula-
ton as any in the city, except the LEDGER
the Le.lqe,. owned and edited by that emf
nent philanthropist, George w. Childs.
man honorably known all over the coun
try, and the Times, an Independent paper
FINeER-PoISTs OF PUBLICATION.
II was not mere idle words-the reading
of that catalogue, those fnger-points O
nnblic opinion. II meant something. Il
meant chat there was, after all, deep-seatec
in file American heart that love of Amer
can traditions and free local set-govern
ment which had made the United States
the republic OF republics on TINS continent