New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-14
PRICE THREE CENTS.
THE SILVER BILL KILLED.
REJECTION OF THE RESOLUTION REPORTED
BY THE COMMITTEE ON RULES.
THE VOTE 1876 TO l5i-REPUBLICANs ENT1TLED
STRONG SPEECH by Mr.. REED.

which befell the Bland Silver bill in the House
OF Representatives on March "a, and again is the
Republican minority of that body entitled to tho
lions share of the credit. BY vote of 1876 yeas
to "a nays, the resolution reported by the ma
jority of the Committee on Rules, was rejected-s
total vote of 300 in membership Of $50, there
being two untitled vacancies.
OF the 1876 votes for the resoluticn, 1877 wer0
cast by Demo rats-being majority Of thirty-eight
in the total De locratic membership-and only nina
were cast by Republicans OF the votes against the
resolution ffty-nine were cast by Republicans, ana
ninety-fve by Democrats. OF the Democratic
members who voted, ma ajority Of thirty-two was
recorded in favor of the resolution; and Of the
Republican members who voted, a majority OF hfty
was recorded against the resolution. In other
words, about 81 per cont of the Republican Vote
was against the resolut on, and l3 per cent for IL
while 81 per cent of The Democratic vote was
for the resolution and AZ lnr cont against It, Tho
nine Republicans who voted foi the resolution
were Messrs. Bartine Nevada; Bowers Cailfor-
MIA; ; Cheatham, North Carolina; Clark, Wyominss
Johnson, Indiana; JOlley, South Dakota; foso.
Illinois, Sweet Idaho, and Townsend, Coiorado1
Two Repub]icans-Johnson. Of lndana. ana
Post. of Ilinois-who voted TO lay the Bland bill
on the table in March to-day voted for the res
olution, as also did two Democrats-Seerey and
Bowman of Iowa Fourteen Democrats who
voted against laying the Bland bill on the table
in March. to-day voted against the consideration
of the Stcwart-Morgan bill. They were Breck-
inridge, Arkansas Breckinridge. Caruth ana
Dicxerson. Kentucky: Busey Scott. Snow and
Steward, Illinois, Clarke. Alabama; Fowler,
Ncw-Jersey: Houck Ohio Mcclellan. Indianas
Patterson, Tennessee. and Reilly. PennsylvanlaL
Mr. Funston, Republican. of Kansas. who voted
against laying the Bland bill on the table. to-day
voted against consideration Mr.. Rockwell. OF
New-York. who voted for the Bland bill made
himself conspicuous to-day by "dodging." In
March he explained his vote by saying that he
represented free-conage constituency; perhaps
he will explain his performance to-day by say
ing that his constituency is lodging the ques-
ton. although his townsman and patron. David
B. IIi voted in the Senate for free coinage tesd
than fortnight ago.
SPEAKER CRISP'S POSITION.
Sneaker Crisp emphasized his views by voting
with the free coinage men on both votes to-day
once against ordering the previous question
on the report of the committee Of which he Is
chairman, and again the test vote. although
his vote in neither case would affect the result
The speeches and votes of Democrats to-day
alike confirmed the belief that many OF them
were not acting in good faith, that they were
actuated solely by motives Of party eXpedency,
This fact was disclosed in the first place. by tho
vote on the motion for the previous question:
which was carried by q vote OF l63 10 lZS,
Everybody realized that if this motion should
be defeated Blands amendment would Dc
adopted and the bill brought to direct vote
tomorrow: and the Democrats dared not face the
music. The majority for the previous question
against which Speaker Crisp and Generab
Catchings, of the Committee on Rules. both voted
was 34 while the majority against the resolu-
ton itself was only IS. Further evidence that
a large number of Democrats voted against the
resolution simply in order TO postpone the aues-
ton until after the Presidential election, was
furnished by the speeches of Clarke of Alabama;
Forman, of Illinois. and Patterson. Of Tennessee.
The Tennessee man especially spoke with a brutal
franllness which must have made Tracey and
other honest money" Democrats vince. when
he explained why he wanted " to send the silver
question to the baggage train until after the
great battle in November
The Republicans were, therefore, wise IN ao
tacking the bill at its most vulnerable point, on
the question of consideration. BY doing they
gained the votes of some Democrats, who, if they
had been compelled TO cast direct vote, would
have been recorded in favor of the bill, and
would have made the result uncertain, to say the
least. The majority against consideration was
only eighteen, that change of ten votes on
the main question would have carried the bill.
II is far within bounds TO estimate that moro
than that number of Democrats who voted against
consideration would have voted for the bill, y
matters had come to that pass.
INTENSITY OF THE INTEREST FELT.
The intensity of the interest felt in the ques-
ton was shown by the presence of a quorum in
the House long before the hour of noon, some
ell; ,vbi hos hpnn hrpp inn m
many months The leaders of both the Demo-
cratic factions were hand early, and, until
the voting was concluded, they were extremely
busy The Republicans, too, were in their scatd
early quietly obscrvant of the proceedings. Mr..
Reed appeared to be gcneralissmo of the anti
silver forces on both sides, and Tracey and other
leaders of the anti-silver Democrats needed his
suggestions and obcyed his orders with the utmost
aacrity and docility. They were confident Of
the result but neglected no. effort or precaution.
The silver men appeared determined, but sullen
and far from hopfu.
As soon as the resolution reported by General
Catchings from the Committee Rules, had
been read, Mr.. Reed moved to lay it on the
table, but the Speaker refused to recognize the
motion and insisted that Catchn9s controlled the
matter and was entitled TO hour TO discuss
the report. Mr. Reed, in a temperate but forci-
BILE speech, concnded that the House had right
to dispose of the question without wasting time
in debate If it chose to do so. and that the
ruling of the Speaker would deprive it of that
right. The latter however, adhered TO his po-
sition, being anxious that no vote should be taken
on motion offered by the leader of the minority.
The House was thus plunged into a debate
which the Democrats might better have avoided
for the sake of themselves and their party. II
was opened by Chairman Bland, who attacked the
report of the Committee on Rules, and declared
that unless it should be amended he proposed,
by the adoption of a closure provision, it would
be futile and worthless. He argued against the
adoption OF the previous question for that reasonl