The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1891-1893, 1892-05-04

NULUM ME Al.
of-leave" before collector of internal
revenue, all in 'one year and to have
this ready at any time, he believed. |
was clearly in violation of the treaty
provision. Mr.. Dolph expressed an
earnest hope that the conference re-
port would be adopted, as only two
days more would elapse before existing
laws expired. Mr.. Morgan spoke
in favor of the conference bill,
but Mr.. Dawes opposed it.
MIR. Call, Of Florida, believed the leg
islation would involve the loss of hun
dreds of millions of dollars to the al.
ready ruined cotton industry of the
Southern States. Mr. Palmer, of H.
linos, dissented from the conference
report. Mr.. Hiscock, of New York,
proclaimed his belief that the United
States had the right to establish the
same regulations with regard to i'm
ported immigrants as with regardto i'm
ported merchandise. The roll was
called and resulted as follows: Yeas,
Allen, Allison, Chandler, Cockrell, ,Cul-
lom, Dolph, FELTON,, Gallinger, German,
Hansbrough, Harris, Hiscock, Jones,
Mcpherson, Mitchell, Morgan, Pfef
/ fer, Perkins, Power, Ransom, Sanders,
Shoup, Squire, Stanford, Stewart,
Stockbridge, Vest, Walthall, Warren
and White-3O. Nayes: Bate, Call,
Colquitt, Dawes, Dixon, Frye, George,
Gray, Higgins, Kyle. Palmer, Platt,
Pugh, Sherman and Wilson-15. SO
the Chinese exclusion bill as reported
by the conference committee passed
the Senate. The binding twine bill
and other measures passed by the
House yesterday were received and
referred to the appropriate committees.
At 4:10 the Senate went into execu-
tive session and shortly after adjourn
ed until tomorrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, re-
ported the fortifcation appropriation
bill from the committee on appropria-
tions. The House then went into COM
mittee of the whole on the diplomatic
and consular appropriation bill, Mr..
Hit, of Illinois, continuing, without
success, his attempts of yesterday to
restore the original salaries of several
consuls which had been curtailed by
the committee. The consideration of the
bill 10y paragraphs was concluded and
a vote was taken on the amend
ment of Mr.. Chipman (Democrat), of
Michigan, that no portion of the emer-
gency fund should be paid to any for
eign nation in settlement of any claim
against the United States. Agreed
to. Mr.. Blount moved to strike out
the appropriation of S65,000 for the
centennial railway commission. Mr..
McCreary (Democrat), of Kentucky,
said it was poor policy and poor econ
omy to now refuse 1t. Mr.. Patterson
(Democratl, of Tennessee, opposed the
appropriation for survey, principally
for the reason that several South
American countries had not complied
with the agreement as to the payment
of the survey expenses. Mr.. Hol
man, of Indiana, opposed the survey
Mr.. Hook (Democrat), of Mississippi
! defended the proposition for survey
As the United States had already
committed itself to the plan it woL.,
be improper and undignitied to recedt
at this time. Mr.. Baker (Prohi
bitionist), of Kansas, spoke agains
: the appropriation for survey. Mr
: Kyle (Democrat, of Mississippi
hoped that the Democratic part,
would adhere to lis principles and The
policy outlined at the beginning of h
: the session, which pledged it to ecoao
my. Mr.. Butler (DemocraD, 0
: Iowa, also spoke in similar vein
e A vote being taken, Mr.. Blount'
'- motion prevailed in committee, lib t.
u 73 md the survey appropriation wa
{ eliminated from the bill. The iten
to discontinue the bureau of American
e republics was agreed to (in committee
!, by vote of 81 to 6S. The bill wa
e reported with favorable recommends
& tion to the House. Mr.. Hooke
. (Democrat), of Mississippi, then de
. manded a separate vote on the amenc
VI ment striking out $65,O0O for cor
= tinental railway survey and $500
W for the bureau of American republics
" The first amendment was agreed t.
'e l45 to "a; and the latter was rejected
d "a to 143. The bill was then passe
le and the House adjourned.
ar A Notable Railway Case.
IT, BY Telegraph to the state Chronicle.
,u CHARLESTON, S. c., May 3.-Tl
D. case of Bond VS. the South Carolir
I'd railway was heard in the United Stat
st circuit court Yesterday. The suit