The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-10-10

the provision OF the House bill that II
would not impair or affect the legal-tender
quality of the standard silver dollar and
put In Its place mere declaration Oh polcy.
VOORHEES, RILED.
There was something either in the sug-
gestion or the implication of bad faith
which it conveyed that angered Mr.. Voor-
hees. and he declined to yield the floor He
stated that the committee had several good
reasons for what it did, and, he added,
with much vehemence OF manner. When
the Sherman law no longer disgraceS the
statute book of the Nation L am ready to
act promptly and with all the energy that L
which this bill contains" He then went to
argue that il the Senators from the silver
States had opposed the passage of the
Sherman bill, as he had opposed 1t, II
would never have brought this curse upon
the country.
At the close of Mr.. Voorhees, speech Mr..
Morgan took the floor and put the question
which he had attempted to make before.
disclaiming any intention of casting any
imputation on Mr. Voorhees,.
Mr.. Mcpherson offered to reply TO Mr..
Morgan's question, but the latter stopped
him and informed him very CURLY that he
was not asking him. but was addressing the
Mr.. Hill, of New York, ventured to ask
Mr.. Morgan what pledge In the House bill
was abandoned by the finance committee
With as little ceremony the Alabama
Senator turned upon him and said that he
had supposed that the Senator from New
York had read the bill and was not ignor-
ant of it. U1aughter) Mr.. Morgan then
read the provision in the House bill con-
trasting with 1t the declaration of policy
in the committees substitute.
Mr.. Teller replied to Mr.. Voorhees, criti-
cism of the Senators from the silver States
for supporting the Sherman bill when 1t
was before the Senate. and asserting that
TO throw stones at them, inasmuch as he
had not only voted for the Bland bill, but
had voted to pass 1t over the President S
veto. He declared that the people would
not be fooled by the declaratory section in
the Rcommittee's substitute. They und sr-
stood the influences that were at work
and knew that II was not in their interest
that the pending legislation was proposed.
The pending measure, he continued, was an
attempt to strike down silver and to put
the United States on single gold standard
at the bidding of British capitalists. To
say that the bill would not demonetiZe sill
yer was an insult to the intelligence of the
Senate. The Wolcott resolution was then
placed on the calendar and the silVer-pur-
chase repeal bill was taken up.
Mr.. Morgan asked Mr. Mcpherson why
the committee on finance had dropped the
pledge in the House last fall and inserted
simply declara6 NON, to which the Senator
from New Jersey replied that there was
SUFFICIENT pledge In the provision of the
Sherman act that was not sought to be re-
pealed.
Mr.. Voorhees, asserted that the declara-
tory provision in the bill was much better;
OF both metals in the language of the Chi
caso platform. The clause from which Mr..
Morgan said the committee backed down
had no provision for the future at all such
as appeared in the bill the committee re-
ported.
After Mr.. Cockrell and others had spoken
the Senate, at $50, went into executive ses-
sion.
There was an informal conference of some
OF the leading Democratic anti-repeal Sena-
tors at the Capitol on Sunday for the pur-
pose or discussing the attitude they should
assume with reference to the repeal bill
The meeting was strictly private. and the
senators who were present decline to d.
vulge the details of the conversation A
gentleman in position to know says that a
portion of the time was given to the con-
sideration of the probability of reaching q
compromise upon which the Democrats in
the Senate could agree as q party measure
and that the various compromise plans be-
fore the Senate in the shape of amendments
TO The repeal bill were discussed, as were
also the State bank-tax scheme and the
proposition TO issue bonds, but that no
agreement was reached, even among the
Senator's present. a canvass of the strength
OF the opposing forces is said to have been
made, and to have resulted in the conclusion
that there are twenty-one Democratic SEN
ators favorable to repeal and twenty-three
opposed to it