The record-union., 1893-09-30
Special to the REcoRp.UNIox.

petition from Philadelphia manufactur-
ers, asking legislation to retain the pro-
tective tariff and the integrity Of silver
as money metal, heretofore sent IN
these dispatches. He said the signers
represented seventy-ive millions of cap
ital and yearly product of one hundred
and fifty millions.
The repeal bill was then taken up.
Harris Dem ofTennessee, spoke against
it. He declared it practically meant a
gold standard, as thereafter silver could
only be used as fractional currency. He
favored the coinage of American silver,
but hoped Sherman would join him in
rehabilitating the Bland-Allison AT, and
going back to that in the amount of coin
age, if not more.
Sherman said he believed the continued
Bland-Allison Act or the Act of 1890,
would eventually drive gold from circu-
lation and silver would be the only STAN
dard. Free coinage would have the same
result, so he favored the Abandonment of
the system.
Harris, continuing. said: 81 thought it
an outrage to ask men like myself and
others to absolutely sweep from under
silver currency every vestlge OF the law.
That is not what we meant at Chicago.
At that time Voorhees, said While he
would vote for the repeal of the Sherman
Act it must be in connection with some
thing better. When the Senator from
Indiana shall have passed his bill, as
probably he may, he will find himself
utterly powerless to enact any other law
for the use of silver or the repeal of the
10 per cent. tax on State bank circulation
to Increase the volume of money. This is
a trap in which l do not intend to be
caught"
Morgan of Alabama then addressed the
Senate. He began by discussion of the
probability of securing treaty with
Great Britain on the silver question,
which he said was very remote. An in
ternational agreement with respect to
monetary matters was impossible of exc
cution, and almost impossible OF contem-
plating in legal sense. In this critical
period it would not do to offer such
hope as a solution of the trouble. Re-
ferring to the repeal bill, Morgan said:
"Why this haste? Congress had better
undertake to secure something in view of
its constitutional power. We had better
again declare our independence of Great
Britain, and MAINTAIN it, than undertake Q
by treaty an agreement OF tinesse, ca
iolery, tlattery and the like to persuade
Great Britain to allow us to legislate for
our people in a way the Government
ought to legislate for its people"
A Allison observed that the United States
had four times attempted to secure an in
ternational agreement.
''Yes," said Morgan, ''and the Senator
is now back from the recent conference,
and it was agreed that nothing could be
A nj fhnCa inf
ments, we want independence. We must
be independent Of Great Britain. The
repealers know there is no need of haste.
They fear the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States on the case
pending before that court, No. 10, ,049, en-
titled George S. Merritt ct al. VS.. Charles
Foster, Secretary of the Treasury-the
silver brick case"
After talking for two hours, Morgan
suddenly diverged from his legal argu-
ment that the right Of the owner of silver
bullion to have it coined free and without
Limitation still existed, and said: mo
man. whatever his powers may be, can
exonerate me from the discharge OF my
duty to grant to the people all their con-
stitutional rights, nor can any man
crowd me into silence when | choose to
speak. This is an arena in which l have
the honor to be one of the ambassadors
not be taken away from her without her
consent, and where | have, if have any
where in this world. the right of full and
free speech. The least man in Alaba ma
the poorest negro in Alabama, is entitled
TO constitutional rights at my hands as
much as the President of the United
States. He shall have them, if [ know
how to give them."
In coIloquy between Hawley of Con-
i l.
Morgan said the President seemed to rep
resent both parties. He certainly repre-
sented the Senator from Connecticut,
who was following him now.
After an executive session the Senate
adjourned.
IN THE HOUSE.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29.-1he debate on
the Tucker bill repeating the Federal
election law was resumed in the House
to-day.
Lacey of Iowa spoke in opposition. He
said the bill was inopportune. No Fed
eral election took place till 1894; yet at
this crisis, with an extraordinary session
of Congress to deal with financial ques-
tions, this bill was dragged into the
arena. The Democratic party was con-
fronted with great danger last fall. By a
fusion in some States, by chicanery in
others, by advocating free silver and gold
monometallism in others, the Democrats
had come into power. The President at
tempted to carry out the programme
against silver, and he split his party in
twain. Suddenly, by the decree of the
party caucus, this bill was brought in.
Why? To heal the breach; to rally the
whole strength Of the party with the cry,
"Down with the Federal supervision of
elections Lacey laid great stress on the
constitutionality of these laws and then
began to speak of alleged outrsges in the
South, bringing on a wordy exchange
with Talbert of South Carolina, when he
reached that State, Lacey getting the best
of the encounter.
After Lacey had concluded McLauren
OF South Carolina replied as to structures
on that State, declaring he was in favor of
local self-government.
Wilson of Washington wanted to know
if the Democratic party was in favor of
home rule why Cleveland appointed
Southern men to places in Minnesota
North and South Dakota and other North
ern States.
Dearmond of Missouri followed in sup
port of the measure. "The proper way,v
said Dearmond, Ito purify the ballot is
the adoption of a system like the Austria
liam ballot law. That law rests on the as
sumption that the people can rule, while
the Federal election laws rest on the the
DRY that they cannot.n
Gillett of Massachusetts, who was the
next speaker for the opposition, and
Dewitt Warner entered into a heated
alteration about the condition of affairs
in New York. The existence of Tam
many, Gillett said, was considered unde-
sirable by good men of both parties in
New York. He went on to contend that
IL was absurd to go into the constitution