Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-02-06
FIFTY THIRD CONGRESS-.
SENATE.

the routine morning business the Sen
ate resumed consideration of the House
bill to repeal the federal election laws,
and Mr.. Hawley made an argument
against it. Everybody, he said, knew
the fate of the bill. The moment that
the democratic party secured national
control it had been evident that the re-
peal of the federal election laws would
be one of the first tasks to which it
would set itself. Except the emergency
bill, relating to the repeal of the Sher-
man silver-purchasing act, this bill was
the first distinctive party measure of
the democratic party. There were, he
said, on the statute books certain stat
utes intended not to make voters, but
to secure to voters the rights guaran-
teed to them by the United States gov
eminent. 1t was now proposed to re-
peal all of them with the sole eXcep-
ton of the one providing for the cleo
ton of United States Senators. The
question was, not what was the error in
this, that or the other provision of the
law, but The declaration was that not
one of them was fit to remain on the
statute book. This made distinct era
in the political history of the country.
1t made distinct era in the history Of
the ballot. In fact, he might say that
the entire constitution might have been
reconstructed by some distinguished
scientific man who had known only OF
the preamble, and who understood the
general purpose of the great convention
which made the constitution. While
notification of the right of suffrage
was, in some sense, triumphant in the
south, it was progressing in the north
and the federal election laws were just
rs much needed in certain sections of
the north as they had ever been needed
in the south. There had been as auda-
cious crimes against the suffrage COM
mitted within the last few years in the
north as in the south.
Mr. Hawley was followed by Mr..
Perkins, also in opposition, and the de-
bate was continued al length.
HOUSE.
The House took up the consideration
Of the resolution of the foreign affairs
committee censuring Minister Stevens,
and Mr.. Outwaite addressed the
House. As a preface to his remark
he said ne should have nothing to say
against President Harrison or Secre
tary of State Foster, and he had nc
doubt that Mr. Harrison made a good
President from republican point OF
view. But he did endorse the action
of the present President and also the
policy which declared that the islands
should not be allowed to fall into the
hands of any foreign government. A
year ago he had declared (and his
statements had been widely published)
that the American minister had been
guilty of an act of war in landing the
American marines at Honolulu and
had been guilty of an act of treachery
in conspiring against the government
to which he was accredited. He argued
that the reasons which lay at the bot
tom of the so called revolution was the
desire Of the sugar planters of Hawaii
to secure the bounty paid the Louisi
ana growers. He asserted that Minis
ter Stevens was in league with the
sugar planters of Hawaii, and he read
from letter from that minister, under
date of February Il, 1898, in which he
pressed his recommendation of annex
alton, and recommended a bounty of
six mills per pound on sugar, or sl2
per ton-a tribute OF several million
dollars annually to be paid by the
United States to Hawaii.
Mr.. Culberson defended the resolu-
ton in legal argument. He criticized
the action of President Harrison.
Mr.. Eugene F. Loud, who was in
Honolulu at the same time as ex-Com-
missioner Blount, spoke in opposition to
the resolution reported by the majority
of the foreign affairs committee. He
said "Mr. Blount went to Hawaii to
attain certain object. No single man
should be allowed to determine the
fate of nation. 1t is unjust to the
man, it is crime against the nation
Mr.. Loud reviewed the testimony OF
the Blount report by the light Of his
own Investigations and asserted that n
that testimony Mr.. Blount's conclusions
were disproved. He said if Mr..
Stevens had been guilty of the acts
charged it was the duty of the execu
tive to "bring him home in chains" and
the laws of his country would have
D nished him. He concluded as fol.
lows:
If the position of the President is to be
sustained and you believe, as you here assert,
that the Hawaiian government was forciby
overthrown By the action of our minister and
the naval forces, there is no middle course for
you to pursue The adop ion of this resolu-
ton neither rights nor vindicates what you
stigmatize great wrong to the Hawaiian
people. You must 20 farther, and sustain
YOUR professions of sincerity and coincidence
| by Immediately directing the President to use
such force as is necessary to place the Queen
in full possession of her throne; and while
said throne is now on exhibition at the fair in
San Francisco, as relic of the semi-barbaric