The herald., 1896-04-03


Columbia appropriation bill.
Mr.. Hainer explained that the amend
ment was adopted yesterday while he was
temporarily absent from the hall and with
out opposition, in way which makes it
seem probable that it is not obnoxious to
the appropriations committee. He thought
members had unwittingly agreed to it yes
terday without realizing its far-reaching
character and significance. This was a
private institution and every candid person
must admit that it was also sectarian.
Twice this session the house had placed
itself on record against appropriating one
dollar for sectarian institutions. The house
! had gone further and had declared against
apprropriating for any private purpose. He
read from the prospectus of the institution
to show that it was Christian university
and maintained as its most favored depart
ment a school of theology. This was an
institution for the further education of the
colored people. Why should colored peo-
pie be given higher education at public ex-
pense if white people were not? What
excuse could members give? He favored
higher education, but the government had
no right to single out particular sect.
race. creed or social class. Favoritism has
| no place in any intelligent republic. He
charged that the institution was engaged
in missionary work in Africa.
II submit he said. that our mission
ary work had better be done at home. We
cannot justify our action in appropriating
money for e-angelizing the people of
Africa"
This was an insidious attempt to COM
init congress again to a principle that had
in the past taken millions upon millions
from the Golfers of the government for the
1871 to 1896, in the District of Columbia
| alone $13 100000 had been given to sec.
tartan institutions. As much more had
gone to sectarian schools.
| "lf you say" said he, ''that everybody
| who does a good work entitled to gov
drawn? There is only one safe ground
and that is to absolutely divorce church
| and state.'
Members had told him that there were
colored voters in their districts and they
could not afford to vote against the amend
placed upon race that had given the
country Frederick Douglass and Booker
| Washington. That race does not want
cajoling. 1t wants its rights. The COL
ored people want to be treated as men
and women because they are men and
| women.
| Mr.. Evans (Republican) of kentucky,
| who had offered the amendment and who
| had charge of the time in opposition to
Mr.. Hainer, yielded to Mr.. Bartlett Dem
| ocrat) of New York, o member of the ap-
preparations committee. The gentleman
| from Nebraska, Mr.. Bartlett, said, not
content with defeating one appropriation
man of the appropriations. had made an
attack on this bill, in which he advocated
| the prescription of every form of Christian
religion. His feeling toward the Roman
Catholic church led him today to attack
the unfortunate race liberated and raised
to its feet by the immortal Lincoln, in
whose honor the house yesterday appropri-
| ated $50 900 for the purchase of the house
in which he had lived.
| Proceeding, he denounced as terrible
and monstrous this fin de steele doctrine
being advanced in the house that we
every appropriation bill with provision
that not dollar of it should 20 to the
| furtheraEce of Christian purpose.
Mr.. Cannon followed in support of the
amendment. The appropriation for the
Howard university, he said. was first made
The appropriations committee rejected
the appropriation because the university
contained u theological chair, but when
the amendment was offered with the pro-
vision that no portion of the money should
be used directly or indirectly for religious
purposes, the amendment was freed from
possible objection. From the standpoint of
broad patriotism he believed that the race
who were once slaves but were now free,
though still ignorant, as means of
self.defense and for the defense of the
! white people of the country should be on
couraged in industry and education. Mr..
Sayers, Democrat of Texas. also supported
the amendment and drifted into sharp
political discussion with regard to the re-
spective claims of the two parties to the
friendship of the colored people. Mr.. Say
ers called attention to the fact that in the
south colored and white men worked side
by side. The Democratic party in the
south had been the real friend of the col.
ored people. They stood ready now to
vote this money.
Mr.. Sayers Indignantly denied that the
colored people in the south were deprived
of their rights. He called attention to the
fact that the white people of the south, who
paid nine.tenths of the taxes; maintained
schools for the colored people as good as
those for the white.
A sharp running debate between Mr..
Sayers and Mr.. Hainer followed, in the
course of which Mr.. Hainer insisted upon
his charges regarding the south, and af-
flrmed that the races in the north stood on
an equal footing.
"Can they get into the unions in the
north?" asked Mr.. Sayers..
"They are on an equal footing with the
whites" replied Mr.. Hainer.
"Was any colored boy ever nominated
as a cadet to West Point or Anrapolis?"
III do not know"
ibid you ever nominate one?"
"Ihe cadets in my district are selected
by competitive examination" replied Mr..
Hainer.
"Oh, yes; we know about the competi-
tive examinations" said Mr.. Sayers, amid
Democratic laughter.
"Have you ever nominated q colored
boy?" asked Mr. Hainer.
mo-" promptly responded Mr.. Sayers.
"As now constituted | believe the white
race is the superior man and should domi-
nate"
And you are the boasted friend of the
colored man."
"Yes, and better friend than the gem
tleman from Nebraska"
Mr.. Sayers concluded with protest
against turning the institution out to
starve.
Mr.. Hepburn, Republican of Iowa, rId-
culed the new champion of the colored
race and asked if the university of Texas.
devoted to the higher education, admitted
colored youths.
"Frankly, no. replied Mr.. Savers, "but
the state supports other schools for col.
Mr.. Hepburn ridiculed the idea that the
ID mocrats were the better friends of the
CO. bred race.
A illustrating tho sympathy of the SOUTH
ern Democrats for the colored race he
drew attention to the fact that the new
constitution of South Carolina provided for
separate schools and that mo child of
either race should ever be permitted to at
tend the school of the other race.''
Mr.. Johnson, Republican of California,
made humorous speech against the an.