The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-04-09
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.

washington, April 2.-Seyeral minor
bills were passed by unanimous consent
before the consideration of the slindry
civil appropriation bill was resumed in
to reimburse A. L. Brown, late post
master at Lemars, Iowa, for losses sus-
tanned by robbery. A resolution of in
quiry presented by Mr.. Hit, chairman of
the foreign affairs committee, was adopt
ed without debate, calling on the presi-
dent, if not incompatible with the pub
lie interest, to transmit to the house
copies of all dispatches, notes and cable
grams in the state department from De-
cember /, 1895, until the present time,
relating to mediation or intervention by
the United States in the affairs of Vene-
zuela, together with all the cOrrespon-
dence with foreign governments relating
to the same topic. Mr.. Hit stated that
his committee had unanimously reported
the resolution.
The sundry civil bill was then taken up.
Under an arrangement entered into, Mr..
Hainer Rep) of Nebraska was given an
opportunity to attack the amendment
adoDted yesterday, appropriating So, 900
for the Howard University.
1t was Mr. Hainer who led the success
full fight against the appropriations for
sectarian. charitable institutions in the
District of Columbia appropriation.
Mr.. Hainer explained that the amend
ment was adopted yesterday while he
was temporarily absent from the hall,
and without opposition and in way
which made it seem that it was not
anxious to send the appropriations to the
committee. He. thought the members
had unwittingly agreed to it yesterday
without realizing its far,reaching charac-
ter and significance. This was a private
bill 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 apprOpriating for any private
purpose. He read from the prospectus
of the institution to show that it was Il
Christian university and maintained as
its most favored department a chair of
theology. This was an institution for
the education of colored people. Why
should colored people be given this edu-
cation at public expense if white people
were not? What excuse could members
give? He favored higher education. but
they had no right to single out par
ticular sect, race, creed or social class
Favoritism had no place in any intelligent
republic. He charged that the institu-
ton was engaged in missionary work in
South Africa.
II submit" said he, that our mission,
airy work had better be done at home
We can not justify our action in appro-
priating money for evangeliZing the peo-
pie of Africa. This was an insidious at
tempt to commit congress again to Il
principle that had in the past taken mil
lions upon millions from the golfers of the
government for the benefit of sectarian
institutions. From 1871 to 1896, in the
District of Columbia, $13,000,000 had
been given to sectarian institutions. As
much more had gone to sectarian Indian
schools. .....
IF you say" said he. that everybody
who does good work is entitled to gov
ernmental aid. where is the line to be
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
amendment. This was "a low estimate
to be placed upon racel that had given