The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-03-26
THE HOUSE.

1
Washington, March 13-Under an
Dgreement reached Just prior to the adj
tournament of the house today the vote
| on the resolutions to censure Mr.. Bayard
will be taken at 2 o'clock tomorrow. The
debate on the resolutions today at times
drifted into discussion of the merits of
protection as an economical policy.
Mr.. Tucker DEM of Virginia. who
made the principal speech in opposition.
defended Mr.. Bayard's utterances. and
Senator Chambers interview was
again brought forward as Il vindcation
of Mr.. Bayard's statement that protcc-
ton tended to corrupt public life. The
Republicans vie with each other in up
holding and eulogizing protection.
Mr.. Pearson of North Carolina an
nOunced that the candidate who would
be nominated at st. Louis would be she
who measured up mostly to the ideal
standard, the living impersonation of the
doctrine of protection"
Mr.. Barrett of Massachusetts and Mr.
Grosvenor of Ohio also spoke. The de-
bate concluded with an amusing alterca-
ton between Mr.. Sulzer of New York
and Mr.. Gibson of Tennessee.
There is no doubt that the resolutions
will be adopted tomorrow, practically by
strict party vote.
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.
Washington, March 19.-The galleries
of the house, despite the inclement
weather outside, were filled today in an
ticipation of the resumption of the de-
bate ON the resolutions to censure Am
bassador Bayard, which were called up
Immediately after the reading of the
journal.
Mr.. Taft (Rep.) of Ohio took the floor
in support of the resolutions. Under the
unwritten law of the land, Mr.. Bayard,
as American ambassador, was invited to
deliver an address before the Edinburg
Philosophical institution. He accepted
the invitation and this privilege-a priv
ilege secured solely by his official posi-
tion-he abused by attacking great
political party in his own country. l
say political party, because protection is
the foundation principle of the Republi-
can party. The complaint against Mr.
Bayard is not that he is 9 free trader
on home politics, but that, as an ambas-
sador of the American people, he took
his home politics with him to a foreign
country and exploited them before
foreign audience. To criticise an Amer
lean ambassador is an ungracious duty.
The American people prefer to relieve
their foreign representatives, from all
crltlclSm Whatever ana especially OF
partisan character, to the end that those
representatives may feel strong in the
undivided support of their own country.
When an ambassador, however, aban-
dons his non-partisan character, he not
only embarrasses the executive but also
invites the widest range of criticism
on all his personal acts. If Mr.. Bay
ard sees nothing reprehensible in those
acts, which are almost universally rec
ognized by his own countrymen as man.
ifest violations of diplomatic etiquette,
diplomatic duty and diplomatic honor,
it must be because old age is mildewing
those mental powers which several years
ago dictated stringent rules for the gov
eminent of our diplomatic service and
which were so keen as to dispose of
Lord Sackvlle West for comparatively
trivial offense. When an ambassador Of
the United States has reached the point
where he is willing to secure personal
appreciation at the expense of his own
country and when his self Importance
has become so expanded as not to per-
NIT him to recognize that his own posi-
ton and influence in foreign lands de-
ponds upon the support of a united, dig
nified and proud nation, it is high time
that this house, in rejecting public SEN
timent, should by reason of censure
command him to maintain the dignity
of his own country and to- subordinate