The San Francisco call., 1896-04-03
Howard University Benefits by
the Change of Sentiment
of Members.
EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH
Democrats Charged With Neglecting
the Negroes and Robbing Them
of Their Rights.

CoHsioeratlon, ana as result the policy of
the House, as expressed at that time by
decided refusal to appropriate money tor
the charitable and benevolent institutions
OF the District, was in effect reversed. The
lnciting cause of the debate was the amend
ment to the sundry civil bill, which was
adopted in committee of the whole yester-
day on motion by Evans (R.) of Kentucky,
giving Howard University in Washington
$92,6OO, the appropriation having been
omitted from the bill by the committee re-
porting it. The amendment was adyo.
Gated b. Bartlett CD of New York, Sayers
(D.) of Texas, Cannon (R.) of Illinois and
Evans (R.) of Kentucky. 1t was opposed
by Hainer (R.) of Nebraska. McRae (D.)
of Arkansas, Johnson (R.) of California,
Andrews (R.) and Livingston CD of
Georgia.
There was depression from the main
question, when Hepburn (R.) of Iowa, re-
spending to the remarks by Savers,
charged the Democrats of the South with
not only failing to provide equal eduea-
tional advantages to the negroes with the
whites, but robbing them of their civil
rights.
His statements were vigorously combat
ed by Sayers and others.
When the matter got into the House an
aye and noe vote was taken on the amend
ment, and it was agreed to-ayes 129, noes
los This debate practically closed con-
sideration of the sundry civil appropria-
ton bill, and no further amendment was
made. 1t was passed as reported from the
committee of the whole.
Hit (R.) of Illinois reported fayora biy
from the Committee on Foreign Affairs
the resolution asking the President to
transmit to Congress all the correspond
ence in the Department of State relating
to mediation or intervention by the United
States in the affairs of Venezuela since
Dece m Der !, 1895 to date, and the resolu-
ton was agreed to.
The House, having resumed considera-
ton OF the sundry civil appropriation DILL,
Hainer (R.) of Nebraska opposed the ap-
preparation of $50, 500 for the support of
Howard University.
BE asked members what excuse thev
could make to their constituents for vot-
ing an appropriation for giving higher
education to the colored girls and bows
which they denied to those of their own
race and their own children. Howard
University received as much money from
other sources as it did from the United
States. One OF its chief contributors was
the American Missionary Society Of the
Congregational Church. He had opposed
appropriations in another bill, which
would have gone to Catholic institutions.
and he asked how the House could refuse
to vote money to Catholic institution
and then vote an appropriation to an in.
CT frol l1o6 bxyfI
Church. The only safe principle was to
absolutely dissolve church and State.
Hainer, as a conclusion of his remarks.
sent to the clerks desk and had read Gen.
eral Grants remarks at the reunion of the
Society of the Army of the Tennessee in
1875, in which the general said that no
money intended for educational purposes
should ever be voted to sectarian control.
Bartlett CD of New York replied to
Hainer's speech. Bartlett charged that
Hainer himself was the author of bills to
devote public money to private purposes
or persons. Bartlett proceeded to read
the titles of several bills introduced by
Hainer. He denied that the negroes in
South are uniustly treated, and explained
that in Texas for every dollar appro-
priated for the education of white child
another dollar is set aside for the educa-
ton of the colored child.
Hepburn of Iowa said that in Texas and
in other States the negroes are refused ad-
mission to the universities and agricultu-
raj colleges, that right being reserved for
the whites. He asserted that the negroes
of the South were robbed OF their civil
rights and refused the righs of suffrage.
and that the whites in that region used
the stolen right it has given them in the
House of Representatives to vote appro-
priations for their benefit.
The amendment was opposed by John
son (R.) of California and McRae (D.) of
Arkansas.
Livingston (D.) of Georgia presented a
petition, signed, he said, by every colored
pastor, presiding elder and Bishop of the
District of Columbia, asking Congress to
investigate the expenditure of funds of
Howard University and making serious
charges against the management
Andrews (R.) of Nebraska opposed the
amendment. because he could not in good
conscience vote public money for secta-
rian or private institution. The Govern
ment had no control over Ho ward Univer-
sity, he said. and therefore, however
much he might favor the objects of the in
stitution, he found no ground upon which
to support the amendment.
Closing the debate for the amendment,
Evans (R.) of Kentucky said that it had
been hurredly drawn, and was not in
terms as he would prefer, and he gave no
tice that if the House would permit he
would ask that it be amended so as to pro-
vide for supervision of the institution by
the Secretary Of the Interior and 20
strengthen the prohibition against the use
of money for any sectarian or religious
institutions.
The debate, which had from time to
time been extended by unanimous
consent. and which had occupied three and
half hours was closed by Hainer in a re-
view OF the reasons marshaled by him in
the beginning against the amendment.
On motion by Cannon in lieu of the