The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-28
Senator's Hansbrough and Allen
Pay Their Respects TO the
Agriculturist.
THE FREE SILVER SUBSTITUTE
Nelson of Minnesota Vigorously Pro.
tests Against Unlimited Coinage of
the White Metal.

WASHINGTON, D. c., Jan. 27.-The
Armenian atrocities formed the subject for
the opening prayer by the blind chaplain
of the Senate, Mr. Milburn, this morning.
AS soon as the journal of Friday last was
read the credentials of Frank ]. Cannon
and Arthur Brown as Senators-elect from
the new State of Utah were presented, read
and placed on file, and the new Senators
were then escorted to the Vice President 8
desk by Senators Dubois (R.) of Idaho and
Burrows (R.) of Michigan and took and
subscribed the oath of Office. They make
the whole number of Senators now in Office
SO, there being still vacancy from the
State of Delaware.
Among the petitions presented and re-
ferred to committees was one from the wife
of John T. Waller, held in prison by the
French authorities, in which she declares
that such imprisonmentisa "crime against
justice, and that if her husband had been a
British subject he would have been released
long since" She prays Congress that
"some suitable and immediate action be
taken for his release"
PETER (Pop.) of Kansas offered resolu-
ton, which went over until tomorrow, in
structing the Interstate Commerce Com
mission to inform the Senate whether any
additional legislation is necessary to pro-
tect the public interests in relation to rail-
road charges from points on the Missouri
River east and west.
On motion of Mitchell (R.) of Oregon
the drawing took place between the two
Utah Senators to determine their relative
terms of service, and the Vice-President
announced that No. (the long term) had
been drawn by Cannon and No. (the
short term) by Brown.
Hansbrough (R.) of North Dakota then
took the floor and proceeded with speech
relative to matters pertaining to the De-
partment of Agriculture. His subject was
the failure of the Secretary of Agriculture
to execute the law on the subject of seed
distribution. The essence of the contro-
versy, he said, lay in the proposition
whether an executive officer of the Gov
eminent has the right to willfully, DELHI
erately, designedly and, as in this case,
premeditatelv ignore a solemn statute of
Congress. He believed it could be shown
that the Secretary of Agriculture had dis
obeyed the mandate of the legislative
branch of the Government.
The last Congress had made an appropri-
alton of $4,000 to be used in the
purchase and distribution of field and
garden seeds, trees, cuttings, bulbs, etc., as
required by law. The Secretary had first
showed his deliberate purpose to evade
that law when he asked the Attorney
General for an Interpretation of the stat
ute with reference to the purchase of seeds.
There was nothing at all in the opinion of
the Acknowledgement which was inconsist-
ent with the proper work of the depart
ment, so that the Secretary derived but
little consolation from the opinion of the
Attorney-General. In accordance with
that opinion the Secretary had proceeded
to advertise for bids, but in the Secretary S
advertisement there were no specifications,
no descriptive lists of the seeds desired; he
simply advised the public that bids for
seeds would be received. Each and all the
bids were rejected on the ground that the
list did not show that the seeds were rare
and uncommon. In the proceedings
which took place few days ago before the
two committees on Agriculture of the two
houses the Secretary of Agriculture had
stated, when asked Why he did not re-
ILL
lieve he was obliged to do so.
Mr.. Hansbrough submitted that in ordi-
nary business transactions if a man does
not secure what he desires by the first ad-
vertlsement it is customary for him to
make second advertisement, which was
the ordinary method in everyday busi-
ness transactions, and 1t was furthermore
the effort prescribed by act of Congress,
approved January ~, 1894, with reference
to the purchase of articles by various ex-
ecutlve departments. The Secretary shields
himself behind his own opinion that the
seeds offered were not "rare and uncom-
mon." The provision of the law as to the
beneficial effect of frequent changes of
seed from one locality to another the Sec
rotary had Intentionally ignored and dis
regarded. He had likewise ignored the
articles of the other statute which requires
advertisements for proposals. 1t was
the plain duty of the Secretary if he were
faithful In the performance of his duty
and desired to execute the laws
OF Congress, to have readvertised
and to have earnestly endeavored
to aid bidders in offering seeds of the kind
and character that the law demanded and
the Secretary required. Instead of this he
rejected all bids upon technical grounds,
forthwith abolished the seed division oil
his department. and announced that there
would be no seeds purchased and distribu-
ted under the appropriation bill for the
tscal year ending June 80, 1896.
Altogether the position of the Secretary
In the matter was exceedingly tame. That
he deliberately set out to disobey the man
date OF Congress there could be no doubt;
that he personally was opposed to the pur.
chase and distribution of seeds of any
character, whether they be "rare or un.
common" or otherwise, there was no ques
ton and SO the Senate had here case in
which high executive officer deliberately
sets aside the law of Congress. The great
question above all others was the contu.
macious conduct of the Secretary. Gould
an officer OF the executive branch of the
Government, who was in effect high.
salaried clerk, defantly and stubbornly re.
fuse to carry into effect the acts of the
Congress of the United States?
Allen (Pop.) of Nebraska said that he
disagreed entirely with the Secretary oil
Agriculture as to his duty. He thought il