Birmingham state herald., 1896-06-03
NUMBER IA

| two fiscal years ending in 1900, and that | no additional appropriations for the | smaller ones will be made for the yeap | 1898.
 Passing to the presidents accusation | of extravaganza, the committee shows | that the average appropriations for the | past six years have been $16,700,000 a year, while including the present bill and | the two others for the remainder of this | century the total amount for those six years will only average $13,000,000 a year. | This is based partly on the ground that | the committees experience with the con- | tract system in the past, together with | other knowledge, justifies the belief that the contract work, which will be distrib- uted over period of six years, and which amounted to $59 000 900, will be completed | for at least 30 per cent less than the amount stated, or, in. other words, for | $42, ,000 000
 | The report repeatedly emphasizes the | committees approved of the contract syss l tenn as being less expensive to the gov | ernment and securing more prompt and | satisfactory results. This system is the | distinctive feature of the bill and the | committee strongly recommends it's con- tinuation. The report added that no good | reason had been assigned by the presi- l dent why the house should recede from
 its action with regard to the measure. l Tt must not be forgotten" the report | concludes, that if this bill should fail
 
 | improvement that have been in process of | completion for number of years and against which the most captlous critic could urge no objection which would be suspended, whereby great waste would be incurred and great loss sustained. Not- withstanding all that has been said | against the bill, your committee asserts | that if it should become law 1t would yield most substantial benefit to the | farmers, the producers, the consumers, l the merchants and tho c ipf | of the country and contribute largely to l It's prosperity"
 | There was an unusually large number l of members in their seats, and they lis- | tened to the report with close attention l and applauded 1t warmly.
 MT. Hooker stated that, in the opinion | Of the committee, the presidents veto l raised every possible objection, and 1t | was the intention of the committee by its | report to answer them. He said that many gentlemen had spoken to him about discussing the veto, and, if he had consented to give them all the time asked for, it would run over three or four days. The matter was one for the house to de- termine. If 1t wanted to engage upon general debate well and good. In order to test the sense of the house on the ques- tion, and without expressing an opinion
 as to the deslrab.lity of the course indi- cated, he would ask the previous question
 on the motion to pass the bill. (Ap- plause).
 MT. Dockery democrat, of Missouri, and several other members were on their feet demanding recognition. The former, with great vehemence of manner, de- | nounced the course of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hooker), shouting; "The gentleman agreed with me yester- day that there should be opportunity for debate. It Is unjust unfair and unmanly to cut us off in this way" MT. Hooker seemed about to yield to MT. Dockery's demand but many mem- bers interposed with cries for ''the reg ular order" and the vote on ordering the previous question was taken. It re- | sulted-yeas 179, nays 60 MT. Cookery demanded the yeas and nays, but could muster only forty-six members to second | his demand-not a sufficient number and that announcement was greeted With derisive cries of triumph from the friends of the bill.
 The speaker put the question: Upon reconsideration will the house pass the bill, the objections of the president to the contrary, notwithstanding" Whereupon MT. Cookery made another effort to secure hearing. So mildly as to be almost pathetic he inquired: Upon the question of passing a bill over the presidents veto there can be no debate under the course pursued by the gentle man in charger"
 The speaker-When the house of rep
 resentatives has so voted there can be no ueDdIt. tAppldust.J
 MT. Dockery-And it has so voted. Stifed debate.
 And he sank into his seat amidst gen.
 eral laughter.
 The vote was then taken on the pas sage of the bill over the presidents veto. the constitution requiring that 1t should be done by yeas and nays. There were 220 yeas and 60 nays More than two- thirds having voted in the affirmative, the bill was declared to have been passed.
 The following democrats voted to pass
 the bill over the presidents veto: Bank
 head, Berry, Buck, Catchings, Clarke of
 Alabama, Cobb, Cooper of Florida, Coop
 CT of Texas, Culberson, Cummings, Dem
 ny, Dinsmore, Ellet, Elliott, Fitzgerald,
 Kendall, Kyle, Latimer, Lester, Little,
 McCulloch, McMilin, McRae, Meyer,
 Money, Ogden, Owens Price, Robertson, Sparkman, Strait, Talbert, Terry, Tur-
 ner of Georgia, Tyler, Underwood. Wash
 ington, Williams, Wilson of South Caro- lina-39.
 The negative vote was made up of the following: Democrats--Messrs Allen of Mississippi, Bartlett, Bell, Black, Clardy, Cockrell, DeArmond, Dockery, Erdman, Hall of Missouri, Harrison, Hart, Hem
 drick, Jones. kleborg, Layton, Maguire, Mcclellan, McDearmon, Pendleton, Rich- ardson, Savers, Shaw, Sorg, Stallings, Sulzer, Tate, Tucker, Turner of Virginia, Walsh. Republicans-Messrs. Allen of Utah, Anderson, Andrews Baker of Nem Hampshire, Brown, Calderhead, Connol- ly, Grout, Hager, Hainer. Hepburn, Leighly, Linney, Long, Mccall of Ten nessee, Mcclure, McEwan. Pearson, Pit ney, Scranton, Settle, Shafroth Sher-
 man, Strode, Tracewell, Updegraff. Pop ulists-Messrs. Baker of Kansas, Bell of
 Colorado. Bell, Skinner.
 MT. Stroud of North Carolina was the only populist who voted for the bill. There were comparatively so few votes fin the negative that 1t was found inpos- sible to pair absent members in favor of the bill.
 The rest of the session mainly was ta- ken up with the argument on the contest ed election case of Mitchell vs Walsh from the Eighth New York district and voting upon 1t. The report of the major- ity of elections committee No. 2, recom- mending the seating of Mitchell, republi- can, in place of Walsh, democrat, was agreed to-yeas 162, nays 3D. By this action the democratic strength of the
 house was reduced to ninety-seven and
 that of the republicans increased to 249. Conference reports on the naval appro-