The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-03-05

make fish of one and fowl of the other.
Mr.. Sayers asked that the matter go
over until the opinion of the secretary of
the interior could be obtained.
IL would be unwilling to ask the sec
retary of the interior, even with his col
lossal assurance" replied Mr. Lacey, "to
override the presidents veto"
Mr. Murphy, the Arizona delegate,
made the positive statement that the
bill had the approval of the secretary of
the interior and the commissioner of the
general land Office and that their opin-
ions in writing had been laid before the
president while he was considering the
bill.
Notwithstanding this statement, Mr..
Turner Oem.) of Georgia thought il
| could be safely assumed that the presi-
| dent had had the advice of the secretary
of the interior and the latter had proba-
| bly, inspired the veto. One of the prin-
cipal objections raised by the president
was that the lands, if leased by the local
authorities of the territories, could be
denuded of their timber.
Mr.. McRae Dem.) of Arkansas, who
was chairman of the public lands COM
mittee of the last house, said he would
| vote to pass the bill over the veto.
Mr.. Murphy reiterated his statement
| that the bill had received the written ap,
proval of the secretary of the interior.
| The protests received by the president, he
| said, were from persons who were being
| benefited by the use of the lands, rent and
! taxes free.
The vote was then taken upon the pas
sage of the bill, the veto of the president
| Notwithstanding. Under the constitution
this vote was taken by yeas and nays.
| The vote resulted 1913 to 3S. More than
| two-thirds having voted in the affirma-
| tive the bill was declared passed over the
presidents veto.
Those who voted to sustain the presi,
dent were:
Allen, Bell, Berry, Boatner, Buck,
Catchings, .Clardy, Cobb, Culberson, Ell
lott, Harrison, Hart Hendricks, Kyle,
McMillin. Meredith, Meyer, Miles, Otey,
Owens, Patterson, Pendleton, Robert
| son, Russell, Sayers, Sorg, Spencer,
Swanson, Tucker, Turner, Turner (Va),
Washington, Yeakum-3S, all Democrats.
The Republicans and Populists voted
| solidly in favor of passing the bill over
| the veto. The Democrats, 81 in number.
who voted with the Republicans and
| Populists were:
Little, McCuloch, McRac Neill, Stall
ings, Talbert, Wheeler, Cobb of Alabama,
Cummings, Latimer Livingston. Nc
Dearmond, Money, Richardson, Stokes,
| Terry, Williams, Cox, De Almond, Down
ing, Layton, Maddox, McLaurin, Moses,
Robbins Strait, Underwood
The announcement was received with
a scattering applause from the Republi-
can side.
Mr.. Henderson Rep) of Iowa, from
| the committee on rules, then presented
| the special order, of which be gave no.
tice yesterday making an order to offer
amendments TO abolish the fee system
in cases of district attorneys and mar
shals as part of the executive appro-
priation bill. He explained that the
house was strongly in favor of this meas
| ure and its adoption would give congress
an opportunity to work this much needed
reform. He expressed the belief that
reduction of over 100000 could be
| effected. The appropriations for United
States marshals and deputies had in
creased from 100000 in 1893 to 81 ,6OO,-
600 in 1896.
The subcommittee which had pre-
! pared the bill, he said, did not include
clerks because clerks were not engaged
in working up litigation, whereas attor-
| neys and marshals were at the fountain
head.
Mr.. Crisp (Dcm.) of Georgia said that
ordinarily he would not favor such an
/ order, but realizing that if this urgent re-
| form were to be effected it would have
| to be in the shape of an amendment to
| this appropriation bill, he should vote for
this rule.
Mr.. Cooper Dem.) of Florida protested
against the passage of such Il sweeping
bill in such a manner He thought the
bill was defective in many respects.
Every member, he thought, would desire
an opportunity to consult with his con-
stituents, practicing lawyers and the Off
GERS of the courts before voting.
The special order was adopted without
! division.
Mr.. Daniels Rep.) of New York, chair
| man of elections committee No. ., pre-
| sented the report of that committee i'll
| the contested election case of Aldrich VS..
| Robbins. from the Second Alabama dis
| trict. The report favored the contestant,
| Mr.. Aldrich, who was voted by a fusion
of Republicans and Populists.
He gave notice that he would call the
case up in about 10 days.
The house then went into committee
| of the whole and resumed the cOnSidera-
| ton of the legislative, executive and judi
cial appropriation bill.
Mr.. Catron, the New Mexico delegate,
| offered an amendment to change the time
for the meeting of the territorial legisla-
ture of New Mexico and its methods of
organization but it was not acted upon
today.
Several minor amendments were adopt
ed and the bill was completed except for
controverted paragraphs when the COM
mittee rose.
At $40 the house adjourned.