The San Francisco call., 1896-04-05

that explained why the resolutions were
here.
As to the second resolution, that favor
ing friendly intervention by the United
States, Gillette said it was useless to hope
for any good results to follow. Because
OF what has been said in another body in
debate on this subject, the proud sensitive
ness of Spain had been wounded, so that
friendly Intervention on the part of the
United States was impossible.
When Gillette had concluded, an effort
was made by Hit to secure an agreement
to close debate and take vote to-day, but
was unsuccessful. A great majority of
members present wanted to vote at q
o'clock, but a number desired to speak
and it was finally arranged to debate the
report the rest of the day, including
night session, and take vote on Monday
Immediately after the reading of the jour-
nal.
Cockrell (D.) of Texas earnestly advo-
Gated the cause of Cuba. If he had the
power. he would take Spain by the throat,
have her remove Weyler and free Cuba
and command her to keep her hands off.
fApplause.l |
Elicit (D.) of Virginia opposed the reso-
lutions on the ground that the insurgents
had not yet reached that condition which
would justify extending belllgerent rights
to them.
Newlands (Silver) of Nevada advocated
the adoption of the report. AS to the OBJ
lection that the resolutions should not be
adopted because Spain was friendly ma
ton, he said nations were not really
friendly toward each other. They were
either at peace or war, but not friendly.
The same obligation devolved upon ma
tions as upon individuals to aid those
struggling for life and liberty, and in this
case the obligations upon the United States
was the stronger because the struggle was
going on at its very threshold. Referring
to the terms of the resolutions, he said
Spain should understand that under the
velvet glove of friendly intervention there
was the iron hand of the United States.
Stewart (R.) of New Jersey, also favor
ing the resolutions, declared that the
United States should aid struggling Cuba
to achieve her independence.
Russell (D.) of Georgia asked why the
United States should interfere with the
domestic affairs of other nations. No
other nation had expressed the slightest
interest in our intention to interfere in
behalf of the Cuban insurgents. These in
surgents, over whom so many crocodile
tears have been shed, are what we used to
call bushwhackers and barn. burners, and
Russell asked what in the name of COM
nonsense there was to justify the demand
for Intervention and granting of beligerent
rights to them.
Walsh Cd Of New York occupied the
attention of the House, he said, for the
purpose of expressing his approval of the
resolutions and to defend Senator Hill of
New York of the charges made by Adams
that he was actuated by other than the
best motives in his treatment of them.
Turner (D.) of Georgia argued some
what elaborately against the resolutions.
He said: II yield to no man in my SYM
pathy for any people struggling for free
dom, but 1T is not question of sympathy.
It is a question which affects our own
interests and which relates to our duty as
a member of the family of nations. 1t
also deals with our duty under treaty
with other nations"
These, as Turner said, involved all the
reasons which he advanced for opposing
the resolutions. In the course of his re-
marks Turner referred to the trying cir
cumstances in which the Southern States
stood during the reconstruction period
following the rebellion and called the
atten ton of the House to the fact that in
Cuba there existed condition which was
not equaled in any Southern State. The
Anglo-Saxon race had the instinct,of gov
ernment and no other race had it in nearly
SO large degree.
A contention for the mastery between
the two races in Cuba, Turner said, would
be inevitable. Having had an experience
in reconstruction, he would not willingly
undergo it again, nor bring about a con-
dition of things in any country that would
repeat there that experience.
Wheeler D.) of Alabama favored the
resolutions, and Mahany (R.) of New York
said he would vote for them, but under
protest.
The last speaker of the afternoon was
Buck (D.( of Louisiana, who pleaded elo-
quently for Cuban freedom.
The Cuban debate was interrupted near
the close of the session by Bartlett (D.) of
Georgia, who. under privileged question,
made an explanation of the connection
with the now famous circular which formed
the subject of an acrimonious colloduy be-
tween Gibson (R. of Tennessee and Sulzer
D.) of New York, in the course of the de-
bate on the Beyard resolutions several
weeks ago. Bartlett disclaimed any con-
nection with the use of the circular made
by Sulzer, which was without his knowl-
edge or consent, the circular having
reached Suffers hands after being passed
around among the memb bers of the House.
Gibson accepted Bartlett's disclaimer,
and withdrew any implication upon that
gentleman's connection with the incident
which reflected upon him in any way. He
would suggest, however, that in the fu-
ture whenever Bartlett had possession of
any such paper he be very careful how he
exhibited it in the vicinity of the gentle
man from New York. Laughter.]
The House at P. M. took a recess until
P. NJ.
There were but six members when the
House met tonight to consider further
the conference report on the Cuban resolu.
ton. Mccall of Massachusetts, presided.
The public galleries were well filed.
Dockery 3D. of Missouri was the first
speaker. He was in hearty accord with