The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-04-02

|
of the BILL said he was surprised at this
outburst of excitement from the New
York senator, who, he feared, would
have spasm before he got through.
"Oh, no." interjected Mr.. Hill. Il was
never cooler in my life"
ment came from the house in the regular
way He expressed the hope that there
should be no personal reflection upon the
delegate from New Mexico, to whom Mr..
Hill had referred as sitting beside Mr.
Elkins.
Mr. Carter Rep.) of Montana followed
in defense of the amendment. He re-
ferred to the Irregularities in the New
Mexico assembly, where many men were
placed on the rolls without credentials.
Mr.. Carter complimented the work of
the delegate from New Mexico and de-
clared that the delegate was sent mot
to the house of representatives, but to
congress-" and as such he had u right to
appear in the senate.
Mr.. Hill answered that he did not COM
plain of the presence of the New Mexico
delegate (Catron), who sat alongside Mr..
Carter, but he did object to have that
delegate insert this political amendment.
Mr.. Hill moved to strike out the New
Mexico provision and he appealed to Re-
publican senators to make the striking
out unanimous, as the amendment was
clearly political.
Mr.. Daniel Dem.) of Virginia spoke
against the amendment.
Mr.. Elkins defended the proposition,
saying the delegate wanted it, and was
better qualified to speak for it than any
one else. Certainly no senator who
spoke of an amendment being "sneaked
in" was good authority on a question of
taste. Mr. Elkins declared that the
amendment was not political so far as
he knew.
At this point another heated personal
coloquy occurred, Mr.. Brice and Mr.. Ell
lins being the participants. The Ohio
senator asked Mr.. Elkins why the dele
gate from New Mexico had not suggested
the change.
"There was no demand for it them"
answered Mr. Elkins. But now, PRO
ceeded Mr.. Elkins taking up new and
very personal phase, ''let me ask the
senator from Ohio (Brice) what he thinks
of the governor of New Mexico, for this
is o contest between the governor and the
delegate. Let me ask the senator what
the governor said about him."
Mr.. Elkins' reference was to the often
sive telegram sent by Governor Thorn
ton and others to Mr.. Brice.
Mr.. Brice explained that the governor
had attended meeting from which a
telegram was sent rejecting on him
(Brice), but subsequently the governor
had publicly disavowed responsibility
and had made suitable amends.
Turning his attention TO the pending
amendment Mr.. Brice said that it was
political trick it was unworthy to be
brought here. On its face the charge
was well founded and under the crcum-
stances, Mr.. Brice said, he would oppose
the amendment.
Mr. Elkins said the statement of Mr..
Brce disclosed that the governor had
been mistaken on one important occa-
sion; was it fair to presume he might be
in this case and the delegate was better
authority than the governor?
Mr.. Faulkner DEM of West Virginia
opposed the amendment on the ground
that it was political and was based upon
the hope that Republican president
would be elected.
"Do l understand" asked Mr.. Wolcott,
'the senator says a Republican president
would be electedT'
"No" responded Mr.. Faulkner, who
is chairman of the Democratic congress
sional committee, ''only those of the most
vivid Imagination and who dream when
they are awake will say that"
Mr.. Carter argued that it was time to
re-establsh the rule of the majority in
New Mexico and if this amendment ac-
complshed that end, as he thought it did,
. | lltll tOlSTtsS tOulu wei luuulSt III DOilti-
cal legislation.
Mr.. Allen (Pop) of Nebraska said 1t
was difficult for Populist senator to de-
eide in contest in which trickery and
fraud were charged and admitted on both
sides.
Mr.. Cockrell opposed the amendment as
being political. 1t was based on the hope
of electing a Republican president who
would name a Republican governor for
New Mexico.
"Was this honorable" asked Mr.. Cock
o. Pr"
At this point Mr.. Wolcott moved that
when the senate adjourn it be until Mon
day.
Mr.. German suggested that there
should be no haste in dspOsing of the
pending amendment.
"This is the first time in IL years." said
Mr.. German, that a purely political
question has been brought into the dis
cussion of any appropriation. There
should be full opportunity for debate"
added Mr.. German, decsively; there
must be-"
Mr.. Cullom opposed adjourning over
, Saturday and demanded roll call, on
which the motion to adjourn prevailed,
33 to ~.
Mr.. Cullom moved to lay on the table
the motion of Mr.. Hill to strike out the
New Mexico provision, saying his only
purpose was to secure test vote. This
} motion was defeated, p to 20. The vote
was as follows:
!. Ayes-Republicans Aldrich, Allison,
Baker, Brown, Burrows Cannon, Car
ter, Cullom, Davis, Elkins, Gear, Hale,
Mcbride, Mcmillan. Mantle. Mitchell of
Oregon, Nelson, Perkins, Plat, Shoup,
Teller.
Nays = Democrats: Bate, Berry,
Blanchard. Brice, Gallery, Call, Chiffon,
Cockrell, Daniel. Faulkner, George Glib
son, German Hill, Jones of Arkansas,
Lindsay. Mitchell of Wisconsin, Pasco,
Pugh, Turpie, Vest, Villas, Walthall,
White Republicans Dubois. Frye,
Wolcott. Popuists: Allen, PETER.
On the announcement of the vote Mr..
Culiorn stated that he would not further
resist Mr.. Hills motion to strike out the
New Mexico provision.
Thereupon the Hill motion prevailed on
a viva voce vote without division.
The legislative appropriation bill, as
thus amended and including the changes
of c0mpensating district attorneys and
marshals, was passed.
7 The senate, at 4:45, went into executive
session, and later adjourned until Mon