The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-24


1t was a vicious. unfair. extre giant and
unsatisfactory bill.
INSINUATIONs
Mr.. Teller commended the recent State
Department paper on the seal question, as
that remarkable paper of good American
ideas expressed in a good old-fashioned
way" He said he did not know who the
author was, but would congratulate him if
he did. Mr.. Teller stated that sums of
money had been used in the last campaign
by the successful party. He had heard it
said that the Republican party had spent
more money in the last campaign than in
all the previous campaigns since its origin.
II would be worth a mint OF money, eX-
claimed Mr.. Teller If we could know what
the sugar trust gave, what the Standard
OH Company gave, and what the great
nnanclal concerns gave.
Mr. Teller spoke sarcastically of the re-
ports that the President would recommend
the creation of a currency commission. The
American people Were nor yet ready to turn
over the great monetary question to COM
mission to the indianapolis convention.
lie believed the people themselves would
settle that question and settle it rightly in
1900. The House and Senate were commits
stoned by the people to legislate, and he
intimated that the President was dis
courteous to Congress to ask that it be
taken out of their hands.
Mr.. Teller next referred to the enforced
resignation of President Andrews, OF
Brown University announced to-day, be-
cause Oh MS advocacy Oh the 1IeG coinage
OF silver, which he denounced as one OF the
most shameful acts of abasement the world
had ever seen. Thank God, said he IN
impassioned tones, that President An
stided." He characterized the action of
the trustees as one of the most infamous
chapters in one hundred years OF our his
tory not because it showed the trend of
public opinion in the direction of destroy
ing that freedom of thought upon which
| our government was founded. IN conclu-
! sion MI Teller announced that he had no
! desire 10 return to the folds of the Repub-
! lican party. The galleries broke into con-
! tinued applause as the Colorado senator
! took his seat.
Mr. White followed Mr.. Teller. He read
a carefully prepared speech dealing with
the general questions involved in the bill.
! The great trusts and corporations, he said,
knew what they were doing when they in
| vested their money in the Republican party
last fall They would not only get the
principal back as the result of the enact
ment of this bill but they would get COM
! pound interest at high rates.
MANTLE WILL VOTE YEA
When Mr.. White closed at the end Of
about an hours speech Mr.. Mantle (silver
Republican, Montana,) briefly expressed his
regret that the Senate conferees had not
! been able to retain in the bill cotton ties
! and cotton bagging, and mating and those
other things which the Senate, by a yea
and nay vote, had transferred to the free
list. 1t was, in his opinion, a stupendous
mistake on the part of the Republicans
looking at it from a political standpoint
They had missed an opportunity to popu-
| larize this measure. II by voting against
! this conference report he could achieve a
! reversal of the decision on these points he
| would gladly do so and stay mere another
month. But he realized that his vote would
! be useless and with much reluctance and
many regrets he announced he should vote
| for the report.
Mr. Pottus, of Alabama, followed. an
| tagonizng the action of the conferees on
| cotton ties, cotton bagging, etc In asking
| that they be placed on the free list, he said
| he was pleading for the American farmer
! The profession that this bill was to be en-
acted in the interest of American labor he
| denounced a 'damnable pretense." Mr.
| PettuS spoke leiSurely and at length against
| the bill. He referred to the vote of a Dem
ocratic senator (McEnery) for the bill, al
! though, Mr.. Pettus said, not more than 500
men owned sugar lands in Louisiana.
Mr. McEnery challenged this statement,
saying that one-haf of the people of
Louisiana were interested directly or in
directly in sugar production.
| Mr. Pettus closed with an arraignment of
| trusts, and as he sat down he received sew
eral scattered handclaps.
Mr. Allen reviewed what he called the
remarkable things of a remarkable extra
| session. He referred to the inaction of the
House of Representatives, its meeting only
| twice a week, due, he declared, to the
course of the speaker of the House in man
aking affairs as suckers were strung on
a string. Mr.. Allen spoke of the large
campaign fund raised last fall and the in
|
| Ohio Illinois and other States.
Mr.. Foraker, who sat across the aisle,
| arose and said: THE vote of Ohio was an
| honest one and never until this moment
| heard it insinuated that it was not an hon.
! est vote"
Then the senator hears it now," re-
ION what ground does the senator make
such an assertion asked Mr.. Faroker.
A WILD ASSERTION.
"On the ground" Mr.. Allen replied, that
|
honest one there is one voter for every two
and a half or three of the population. and
in the city of Cleveland almost the whole
population were voters. The honest peo-
pie of the United States believe it was a
fraud, and L believe it was produced by
money and other corrupting influences"
Mr.. Allen said the same was true of Illi-
nois, where the vote of Chicago was
swollen over 100000 votes The senator
| commented on the effects of the bill in its
provisions on white pine and articles of
| houshold use, on the homemakers and
| houSek6eperS of the West. These provi-
| sions were a bare-faced, cowardly surren-
| der OF the interests of the people in order
| TO favor few wealthy men who controlled
| the white pine and other necessaries of life
At o'clock a motion by Mr. Pettus to go
| into executive session was lost.
Mr.. Allen had resumed his tariff speech
| When Mr.. Foraker came forward with CEN
20 rs % 1OA lIlS purpose OIL QlSprOVlng
| Mr.. Aliens charge as to the swollen vote
| in Ohio He said Mr.. Allen must have
! spoken in ignorance of the facts Hlr-
| riedly reading from statistics Mr. Foraker
| said the vote of Ohio in 1896 was l ,OO2 1926
| While the population was about 400OOO0 or
| about one vote for every four persons In
| Cleveland the statistics showed about one
vote for every four persons. That ratio
was about the average on a full vote.
Did not Mr.. Bryan have larger vote
| in 1896 than Mr. Harrison had in 1922"
asked Mr.. Allen.
Yes" answered Mr.. Foraker because
neither of the candidates in 1892 was calcu-
lated to bring out the full party strength
and, in my judgment, there was not a full
vote for either Mr.. Harrison or Mr. Cleve-
land. On the other hand, the campaign of
1896 was unusually energetic and an excep-
tionally full vote polled Not since
1SS; has question of fraud arisen in Ohio
and then Governor Hoadly, a Democrat
exposed and denounced the frauds that had
been practiced. Since then neither Demo
Gratis nor Republicans have insinuated
fraud and to-day the, Nebraska senator
makes the first insinuatiOn of that charac-
ter. He bases it on the ratio of the vote to
the population, and / have shown that his
ratios are incorrect. l ask the senator to
confess he was in ignorance and withdraw
his charge"
Mr.. Teller caused temporary diversion
by citing the fact that the Ohio vote in
1892 was only $4,000 and in 1896 had in
creased to 1,014 297
A QUESTION FOR ALLEN.
Again Mr. Foraker insisted that the vote
in 1892 was exceptionally small. II do not
| doubt" said he, that 100000 voters did not
go to the polls to vote for either Grover