The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-01-28


the session was only six weeks off. manv
appropriation bills were to be acted
upon, and it was hardly reasonable that
senators should each take day to oppose
the bill
Mr.. Hill recalled the length of timt
given to the bill for the repeal of thu
Sherman law.
At this point the matter was laid aside
as Mr.. Chandler, rising to privileged
question; presented election credentials
stating that on January 20, John Edward
Addicks was elected n United States sen
ator from Delaware to fill the existing
vacancy.
From what source did you get that?"
saked Mr.: Gray DEM of Delaware.
Frankly l will say it was handed to
me BY BY Mr.; Addicks," answered Mr.;
to be sworn in as the colleague of the
Delaware senator (Gray.)"
Mr.. Chandler said that as he had al
ready introduced a resolution relative to
the seating of Mr.. Dupont in the United
States senate, he would not ask for i'm
mediate action on the credentials just
presented.
Returning the Nicaraguan canal bill.
Mr.. Morgan said the opposition to fixing
time for the vote was a filibustering
move and he would not consent to any
delay
Mr.. Stewart (pop) of Nevada favored
holding the senate in session until a.vOtc
was forced and spoke of the military and
strategic Importance of the canal
This brought on an interesting cOllOquy
between Mr.. Stewart and Mr.. Villas as to
the course followed in the repeal Of the
Sherman act
Mr.. Morgan then called for the regu-
lar order.
IF. then, we are to be cut of from
fair debate" said Mr.. Villas, 81 will BE-
obliged to move that when the senate
adjourn it be until Monday next"
This was clearly move for time and
opened short parliamentary struggle.
On roll call the yeas were 10; nays, 26,
six less than a quorum, and the senate
was Mt a standstiH.
Under the circumstances | move an
adjournment" said Mr.. Morgan, reluc-
family, and thereupon, at ago, the senate
adjourned.
THE HOUSE.
Washington, Jan. 21.--After two
days debate, in the course of which con-
siderable partisan passion was aroused
and an Intellectual attempt to flibuster
for the purpose of gaining time, the house
| today decided the contested election case
| of Yost VS.. Tucker, from the Tenth Vir-
ginia district, by denying the seat to Mr..
Yost and confirming Mr.. fuckers title
| thereto. The republicans were badly di-
vided, ffty-four Of them joining with the
democrats and supporting the claims of
the democratic contestee. When the
found they were defeated by the narrow
margin of eight votes, the vote being 119
to 127 against him, they inaugurated u
| flibustering movement in the hope Of
gaining a tie and for two hours there was
a succession of roll calls but they were
finally overpowered by numbers and the
resolution confirming Mr.. fuckers title to
his seat was adopted.
| Mr. Mr.. Yost is q member-elect OF the
next house and Mr.. Tucker, who is
son of Randolph Tucker, has been q mem
Der of the last four congresses. lie de-
clined a denomination because he did not
agree with his party on the money Ques-
ton.
In the debate today, Messrs. Thomas
(rep) of Michigan, Taylor (rep) OF Ohio
Lacey (rep.) of Iowa, Brumm lrep) OF
Pennsylvania, Thorpe (rep.) Virginia and
Walker (rep) of Virginia spoke for Mr.
| Yost and Messrs De Almond (dem.) of
Missouri, Walker (rep) of Massachusetts
Tucker (dem) of Virginia and Mr. Nc.
Call (rep) of Massachusetts supported
the claims of the contestee.
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.
Washington, Jan. 21.-Without pre-
liminary business the house today re-
sumed the consideration Of the Y0st-
| Tucker contested election case from the
Tenth Virginia district, which was de-
bated all day yesterday. According to
the understanding reached Yesterday the
vote was to be taken ut 4:3O this AFTER
noon.
Mr.. De Afrnond, member of the cleo
ton committee. took the floor in support
of the majority report, which favored
the contestee, Mr.. Tucker.
He argued that the house, in deciding
| this case, must be governed by the Yer
gina law, which, for the purpose OF this
case, was the federal law. But, he adj
mitted that the house, in the exercise OF
its power could disregard the Virginia
| law in order to determine the intentions
of the voters. But to do so, he contested,
would be to establish dangerous and far
reaching precedent.
Mr.. Grow (rep.) of Pennsylvania ar
gued that the house should hold to the
law of the state from which the ease
came, except that the law was plainly
meant to trick the voter. The will Of the
voters he said, vas the supreme law Of
the land, and it was the highest duty OF
| the house to decide what their will was.
Mr.. Thomas (rep.) of Michigan, one OF
the members of the election committee,
who Joined with Mr.. Walker in the min
Gritty report in favor of seating the con
testant, Mr.. Yost, advocated the adoption
of that report.
From what he had heard of the cleo
tons in Virginia, he said, he doubted
whether in many years any democrat had
been honestly elected.
Mr. Taylor (rep) of Ohio, in reply, said
he agreed that it was only by standing
by the letter of the law Mr.. Tucker could
hope to retain his seat But no technical
ity he urged, should be sustained by the
house if that technically defeated the
will of the people.
After some further debate by Mr..
Lacey (rep.) of Iowa, Mr.. Brumm (rep)
of Pennsylvania and Mr.. Thorpe (rep)
of Virginia in favor of the contestant,
Mr.. Tucker took the floor in his own be-
half. He took up what he said seemed
to be the pivotal point Of the case-the
| &c bn INN haI