The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-22
--a--H--=--------
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.
The YOst-TuclSer Contest Decided in
Favor of COntestees.

The YOst-Tuclker Contest Decided in
Favor of COntcstces.
Washington. January 21.--After two
days debate, in the course OF which con-
siderable partisan passion was aroused and
an Intellectual attempt to filibuster for the
purpose OF gaining time. the house today
decided the contested election case Of Yost
vs. Tucker from the Tenth Virginia dis
trct. by denying the seat to Mr.. Yost and
confirming Mr. fuckers title thereto. The
republicans were badly divided, four OF
them Joining with the democrats and sup
porting the claims of the democratic con-
testee. When the supporters of Mr.. Yosts
contentious found they We're defeated by
a narrow margin of eight votes (the vote
! being 1l9 to l27 against HIM they in
augurated hlibustor in the hope OF gain
| ing a tie and for two hours there was a
succession of roll calls but they were final
ly overpowered by numbers and the resolu-
tion confirming Mr.. fuckers title to his
seat was adopted.
Mr.. Tucker who is son OF Randolph
Tucker. has been member OF tho last
four congresses. He declined a renomna-
| ton because he did not agree with his
party on the money question. In the debate
today Messrs Thomas (Rep) Michigan:
Taylor (Rep.) Ohio; Lacey tRep.), Iowa;
Brumm tRep), Pennsylvania; Thorpe
(Rep). Virginia. and Walker (Rep). Vir-
ginia spoke for MIR. Yost and Messrs. Dear
mond (Dem), Missouri; Walker Rep.).
| Massachusetts; Tucker Dem.l, Virginia.
and Mccall tRep), Massachusetts,. sup
ported the claims of the contestee.
Washington. January 21.--without pre-
liminary business the house today resumed
the consideration of the Yost- Tucker con-
tested election case from the Tenth Vir-
glnia district, which was debated all day
yesterday According to the understanding
reached yesterday the vote was to be taken
at 4 80 this afternoon. Mr.. Dearmond, a
member of the election committee. took the
floor in support OF the majority report,
which favored the contestee, Mr. Tucker.
lie argued that the house in deciding
this case must be governed by the Vr
ginia law. which. for tho purpose of this
case. was the Federal law. But he admit
ted that the house in the exercise of Its
power of force could disregard the Virginia
law In order to determine the intentions OF
the voters But to do so. he contonded,
would be to establish dangerous and far
reaching precedent.
Mr. Grow (RepD OF Pennsylvania argued
that the house should hold to the law OF
the State from which the case came, ex-
cept that law was plainly meant to trick
the voter. The will of the voters, he said,
was the supreme law Of the land and 1t was
the highest duty of the house to decide
what their will was.
Mr.. Thomas tRep) Of Michigan. one OF
the members OF the election committee who
joined with Mr.. Walker in the minority re-
port in favor of seating the contestant. Mr..
Yost. advocated the adoption OF that re-
port.
From what he had heard Of the elections
in Virginia, he said, he doubted whether In
many years any democrat had been honest
ly elected.
Mr.. Taylor (Rep) of Ohio. in reply, said
he agreed that 1t was only by standing by
the letter of the law Mr.. Tucker could
hope to retain his seat. But no technicality,
he urged should be sustained by the house,
II that techncality defeated the will of the
people.
After some further debate by, MIR. Lacey
(Rep) Of Iowa. Mr. Brumm tRep) or
Pennsylvania and Mr., Thorpe tRep) of
Virginia, in favor of the contestant. Mr..
Tucker the contcstee took the floor in
his own behalf. He took up what he said
seemed to be considered the pivotal point
of the case--the question of counting the
imperfect ballots. He did not believe they
should be counted. the committee did not
believe they should be counted, but II they
Vol, s,iii have nIuraljtv of az MIR Nc
C,u w., ~ Mas,ochmsct,s who was Ia
80, ~, ~, y, ,ai'srit,, rona'.t cIossd for
. W." ~ '''''o''''
When the debate closed at 30 p M. the
vote was taken hrst on the minority reso-
luton declaring the CONTESTANT M, ios''
emitted to the scar heid ny MT, iuuher;
1heTe was conslderaoie excitement WHY !,
the vote was being taken. AS soon as IL
became nolsed about that the contestant
was defeated. Mr. Thomas thep. oil Michl-
gan changed MS vote from yea 10 nay ~
order to be sble 10 move reSo,,s'iela''oi
me foliowlhg repupicahsIl h'y -lou, Va
Ntcheson. Adams Arnold tfenn.l, henhett'
Blue. Frederick, Codding. conn, ooUNe
Croliss. Draper, Fletcher' Glllett IN; -,
Gillett (Mass), Griswold, Hartman Iivh,!
Comm. nm Vonn. ;: H9ohel, i'unu IVA
jenkins Kerr, Leisingring, Leonard, Loud,
|; | Loudensager, Mccall tMaSs,l, McEWai'