The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-13

bill brought in he was not willing to vote
for II unless the colored member should
tell him to.
air. Linck remarked that the Democrats
question. but he had an impression that
their friendship for the colored race was
largely sham. He recited an instance oc-
curing after the close of the war when
one of the Jefferson county Democratic
leaders brought a monkey to the polls and
declared that it should vote IL the colored
people were permitted to vote. Mr.. Smith
spoke in favor Of the substitute and re-
viewed little of the history of the Dem
o oeratic party in its efforts to suppress the
amendment to the substitute providing that
the word district should be construed TO
mean ward or township, and Messrs. Ran
dolph and Packard both spoke against this
amendment Finally the previous question
was ordered upon this and Hedgecock's
amendment was defeated by a vote of SO
to 50. The question was then upon the sub
stitute bill, and Mr. Clauser spoke in favor
OF 1t. Mr.. Ryan started to speak against
it, but the point was made that they were
he was declared out of order. The roll was
called and numerous members explained
their votes. Mr.. Bowers and Mr.. Wair
made very plain and honest statements.
They declared that they We're against the
bill and against the whole business all the
way through, and this unexpected honesty
rather startled their fellow-Democrats. Mr..
Blankenship took occasion to thank his
Maker for 1.-The universally of mankind"
when he declared you cannot accuse me
or any other colored gentleman of being
prejudiced against the colored race. Mr..
Jones explained his vote with the sarcastic
remark that he was pleased to see how
everybody loved the colored man. Mr.. Lit
Teton sent up written explanation and
asked that il be spread on the journal. 1t
was to the effect that he voted for the sub
stitute largely because the author of the
bill had agreed to it. The roll call re-
Ayes-ArchibaId, Babcock. BIankenship
Bowers, Butler, Canada, Clauser. Cockrum
Elliott of Henry. Fornshel. Furness, Glib
bard. James, Jern cyan, Kratz. Lambert
Linck, Littleton, McCrea, Medsker. Miller
Of
of Fulton, Peckenpaugh, Randolph, Record
Rifenberg. Smith of Tippecanoe, Spooner,
Jams, wiiioughby, WoodruffH45.
Noes-Berry, Brown, Downey. East, Eg-
gle, Eichhorn, Elliott of Marion, Elliott of
Washington, Graham Haifley, Hall, Hedge
cock, Henderson, Herod, Jones, Kell: Kel-
ley, Knepper. Mozart, McGeath, Mann.
Marsh. OBannon, Patterson of Franklin
Pinnick, Remington, Rhodes, Roose, Ross,
Ter, Smith of Allen, Swope, Thornton, Ii
tus. WAR, Wallrath Wise.-4S
The speaker announced the result and
declared that the bill was recommitted.
The rules require two-thirds vote to re-
commit a bill when on third reading. No
body made the point of order but Mr.. Jones
book of rules and discovered that the rul-
ing was wrong. The whole crowd of hun
dred or more colored people We're soon in
formed, and they proposed during the noon
hour to have that ruling changed.
Shortly after the afternoon session began
Mr. Eichhorn arose and made the point of
order. A couple Of bills had been read the
second time. Mr.. Sutton made a point of
order that other business had interviewed.
Speaker Petit said that if there was any
authority for reaching back with a point
of order he would consider it. Mr.. Eich-
horn responded that from the fact that
there was no authority against it, he would
like a ruling. The speaker said the chair
would take the question under adviSement
and the expected storm did not break The
House pursued the work of second read
ings.
1t was nearly o'clock when the speaker
made his ruling. He held the point of order
raised by Mr.. Eichhorn not we'll taken, be-
cause other business had interviewed.
when d ruling goes unchallenged," be re-
marked, lit shall stand whether right or
wrong"
Mr. Eichhorn asked what he would do in
case motion should be made in the morn
ing to correct the journal as to this record
and the speaker replied that he would rule
upon questions as they came up. He then
cited rulings of Speaker Crisp from the
Congressional Digest and paragraphs from
Cushings Manual and Reeds "Parlia-
mentary Practice sustaining his point
that a point of order could not be raised
upon ruling after other business had in
tervened.