The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-27
EVERY RADICAL UTTERANCE
GREETED WITH CHEERS FROM THE
CROWDS OF VISITORS.
Two or Three Important Amendments
Rejected-PrOtest by Mr.. Cannon
Against Extravaganza.

N~NoeS III biAS al dpPACplldl1On Dlll ~
day in the House every utterance in favor
of aggressive action against Spain was ap-
plauded to the echo by the crowded gal
leries. A strong effort was made to increase
the appropriation for the naval reserves,
but it failed. Another effort to have the
government uniform the naval militia also
failed. The main contest of the day was
over a proposition to decrease the number
of timber dry docks authorized by the bill
from four to three 1t led Mr.. Cannon,
chairman of the appropriations committee,
who made the motion, to discuss the whole
question of war preparations and to inveigh
against undue extravaganza. He was voted
DOWNS to 107. No point of order was
made against the proposed timber docks,
but Mr.. Cannon gave notice that he would
raise point against the proposed steel dock
at Algiers, La, on the ground that such
dock necessarily involved in the future
the establishment of a naval yard. There
was some further discussion of the relative
merits of large battle ships and smaller war
craft, in which the temper of the House
seemed almost equally divided, but the
paragraph relating to the ships had not
been reached when the House adjourned.
A special notice was sent to all the Repub-
lican members this morning to be in their
places at noon to-day. The leaders had de-
cided to bring in special rule to bring the
naval appropriation bill to vote if the
filibustering of yesterday was to be re-
Sumed but as the Democrats gave asSur-
ance that the obstructive tactics would not
be continued the plan of bringing in rule
was abandoned.
Before the journal was approved this
. morning, Mr.. Bailey CDen1., Tex.) called at
tention to what he thought was an abuse
Of privilege to print personal explana-
ryix TO Mr. N
Mr.. Pearson had, he said, been accused
of abusing the frank privileges of the
the very matter frankable which he had
been accused of improperly franking Mr..
Pearson maintained that he had not abused
the privilege granted him. He called atten-
ton to the fact that some of the matter
printed was from a paper in which William
]. Bryan was interested. DO you object
to what William Jennings Bryan says?" he
asked smiling.
Il am inclined to indorse anything Mr..
Bryan says at this time. democratic APP
plause) Mr.. Bailey then moved to strike
the publication to which he objected from
the record.
Mr.. Handy Dem> denounced Mr.. Pear
sons action as fragrant violation of the
privilege of the House.
Mr.. Bailey said he would not have. pressed
manner in which the majority in times
past had held Democrats to words liter
ally spoken in debate.
Mr.. Pearson then took the floor and made
his explanation. 1t involved, he said ques-
lions of propriety and delicacy. In concu-
sion, Mr.. Pearson said that he would rather
sit in the House with Democratic gentle
man than Populist traitor. At his request
Mr.. Bailey then withdrew his motion and
by unanimous consent the article TO which
objection was made was stricken from the
record.
ACTION ON AMENDMENTS.
Consideration of the naval bill was then
resumed under the five-minute rule. Mr..
Elliott Dem, S. C) moved an amendment
to provide the naval militia with clothing.
He pointed out that the National Guard
were provided with uniforms. If war came
the naval militia would be called on before
the National Guard. In fact, the naval
militia of three States had already been
called out. The Navy Department Endorsed
this proposition.
Mr.. Boutelle pointed out that the govern
ment had never been called on to supply
clothing to the naval militia, and he did
not believe the scope of the government APP
preparations had been broadened. The
amendment was lost.
Another amendment was offered by Mr..
Foote (Rep.. N. Y) to increase the appro-
priation for arms, Announcements, ETC., of
the naval reserves from $4,000 to 100000.
Mr.. Boutelle, in supporting the amend
ment, argued that it was the duty of the
United States to intervene in Cuba. His re-
marks aroused several outbursts of APP
plause, but he was repeatedly called to err
der under the ruling of yesterday limiting
the debate to the section under considera-
ton.
Mr.. Lewis Dem, Wash.) argued in favor
OF Intervention. He said the Spanish tor
pedo flotilla was floating towards our
shores. He asserted that it was the duty
of the government to intercept that fleet
and blow it from the seas. When he
cred in the House in 1922, ''as we would not
be pulled by the British lion, SO we refuse
to to be frightened by the Spanish jackal.''
ment was defeated-46 to 81.
An amendment was adopted to permit the
secretary of the navy to use any portion Of
Michigans naval militia fund to repair the
damage to the Yantic.
A par lgraph, relating to the transfer of
the hydr ographic Office from the Bureau of
Navigation to the Bureau of Equipment,
which had been recommended by the Navy
Mr.. Elliott Oem. S. c. made a point of
order against the provision that none of the
money appropriated for the naval station at
Port Royal, S. c., should be available until
the United States acquired title to the land
claimed by Agnes A. Niyer, adjacent to the
Port Royal dry dock The point of order
was ,overruled. Thereupon Mr.. Elliott
moved TO strike out the provision.
BOYS PLAY" AND COWARDICE.
Mr.. Lentz (Dem., o. argued that it was
criminal to suspend an appropriation for
naval station with proviso at such time
as this. War was at our doors. We had
appropriated $5O.OOO0OO to prepare to meet
it. The Spanish fiotilla was approaching
Inc country IL Is boys play, SAID he,
1T is cowardice TO talk about acquiring
title to land at a great naval station now.
The naval station should be prepared for
action" (Applause.)
Mr.: DAYTON rep. w. ya.l said: I'VE
could lick six countries like Spain in the
time necessary to build the proposed key
wall az Port Royal" The amendment was
lost--1S to 6S.
| When the paragraph providing for con-
struction OF four timber dry docks al Ports
mouth, n. f.; Boston, Mass: Mare Island
Cal, and League Island, Pa, was reached.
no point of order was made against it. but
Mr.. Cannon, chairman of the appropriations
committee, moved TO reduce the number of
timber dry docks TO be authorized to three
and TIC be located at such navy yards as the
secretary of the navy might direct. The
findings of the Bunce beard and the recon-
nlendation OF the secretary of the navy
with regard to dry docks were discussed at
great length.
Mr.. Dockery (Dem., MOI said he was will
ing to vote for all the docks deemed ''urg-
entity necessary but Portsmouth was not
one of them
Mr.. Cannon discussed in a general way
the proposed increase in the navy dry docks
and battle ships. He said me was willing
as he thought every other member of the
House was, to be liberal in voting all the
money necessary for the naval establish
ment With reference to dry docks, there
were he said, four docks in the United
xnrff e, VIZ accommodates haf