The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-01-24

Mr. Williams, Democrat of Mississippi,
interrupted to say that there was no ques-
ton about the fact that the motion was
to be motion to recommit with instruc-
tions.
Mr.. Henderson, who was not satisfied
with Mr.. Bailey's reply to his question,
again called for an answer.
"I ask the gentleman" he said, ito
reply not from his philosophy or his
breast, or his theories, but as lawyer,
member of the House and member OF
the committee on rules to say whether
there is any statement in the record which
will justify any other presumption than
that the motion to reoommit was to be
made under the rules
''I had the right to make the motion
under the rules" replied Mr.. Bailey.
'tThe gentleman has not answered my
question:" said Mr.. Henderson. II want
to say that no understanding on the part
of the gentleman from Texas or any one
else could have cut out the right of my
self or any other member to make the
point of order upon any instructions
which might not be proper under the
rules OF the House."
cit did not cut you off, retorted Mr..
Bailey. Enough Republicans had pro-
fessed willingness before the country to
vote for the adoption of that resolution
and It was to save you from defeat at the
hands Of those dissatisfied Republicans or
to save them from embarrassment at
home that the agreement was violated.
(Applause on the Democratic side.) B
Mr.. Bailey's statements provoked cross
fire from the Republicans but the dispute
was not cleared up at all, each side con-
tending for its own Interpretation and
Mr.. Bailey concluded by saying: "There
was an agreement to vote on the motion
to recommit. Did we have such voter
If not say the agreements was violated
and with that statement leave that to
the right minded men on this floor and
the people of the country
Mr.. Hit then gave his version Of the
agreement. There was an agreement, he
said, made at his urgent request. Its
object from first to last was to close the
debate. He had proposed one, two three
and finally four clock as the time for
taking the vote. The yea and nay votes
could have been demanded. "When we
agreed to vote at four O'CLOCK" he con-
tinued, ''Mr. Williams. notified the House
that he should move to recommit. He
had that right under the rules. I stated
that the agreement was to close debate at
four o'clock but there was excepted the
right to vote on recommittal But that
motion was necessarily understood to be
legitimate and proper one under the
rules. No instruction was given by the
nature of the Instructions. 1t was COM
petent for any member to make the point
that the instructions collided with the
committee in charge of an appropriation
bill would be dereliet in his duty If he did
not undertake to protect his bill at every
stage. IT the professed understanding had
been corrected would have been bound
as would all others not to avail myself of
the right every member has under the
rules to see that the rules were carried out
in legislation. 1t was no departure from
the agreement as to the hour of termin-
ating the debate or my statement on the
floor for me to protect the bill from
motion in violation Of the rules .
This closed the incident and the House
went into committee of the whole on the
Indian appropriation bill. During the
general debate Mr.. Cummings, Demo-
GRAFT of New York, made an eloquent pro-
Cuban speech; Mr.. Eddy, Republican of
Minnesota, spoke on the free bones ques-
ton; Mr.. Lewis, Democrat of Georgia,
submitted some remarks in reply 10 Mr.
Dingley's statements regarding the cause
of depression in the cotton industry in
New England and Mr.. Gaines, Democrat
of Tennessee, on the armor plate question.