Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-27
THE NAVAL BILL.
PROPOSITION TO DECREASE NUM-
BIER OF DRY-DOCKs DEFEATED.
BAILEY TAKES PEARSON TO TASK.
Charge Against the Radical of
Abusing the Franking Privilege
Upon Us.

was applauded to the echo by the crowd
| ed galleries. The main contest OF the
day was over proposition to decrease
the number of timber dry-docks author
ized by the bill from four to three. II
| led Mr.. Cannon. chairman Of the Appro-
priations Committee, who made the mo-
| tion, to discuss the whole question OF
war preparations and TO inveigh against
| undue extravaganza. He said the situa-
tlon should be met with loyal hearts
and cool heads" but the temper OF the
House was i'm favor OF the utmost libe-
| rality, and he was voted down-l0 to f9.
A proposition to eliminate the provision
| for dock at Portsmouth, N. H., shared
! the same fate. No point of order was
| made against the proposed timber-docks'
but Mr.. Cannon gave notice that he would
raise a point against the proposed steel
| dock at Algiers, La, on the ground that
| the dock was not necessity
There was some further discussion Of
the relative merits of large battleships
and smaller war-craft, in which the
members Of the House seemed almost
equally divided, but the paragraphs re-
lating TO the ships had not been reached
when the House adjourned.
A special notice was sent to all the
Republican members OF the House this
morning to be In their places at noon
to-day. The leaders had decided to bring
in a special rule to bring the naval
appropriation bill TO a vote, II the hli-
clustering OF yesterday was 10 be resumed
by the Democrats. but as the Democrats
gave assurances that the obstructive tao
tics would not be continued, the plan OF
bringing in a rule was abandoned
BAILEY AGAINST PEARSON
Before the journal was approved, Mr..
Bailey DemocraO, OF Texas, called at
tention TO what he thought was an abuse
Of privilege to print personal explana-
tion, given to Mr. Pearson Republican,
Of North Carolina. Mr.. Pearson had, he
said, been accused of abusing the frank
ing privilege of the House, and under
leave to print, had made 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 attention TO the fact that some OF
the matter printed was from paper in
which w. J. Bryan was interested.
"Do you object TO what William Jen-
nings Bryan says?" he asked, smiling.
81 am inclined TO indorse anything Mr..
Bryan says at this time" Democratic
applause)
Mr. Bailey then moved TO strike the
publication to which he objected from the
Record.
Mr. Pearson then took the floor and
made his explanation. 1t involved, lie
said, questions of propriety and delicacy.
He explained that the matter which he
had written had appeared five days be-
fore in a North Carolina paper. He had
recognized Immediately that five seats
from North Carolina In the House de-
pended upon their attitude toward the
publication, which consisted in fact of
resolutions adopted by the Populists ct
Raleigh, endorsing a fusion Of the Silver
forces. The article from the other paper
which he printed I'm the Record, bore On
the same subject In conclusion, Mr.. Pear
son said that he would rather sit In the
House with a Democratic gentleman than
n 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
The consideration OF the naval bill was
then resumed under the 5-minute rule.
PROVISION FOR NAVAL MILITIA.
MT. ElllOII tDtIlOtldlIs VI Cbulu NdID-
lima, moved an amendment TO provide
the naval militia with clothing. The
amendment was lost.
Another amendment was offered by
Mr.. Foote Republcan), of New York, to
increase the appropriation for arms, ac-
coutrements etc, Of the naval reserves
from $50 900 TO 100000.
Mr.. Boutelle Republican,. Of Illinois,
in supporting the amendment. argued
that It was the duty OF the United
States TO intervene In Cuba.
Mr.. Lewis DemocraD, Of Washington,
also argued in favor OF such interven-
ton. War, he said, was already upon
US. We were fools TO disguise It. It
was not patriotic TO delude ourselves
further. The Spanish torpedo fotilla
was sailing toward our shores. He as
serted that It was the duty Of the gov
ernment to intercept that feet and blow
il from the seas. When he quoted John
Randolphs utterances, delivered I'm the
House in 1920. GAS we would not be bullied
by the British lion. so we refuse to be
frightened by the Spanish jackal," the
House broke into cheers.
The amendment was defeated-57 TO &c.
Mr.. Elliott DemocraD, of South Caro-
lima, made p point of order against the
provision that the money appropriated
for the naval station at Port Royal,
s. c., should not be available
until the United States acquired Iitle TO
the land claimed by Agnes A. Niver, adj
iacent to the Port Royal dry-dock. The
point OF order was overruled. Thereupon
Mr.. Elliott moved to strike out the pro-
vision.
WAR AT OUR DOORS
Mr.. Lentz Democrat, of Ohio, argued
that II was criminal to suspend an APP
propriation for a naval station with
proviso at such a time as this. War
was at our doors. We had appropriated
$50 900 to prepare TO meet II. The
Spanish fiotilla was approaching the
country. It is boys play, said he: II is
cowardice TO talk about acquiring title
70 land at a great naval station now.
The naval station should be prepared for
action (ApplauseD
Mr.. Dayton Repubiican), OF West Vir-
-inia Insisted that the governments title
10 the property about the naval station
at Port Royal should be perfected be-
fore some contemplated improvements
were made
"XVe could lick six countries like Spain"
said he. 'in the time necessary TO build
the proposed key wall at Port Royal"
The amendment was lost-63 10 l3.
Al s o'clock the House adjourned.
The Senate was not in session to-day.