The Camden chronicle. (Camden, Tenn.) 1890-current, 1899-03-03
HOUSE RULES WERE UPHELD
ADVOCATES OF THE CANAL BILL
LOSE IN CONTEST.
CHAIRMAN'S RULING IS SUSTAINED
Contention Was Over Proposition TO Put
Canal Bin In Appropriation Meas
ure as u "Rider."

A Washington special says: One Of |
the fercest contests Of the session was
in progress when the house met
Wednesday. The friends and oppo-
nents of the plan to attach the Nicara-
guam canal bill to the sundry civil bill
were working assiduously, and every
agreement which could influence mem
bers in one way or the other was
brought to bear. The fate of the canal
bill at this congress was in the bal
ance.
Mr.. Dockery, democrat, of Missouri,
made an argument in favor of sustain
ing the rules Of the house, which he
contended the proposed amendment
violated. No one with any respect for
his reputation as = parliamentarian, he
declared, could hold that the amend
ment was in order. He realized that
the members were eager to get at the
public treasury upon this proposition,
but he warned his colleagues on the
democratic side that if they helped to
overthrow the rule they swept away
for ell time the rights of the minority.
He had no respect for the =ules Of
such. They degraded the individual
member and massed too much power
in the speaker, but the members of
the minority especially dare not over
ride this rule that had come down
from the democratic forefathers.
But if this amendment was declared
in order, he gave notice that he would
offer an amendment to it, to provide
for the issue of enough additional le-
gal tender notes to meet the entire
cost of the construction of the canal.
MIR. Hepburn pointed out that if
this bill passed as separate PROPOSE
ton, it would go to conference. Their 9
the 'little joker" might be played, but
if placed on this bill the house con-
ferees could prevent such an amend
ment.
Mr.. Grosvenor, of Ohio, vigorously
contended that the point of order was
not we'll taken. He could not under
stand why members should get excited
because the representatives of the peo-
pie were making an honest effort to do
that which all political parties had
sworn they would do for the past five
years.
At the conclusion Of Mr.. Grosve-
nor's speech the chairman of the COM
mittee of the whole, Mr.. Hopkins,
announced that he was ready to rule.
When order had been procured he
made a careful and elaborate ruling,
in which he pointed out that the ques-
ton presented was purely prelimi-
nary one. He reviewed the arguments
adduced on both sides, cited prece-
dents, and concluded by sustaining
the point of order against the amend
ment.
After reiterating his decision the
chair went forth by taking up the
question raised by Mr.. Smith, OF
Michigan, as to whether the treaty of
1857 did not warrant the amendment.
He held that it did not.
Decision Appealed From.
Mr.. Hepburn Immediately arose and
entered an appeal from the decision OF
the chair.
Mr.. Dalzell, republican, of Pennsyl-
vania, moved to lay the appeal on the
table, but this motion was declared
out of order in committee of the
whole.
Mr.. Hepburn said he was willing to
allow the appeal to be decided without
further debate, but Mr. Fleming, dem
ocrat, of Georgia, insisted upon being
heard in favor of sustaining the decis.
sion of the chair. The rule in ques-
ton, he argued, was to shield and pro
tect the minority.
On a rising vote the chair was sus'
tanned, 152 to 118.
Mr.. Hepburn loudly demanded tel
lers. The vote by tellers confirmed
the rising vote. The chair was sus
tanned 127 to 100, and the amendmen
was ruled out.
The reading of the sundry civil bill
was then continued.