The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-02-14
OPENS
WIT HOUT PRAYER.
Chaplain and Statesmen
SnoWbound.
QUORUM is NOT SECURED
THERE IS SHARP DEBATE ON
McENERY's RESOLUTION.
Fruitless Attempt to Set Aside the
Fruitless Attempt to Set Aside the
Unanimous Consent for a Vote
on the Measure Providing
a Philippine Policy.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13.-At no time
during the session of the Senate to-day
was quorum. of the body present. the
ma jority of the members being snow
bound at their homes. For the first
time in years no invocation was pro
nounced at the opening of the session,
neither the regular chaplain nor any
other minister being able to reach the
Capitol. A sharp debate over the unan-
imous consent agreement reached Sat
urday afternoon to vote on the McEn-
cry resolution tomorrow afternoon was
precipitated early in the session. Some
feeling was manifested by Senators
who object to the adoption of the reso
luton, but none of them indicated what
might be their action tomorrow: In
connection with the consideration of
the resolution the Senate declined to
meet at II o'clock tomorrow morning.
The agricultural appropriation bill was
called up, considered and passed with
only a few unimportant amendments.
A bill removing the disabilities of
certain persons engaged in the civil
war was passed.
1t. was when Berry of Arkansas gave
notice that Bacon would address the Sen
ate tomorrow on the McEnery resolu-
ton that the controversy over the ques-
ton of the unanimous consent given Sat
urday was precipitated..
Platt of Connecticut took the position
that the agreement ought to be rescinded
saying that it partook of the nature OF
a snap judgment, having been made
when an appropriation bill was under
consideration.
Hale of Maine demanded the regular
order and then made a speech in opposi
ton to resembling the agreement. He:
declared that the proceeding whereby
Mason had secured unanimous consent
was deliberate, and said he had never
witnessed an occasion where an agree
ment of the kind had been entered upon
with more Solemnity.
Platt insisted that no unanimous con-
sent was ever given under similar Cir
cumstanceS, and although he disclaimed
making any threat, he said: eve Shall
have no more unanimous consent If this
method is to- obtain. -
In response to the statements made Nc
Laurin of South Carolina explained how
the unanimous consent agreement was
reached, and then :said .'I do know
that there are Senator'S in this chamber
who would not have. voted for the treaty
If they had not been assured of an ops
portunity to vote upon the McEnery reso-
luton. If any Senator was not present
when the. unanimous consent agreement
was made it was his own fault. I give
notice, therefore, that | shall object to
agreement" -. -.
Hoar Of Massachusetts, said he had just
received a telephone message from Mason
who requested, on account of his Illness
to-day that discussion of the unanimous
agreement go oyer until tomorrow when
he might be: present.
Wolcott of Colorado-Does the Senator
from Massachusetts understand that the
unanimous agreement of last Saturday
carries with it a unanimous consent not
to discuss the question in the absence of
the Senator from Illinois?
Hoar with some feeling, replied: 81
do not think the Senator from Colorado
ought in fairness to address such ques-
ton to me.
After Hoar and Wolcott had had a coll
loquy that was not audible to the SEN
ate, Hale of Maine rose and said: Let
the Senators adjust their differences out
side
Allison of Iowa said it was well under
stood that if the resolution was debated.
1t would occupy the remainder of the ses-
sion He maintained that the unanimous
consent to- vote upon the. resolution i'm
piled that there should be no debate.
Hawley of Connecticut entered a pro-
test against the unanimous consent agree
ment TO vote on the McEnery resolution,
and said: 81 do not wish to characterize
this performance, but it was most 'unfor-
tunate. and unfair. and / think it will
hereafter be difficult to get unanimous
consent"
A bill granting to the city of Boulder,
Colo, certain lands for park purposes
was passed.