The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-02-16


day settled the fate of the Nicaragua
Canal Bill in this Congress by refusing
to override the decision of the chair in
committee of the whole when the chair
held that the canal bill offered as the
amendment to the Sundry Civil Bill by
Mr.. Hepburn was out of order. The
friends of the Nicaragua bill were very
confident yesterday and to-day that
they would triumph, but after four hours
of debate the chair was sustained 12I
to 100.
Mr.. Bailey, the Democratic leader
made an argument iii favor of the view
that the amendment was in order.
He desired to vote upon the propo-
sition because he realized that sooner
or later the House would be compelled
to choose between this proposition and
one to allow a private corporation with
government credit to build the canal
If the canal was to be built by the Gov
ernment it must be based upon the
theory that the canal was necessary for
the support of our military and naval
defence. Otherwise if the Government
could build foreign waterways in for
eign territory why could it not come back
nome anu DulIu FdllTDduS LOT tue Ucllcul
of the Interstate commerce.
Mr.. Dockery, Oem., MOI, gave notice
that if this amendment was declared in
order he would offer an amendment to
it to provide for the issue of enough adj
ditional legal tender notes to meet the
entire construction of the canal. Mr..
Dockery declared himself in favor of
building the Nicaragua canal because it
would aid the national defense and pro-
mote commercial expansion which he
preferred to territorial expansion.
Mr.. Dockery limited strongly at influ-
ences outside the hall, the same infiu-
ences substantially which was back of
the Hanna-Payne subsidy BILL These
influences, he said, insisted that five mil
lions should go to certain gentlemen who
were interested in the Maritime Canal
Company.
In conclusion he warned the members
on his side of the House that they could
not afford in the closing days of the
session to lend themselves to such an
enterprise.
Mr.. Moody, Rep, Mass.), made a
technical argument in support of the
point of order, citing numerous prece-
dents. He, too, favored the construction
of the canal, but he protested against
being forced into a corner and compelled
in. violation of the rules to accept a pro-
position in the closing hours of this Con-
gress, the effect of which no man could
fOretell.
Mr.. GrosvenoY, (Rep., Ohio, vigorous
ly >contended that the point of order vas
not well taken. He could not under
stand, he said, why members should get
excited because the representatives of
the people were making an hol"st effort
to do that which all political parties lad
sworn they would do for the last five
years. Continuing Mr.. Grosvenof said
that this bill would not have been offer
ed as an amendment to this biz had not
the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee announced that neither the
canal bill nor the ship subsidy bill would
receive consideration at this session. He
contended that the work of constructing
the canal was now in progress within
the meaning of the rule. If this amcnd-
ment was not placed upon the peodiE.s
bill he declared thae the grardchild tf
no member present would I've long
enough to see the canal built.
Mr.. Canon denied emphatically that
the failure to break down this rule
meant the abandonment of the construc-
ton of the canal by the United States.
But, Mr.. Grosvenor reiterated it auC
said if this effort failed he favored the
passage of Il JOINT resolution to inform
the nations of the earth that we had
given up the project and would wei
come the building of the canal upon the
terms upon which the Suez Canal wa
built
At the conclusion of Mr.. Grosvenor's
speech the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole, Mr.. Hopkins, announced
that he was ready to rule. When order
had been procured he made careful and
elaborate ruling in which he pointed out
that the question presented was purely
Il parliamentary one. He reviewed the
arguments adduced on both sides, cited
precedents and concluded by sustaining
the point of order against the amend
ment
Mr. Hepburn Immediately arose and
an appeal from the decision of
the chair.
Mr.. Hepburn said he was willing to
allow the appeal to be decided without
further debate, but Mr.. Fleming Dem.
Ga.), insisted upon being heard in favor
of sustaining the decision of the chair.
The rule in question he argued. was
the shield and protection Of the minor
ity.
On rising vote the chair was sus-
tanned 152 to 11S, Mr.. Hepburn loudly
demanded tellers.
The vote by tellers confirmed the ris-
ing vote. The chair was sustained 127
to 119, and the amendment was ruled
out.
No record is made of the vote in com
mittee of the whole Party lines We're
not adhered to. the division in favor
and i'll opposition to sustaining the
chairs decision being about equal on
both sides of the political aisle.
The reading of the sundry civil bill
was then continued.