The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-02-24
Nays

Clay with Lodge, Lodge IN FAVOR VI
seating Quay, but against taking up
the case now. Deboe with Mallory tno
statement of pOstiOns); Frye with
Berry tno statement of positiOns): Nc
Bride with Money CAIcBride against
Money fOr): TaliafeTTO with Scott
(both in favor of QUAY; Talaferro
voted. ThurStOn and Allen mo state
Inent): Wetmore with Bacon mo state
nenD; SeweH with Wellington tSeWeH
for); Platt of New York and Heltteld
Platt fOD.
Mr.. Daniel of Virginia then addressed
the senate in support of Mr.. quay
right to a seat At the conclusion of
Ar. Daniers speech. the Hawaiian gov
eminent bill was taken uD, and Mr..
Morgan resumed his speech.
Report On Finance Bill.
Mr. Morgan. not having concluded
yielded the floor at 3.25 p. m. to MT
Aldrich, who presented the report Of
the conference on the financial bill.
When the reading of the report had
been concluded and an order made FOL
It's printing, an arrangement was effect
ed Whereby some member of the confer
eucc committee on next Wednesday
would make a statement concerning tht
changes made by the cOnferees anc
that the next day the report would b'
taken up for consideration.
The Hawaiian bill was again taker
Up and Mr. Vest MOI addressed the
senate He had been intensely opposed
he said. 10 the annexation Of Hawaii
but that was now d dead issue.
Il shall vote for the bill. said he
lit is above and beyond constitutions
question and does not raise any ques'
lions that are raised in relation Il
Porto Rico and the Philippines
I-e thought the thanks of the PEG
pie were Que To the senators who had
prepared the measure. There was n'
provision i'm IL changing the tariff anC
none thar implied that Hawaii was no
O. part of The United STATES.
The proposition that the United
States can hold territory as colonia
possession and its people as yasSals
hr continued. Isl the most preposter
uus and dangerous that has ever beer
advanced in the course of my publ,
life"
bred Scott Decision.
Erre~rHg 90 the bred Scott case. Mt
Yes Izid that the supreme court Wa
uuan' D,cys ir declaring I'm that decision
thar the constitution covered the terri
tories. Wha1 was r. ever heard. he in
quir5d. that Ii way necessary for con
gross 10 pass an act To extend the cOn
S,ituJiGu over acquired territory
This new doctrine said he Fl
utterly abh0UTent. III violates ever,
principle of republican government
Iu goes even further than England ha
gone with her colonies. Is Porto Ric
a par, OF the United States If s.
where did congress get the authority O
imnoSe duties upon imports from tina
country. And why is it proposed q
place an export duty upon its products
when the constitution Of the Unite
States expressly inhibited such tax?
Ar. Foraker OF Ohio replied briefly {
Mr. Ngs's remarkable argument" I
was too rate To enter into extended dis
cusSi9u. me said. off the bred Scott dc
cisio1. upon which AI. Vest largely ha
based his argument He thought IN
DreG Scott decision had been dis
cuSsed quite adequately jim the las
congress.
He asserted thar the author of IN
Declaration Of Independence entertain
ed no such views as those advanced b
Mr. Vest. Thomas Jefferson drew
distinction between territory beIougin
Uo the United States and rc-ritor
which was "a Fart Of the United State
There is said he the Unite
States proper. for which the constitu
tfoU is TIE organic law and there - IN
territory outside lf the United State
which belongs Too the United States. br
81 iS not o part of IT,
The senate. at go D. IN. adjoulue
until tomorrow.