The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1901-03-07
M'KINLEY IS RULER
House Passes Philippine and Gu
ban Resolutions.
ASSURES PRESIDENT FREE HAND
Charleston Fair Appropriation
Precipitates a Lively Row--Bill
Is Sent Back to Conference.

Precipitates Lively Row--Bill
Is Sent Back to Conference.
A Washington special says: The
house removed all possibility OF an
extra session Friday by concurring in
the senate amendments to the army
appropriation bill. The vote stood
15e to 1874. It was strict party vote
with the exception of Mr.. Mccall, OF
Massachusetts; Mr.. Loud, of Califor-
MIA; Mr.. Driscoll, of New York, and
Mr.. Mann, of Illinois, who voted with
the Democrats. Mr.. Cooper, of Wis
consin, answered present and was not
paired. The bill now goes to the
president.
The only exciting incident occurred
ut the close of the debate, when Mr..
Hull, of Iowa, whose name had been
connected with lumber aud develop
ment company in the Philippines,
frankly acknowledged that he had in
vested money in it. He said it was a
legitimate enterprise which was not
looking for government favors, and
said if he could not invest his money
in legitimate enterprises, he would re-
tire from public life rather than de-
pend upon politics for livelihood.
Subsequently when he stated that
the company would not have invested
money if Bryan had been elected, the
Democrats jeered and hissed and
shouted that it was because if Bryan
had been elected the Philippines would
not have been exploited.
Mr.. Lentz, of Ohio, challenged Mr..
Hull's right to vote. The challenge
brought forth storm of Kisses from
the Republican side. Mr.. Hull voted
aye.
The final conference report upon the
Indian appropriation bill was adopted
and q number of minor bills were put
through the final stages. The confer
ence report on the st. Louis exposi-
ton bill, which agreed to Sunday
closing, was agreed to and the bill was
sent back to conference. A motion to
concur in the Charleston exposition
amendment was defeated-84 to 1872.
NO MONEY FOR CHARLESTON.
Mr.. Tawney presented the confer
ence report upon the St. Louis expo
sition bill, which agreed to the senate
amendment providing for the closing
of the exposition on Sunday and dis
agreed to the Charleston exposition
amendment. The report was adopted.
Mr.. Elliott, of South Carolina,
moved that the house concur in the
Charleston exposition amendment.
This amendment carried s250,000 for
governmental exhixit at the Inter-
state and West Indian exposition to
be he held at Charleston from Janu-
ary to June, 1902. Mr.. Elliott argued
warmly in favor of the amendment.
Why, he asked, should Charleston, be
Disseminated against? Money had
been appropriated for the Chicago,
Nashville, Omaha, Bnffalo and other
expositions. Why not for Charleston?
The amendment was supported by
Mr.. Davidson, of Wisconsin,; Mr..
Newlands, of Nevada; Mr.. Talbert,
Of South Carolina; Mr.. Sulzer, of New
York; Mr.. Latimer Latimer, of South
Carolina, and W. A. Smith, of Michi-
gan, and opposed by Mr.. Tawney, Mr..
King, of Utah, and Mr.. Cannon.
Mr.. Talbert, of South Carolina, ap-
pealed for Charleston. He said this
was a national, which is more impor-
liant than an international fair. 80
Mr.. Sulzer, of New York, made a
vigorous speech for Charleston. He
said it would do more for the people
,f the south than anything else. The
Chicago exposition, said he, did more
good for the United States than all the
money ever appropriated for the rivers
md harbors of the country.
"Let US give the south, that is be-
coming great in industries, this meagre
sum to exhibit her wealth and pro-
gress."
Mr.. Maddox, of Georgia, who ap-
posed the passage of the st. Louis bill,
said it was inconsistent to give that
city five million and refuse to give
Charleston twentieth part of that.
"But if we are obliged to pay out
such sums by previous legislation, then
why don't congress pay its honest war
claims?"
Mr.. Cannon declared that from this
time on his voice and his vote were
against appropriating the peoples
money for expositions. 1t was time,
he said, to show some consideration
for the taxpayers.
Mr.. Elliott's motion was defeated
81 to 132Nand the bill was sent back
to nonfarance