The Portland daily press., 1901-01-05

nesaee.
"why not do 20 now and save time''
asked Mr.. Richardson. But Mr.. Ohm
stead insisted upon vote on the ques-
tion OF consideration and the roll was ae-
oordingly called.
The House voted l0s 10 ei to consider
the resolution whereupon Mr.. Richardson
movsdl TO resommit the resolution TO the
committee on census.
Upon q rising vote the motion for the
previous question was not sustained, "a
to 73, but MIR. Oimstead immediately
demanded that the ayes and noes, which
were ordered.
10 was noticed that several Kepubli-
cans remained seated on the motion for
the previous question and on the demand
for the ayes and noes.
fBefors the clerk sbegan to call the roll.
Mr.. Richardson tried TO interJeot mo-
tion 10 lay on the table. but IL was ruled
out OF order.
Mr.. Olmstsad, instead of acouescing in
the motion 30 reoommit, he had now re-
solved upon direct vote In the adoption
OF the resolution. The vote on the pre-
vious question was oloss. Before it was
announced, MIR. Pearson OF North Caro-
lima, who had voted "no," changed bis
vote to ''ays," stating that he made the
change as he had reason to believe that
the resolution would be recommitted.
The Speaker then announced that the
previous question had bsen ordered, 10e
to 9s. This action under the rule havs
| 10 asRa
MIR. Olmstead yielded i've minutes to
MIR. Shattuok Of Ohio, who had read
resolution upon the same subisct which
be said he was willing should go 60
the census committee with the Olmstead
resolution. His motion covsrad the whole
question OF restricted suirrase from
whatever cause.
Mr.. Underwood of Alabama made
warm speech In opposition to the resolu-
tion. He admonished his friends from
the north that they did not live among
the negroes and did not understand the
problem to be solved. "We OF the
South, said he, addressing the majority,
s'are trying TO solve 1t fairly to both
races, ana 1 appeal to you, II you are in
lGNOE VI VIC AA1kAc AeNoct - 49,
are in favor Of protecting the investments
which the North has sent there, to send
this resolution to committee and let 1t
die there"
MIR. MoDermott OF New Jersey insisted
tnat there was not state in the Union
which had not added to or subtracted
from the constitutional requirements.
roaO1DtfOn At
tempt TO stir up "section strife"
MIR. Williams of Mississippi, said that
of recent years some Of the reopIe of the
south had listened to the siren voice OF
thel North that sectionaIlsm was dead.
They had been warned that as soon as
the Republican party grow strong
enough, IL would show the cioven foot
and 1t was doing it now. This resolu-
tion would pluck from the eyes of
those who had been partially deceived the
veil that had been placed over them. AT
ter declaring that the resolution was
stupid and impractioaole, he made an
ardent defense OF the course of Missis-
sippi and other Southern states,
'Thers 10 no man who loves American
lGlNlILHblOlg 8A&a NV UAo Ao NV 8A%sA
in his heart that BY constitutional and
legal methods-analogous TO those adopt
ed in Massachusetts,. Rhode Island and
other states the South has solved this
trouble some and almost unsolvable prob
lem".
MIR. Klutz OF North Carolina, also de-
| tended the action OF the Southern States.
Mr.. OImstead, the author Of the resolu.
| tion, then made the motion to refer 1t to
the census committee, and it was carried
without division.
Mr.. Hopkins Immediately called up the
re-apportionment bill. He sought to
make arrangements to vote ON the bill
on Monday. Just as ID appeared prob
able that an agreement would be reached
to vots on Tuesday, Mr.. Man of Illinois,
smashed all prospects By final onjso-
tion. Accordingly Mir. Hopkins opened
the debate I'm favor OF his measure. He
stated that ths majority of the census
committee favored keeping the momber-
ship down to the nresent number, S57.
from considerations of economy and in
teIigent legislation. Mr.. Hopkins was
besieged with questions.
ANY system, he said. would not deal
ont exact justice to every state. What
was desired was to adopt the system
which minimized the inequalities. The
states which were opposing this bill,
hs said, were those which lost represen-
tatives under its operation. He claimed
that the bill of this minority showed ia
voritlsm to Nebraska and Maine, each
OF which would lose one representative
upon the basis of the figures prepared
by the director OF the census for HOUSE
OF 1856 members. Those two members,
he said, were deliberately tilched by the
Burleigh bill form New York and Penn
syIvania. He declared that more I'M
fair bill was never presented to the
House than that fathered by the gentle
man from Maine. (Burleigh-) The Bur
leigh hill, he said, gave Maine repre-
sentative for each 1887 Inhabitants. IL
this ratio were taken In New York,