Year: 1874

Alter tho reading Of the Journal, Mr.
Randall, of Penn, said that alter the mo.
ton to adjourn had been put and voted
upon he had raised o question .Rs 10 The
Speakers right to intefject public bust
ness instead Of declaring the result ol the
vote upon the motion, which he had q
knowledge had been carried.


The Speaker said he did not interIeci
public business, but simply asked leave oi
absence for members, which was and al.
ways had been considered q question ol
very high privilege for the concurrence Of
members. 1t was obvious that the vote
had been carried by the sound, but by the
rules 1t was not vote until 80 declared
by the Speaker. It had always been the
habit Of the present occupant Of the chair
to ask leaves Of absence for members be-
lore declaring the vote on adjournment,
and always would be unless the House
directed otherwise. After he had asked
these leaves he then said the ayes appear
to have 1t. The yeas and nays then could
have been asked.


Dir. Randall said the Speaker proceeded
10 take business from the Speakers table.


The Speaker said he asked leave of alb
senCe Tor three members only. .p...


Mr.. Randall said he wished to know BY
what rule the Speaker could interiect
public business after motion to adjourn
had been put. .4.


The Speaker said the asking Of leave Of
absence was not public business, and no
other business had been interjected.


Mr., Randall said there was where he
wished 10 contradict the Speaker.


The Speaker said: That makes 1t a
matter Of fact which can be settled by the
journal.


The journal was referred to, and it was
found that there was nothing done beyond
the asking Of leave Of absence for the three
members.


Mr.. Randall said he had understood
that the Speaker presented q number Of
enrolled bills.


The Speaker said the facts did not bear
It out, but to prevent any misunderstood.
ing hereafter he would say that on yea
and nay vote he would consider It his
right and duty, II the bills were signed
and laying on the desk, TO report them
before announcing the vote. Such had
been the custom from time immemorial.


The House then proceeded to consider
the bill providing ior the construction oil
bridge across the Anacostia river, which
was before the House at adjournment
yesterday.


Mr.. Hale, IN. w. said he was aware
OF the feeling in the House against the
District Of Columbia and the city OF
Washington. and this knowledge had led
him to protest to the Speaker against the
appointment to the position which he now
occupied as chairman ot the District Com.
mittee. He alluded TO the manner in
which the bill was defeated in Committee
Of the Whole; not on discussion Of It's
merits, but direct onslaught, by striking
out the enacting clause, thus cutting off
discussion.


Messrs. Randall, Of Pennsylvania, and
Holman, OF Indiana, antagonized the bill,
and claimed that there was no more OBJ
legation on the part Of the government to
build the bridge than 10 build bridge
between two states.


Mr.. Tremain, Of New York, pointed
out the fact that no power but the gov
ernment had a right to build bridge
there, and said that il any person was in
jured or lie lost in crossing the bridge
the Congress Of the United States would
be In equity responsible Tor it. He spoke
in glowing terms OF the redemption OF
Washington from the mud hole which 1t
was during the war, and its being made
one of the most beautiful cities In the
world. He argued that 1t was the duty
Of the government TO build the bridge,
and earnestly appealed 10 the House to
reverse the action OF the committee yes.
terday.


The action Of the committee in striking
out the enacting clause was concurred in
by yea and nay vote Of 12l to 81.