'

1893. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1701 By Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Arkansa-t~: A bill (H. R. 3382) for

the relief of J ohn L. Green, administrator of James H. Newkirk, deceased-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also (by request), a bill {H. R. 3383) for the relief of the estate of C. W. Campbell, of Drew County, Ark.-to the Committe~ on War Claims.

By Mr. DENSON (by request): A bill (H. R. 3384) for the relief of Daniel V. Sevier, of FranklinCounty,Ala.-tothe Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. HOOKER of Mississippi: A bill (H. R. 3385) for there­lief of the estate of Levy Elmore, of Claiborne County, Miss.-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3386} for the relief of the estate of Lucy Cordell, deceased, late of Hinds County , Miss.-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3387) for the r elief of the estate of John W. Cunyas , deceased, la te of Hinds County, Miss.-to the Committee on W ar Cla,ims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3388} for the reliof of the estate of Mrs. C. L. Shaifer, of Jefferson County, Miss.-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3389) for the relief of the eshte of Wilkins M. Kirkpatrick, of Rankin County, Miss.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. HOLMAN: A bill (H. R. 3390) for the relief of Jennie M. Hunt-to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. HOUK of 'l'ennessee: A bili (H. R. 3391) for the relief of Benjamin F. Rogers-to the Commit tee on War Claims.

By Mr. HERMANN: A bill (H. R. 3392) forthe relief of Plin Cooper, S. Hamilton, and the personal representatives of James Cox, deceased-to the Committee on Public Lands.

By Mr. HOUK of Tennessee: A bill (H. R. 3393) for the relief of Enoch P. Ward, of Holly Springs, Miss.-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3394) for the relief of the eshte of Frank H. Nichols-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. MORGAN: A bill (H. R. 3395) for amendment of the military record of Thomas Kehoe, as a member of Company A, of .the Sixty-first New York Volunteers-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. MEREDITH: A bill (H. R. 3396} for the relief of the heirs of John Poland , of Prince William County, Va.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. PAYNE: A bill (H. R. 3397) granting a pension to Newell F. Osterhout-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. RICHARDSON of Tennessee: A bill (H. R. 3398) for the relief of Joseph H. Thompson-to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. RYAN: A bill (H. R. 3399) for the relief of Marie Damainville-to the Committee on Inva.lid Pensions.

By Mr. CHARLES W. STONE: A bill (H. R. 3400} to au­thorize the payment to Rear-Admiral John H. Russell of the highest pay of his grade-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. VAN VOORHIS of New York: A bill(H. R. 3401} for the relief of John E. Wilbur-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3402) for the relief of B. J. Van Vleck, ad­ministrator of Henry Van Vleck, deceased-to the Committee on Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3403) for the relief of Wtilbur F. Flint, late second lieutenant Company B, Tenth United States Heavy Ar­tillery-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3404) for the relief of Wilbur F. Flint-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. WAUGH: A bill (H. R. 3405) to correct the military record of George Coulson-totheCommitteeonMilitary Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3406) to correct the military record of Thomas C. Workman-to the Commit tee on Military Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3407 ) for the relief of Elenor Brookbank and others-to the Committee on W ar Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3408) granting an honorable discharge to Henry W. Hackley-tp the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3409) for the relief of Silas Quackenbush-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H . .R.. 3410) to correct the military record of Rob­ert H. Pyke-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi: A bill (H. R. 3411) for the relief of the estate of J. J. Gal tney, late of Yazoo County, Miss.­to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. WILSON of West Virginia: A bill (H. R. 3412) for the relief of the estate of Daniel Ott, deceased, late of Jefferson County, W. Va.-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3413) for the relief of George F. Anderson, of Jefferson County, W. Va.-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3414) for the relief of A. M. Sponseller, of Jefferson County, W. Va.-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 3415)for the relief of John Viands, of Jeffer· son County, W. Va.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. GOODNIGHT: A bill (H. R. 3416) referring the claim or claims of Eugene F. Arnold, administrator of William H. Arnold, to the Court of Claims-to the Co.mmittee on War Claim!.

By Mr. WHEELER of Alabama: A bill (H. R. 3422) to refer the claim against the United States of the Presbyterian Church of Huntsville, Ala., to the Cour t of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, the following petitions and pa­pers were laid on the Cler k's desk, and referred as follows:

By Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Arkansas: Petition of John L. Green, administrator of James H. Newkirk, deceased, praying tha t his claim for property taken by the Army during the late war be r eferred to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on W ar CLaims.

By Mr. COFFEEN: Petition of citizens of Uinta County, Wyo., favoring free coinage of silver-to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

By Mr. HILBORN: Resolution of Temescal Grange, California, favoring the fr2e coinage of silver-to the Committee on Coin· age, Weights, and Measures.

Also, resolution adopted at a mass meeting of citizens of Co­lusa, Cal., favoring the free coinage of silver-to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Me[>.sures.

Also, petition of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, No. 35 , San Francisco, Cal., asking that all vessels not propelled by sailc:; or oars may b3 b:·ought under control of United States in· spt:ctor s of steam vessels-to the Commit:ee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. HOLMAN: Memorial of Jennie M. Hunt, asking that the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to pay her the sum of $2,040, the difference between the salary t>.ppropriated to be paid her as clerk at $1,000 per annum in the Post-Office Department during the fiscal years of 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890, and the salary that was paid her during said years at $720 per annum as clerk in the Post-Office Dapartment-to the Committee on Claims.

Also, petition of Fritz Bittel and Malvina Sittel, citizens of the Choctaw Nation, for relief against the Choctaw Coal and Rail· wa.y Company-to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

By Mr. NEILL: Papers appertaining to claim of Pryor D. Chism, administrator of Robert Chism, deceased, for relief-to theCommittee on War Claims.

By Mr. WILSON of Wa.shi.D.gton: Four petitions of citizens of Spokane County, Wash., in opposition to the repeal of the Sher· man act unless said repeal shall provide for the continued use of silver on terms more favorable to silver-to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

SENATE. SATURDAY, September 23, 1893.

Prayer by Rev. HUGH JOHNSTON, D. D., of the city of Wash· ington.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. President, I desire to ask leave of absence from the Senate for one week, beginning Monday.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arkansas? The Chair hears none. and leave of absence is granted. ·

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. The VICE-PRESIDENT presented a petition of the Nevada

Mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church, praying for the re­peal or modification of the so-called Geary Chinese law; which was referred to the Committ~e on Foreign R elations .

He also presented a petition of sundry citizens of Minonk, Ill., praying for the free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to I; which was ordered to lie on the t able.

Mr. SHERMAN presented a petition of the East Ohio Confer· ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, praying for the repeal of the so-called Geary Chinese law; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. .

Mr. KYLE presented six petitions of citizens of South Dakota, praying for the free coinage of silver at a r atio of 16 to 1, as a. condition of the repeal of the so-called Sher man silver law; which were ordered to lie on the table.

\

j

1702 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEl\ffi~R 2 3,

Mr. QUAY pre sen ted a petition of Local Assembly, No. 1577, Knights of Labor, of Pittsburg,Pa., praying for the free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1; which was ordered to lie on the table. .

He also presented a memorial of the agricultural society of Lancaster County, Pa., remonstrating against. the reduction of duty upon imported tobacco; which was referred to the Commit­tee on Finance.

Healso presented apetitionoftheBoardof Trade of Scranton, Pa., praying for the immediate and unconditional repeal of the silver-purchasing clause of the so-called Sherman law; which was ordered to lie on the table.

DAVID B. GOTTW ALS. Mr. PUGH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom

was referred the bill (S. 439) for the relief of David B. Gottwals, reported it with amendments.

BILLS INTRODUCED Mr. BRICE (by request) introduced a bill (S. 986) granting a

pension to Philip Hawk; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. CHANDLER introduced a bill (S.987) to alter the regu­lations enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Caro­lina, which prescribes the times, places, and manner of holding elections within said State for Representatives in Congress; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. WOLCOTT introduced a bill(S. 988)toopenminorstreets in the District of Columbia; which was read twice by its title, and l'eferred t-o the Committee on the District of Columbia.

He also introduced a bill (S. 989) to amend section 2306 of the R-evised StatuGes of the United States; which was read twice by its title, and rP.ferred to the Committee on Public Lands.

INDEPENDENCE OF COORDINATE DEPARTl\rENTS. Mr. STEW ART. I submit a resolution, which I ask may lie

over. I give notice that on Monday morning I shall submit some remarks with regard to it.

'rhe resolution was read, as follows: Resolved, That the independence of the coordinate departments of the Gov­

ernment, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, must be main­tained, and thn.t the use of the power and influence of one department to control the action of another is 1n violation of the Constitution and destruc­tive of our form of government.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The resolu.tion will go over under the rule.

LIMITATION OF DEBATE. -Mr. TURPIE rose. The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair lays before the Senate

a resolution, which will be read. Tbe Secretary read the resolution submitted by Mr. PLATT

on the 21st instant, as follows: Resolved, That Rule IX or the Senate be amended by adding the following

section: "SEC. 2. Whenever any bill or resolution is pending before the Senate as

unfinished business, the presiding omcer shall, upon the written request ot a. majority of the ·Senators, fix a day and hour, and notify the Senate thereof, when general debate shall cease thereon, which time shall not be less than five days from the submission of such request; and he shall also fix a sub­sequeut .day and hour, and notify the Senate thereoi, when the vote shall be taken. on the bill or resolution, and any amendment thereto, without fm·­ther cebate; the time tor taking the vote to be not more than two days lat-er than the time when general debate is to eease; and in tbe interval between the closing of general debate and the taking of the vote, no Senator shall speak more than five minutes. nor more than once upon the same proposi­tion."

~fr. TUR.PIE. Mr. President, I understood the honorable and learned Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] in discussing the rule of cloture the other day to say that there are only two methods by which a vote could be forced in the Senate. I do not think there is any method by which a vote can be forced in the Senate upon any subject. I should prefer the statement tha.t there were only two methods by which a vote could be brought about or procured in the Senate, and these two meth­ods are reducible to one, for I do not recall a single instance in our history where what is called a continuous session or the test of endurance has itself led to a vote. A continuous session or test of physical endurance has, in some instances, been one of the causes perhaps of a unanimooo consent rule, after which

.a vote was taken, but the unanimous consent has always pre­ceded a vote upon a contested measure.

Really, then, the true rule is there is but one way, and has been but one way since 1806, of procuring or bringing about a vote of the Senate upon any measure; and that way is the way of unanimous consent. Theoretically one might think, if that is the c3.se an,_d one member of this body may at any time prevent a vote upon any measure; legislation has not been very .f.t·equent, has been very rare, has been very uncommon in this branch; but practically it will be seen that the one member objecting to unani-

mous consent, this missing unit, has been always absent. He has been conspicuous by his absence. So that votes upon the passage of bills, final votes upon the determination of any ques­tion whatever have been as frequent hero as in the other branch of the National Legislature; and taking the whole body of legis­lation, subject as it has been to this rule in the Senate that a vote-can not betaken withoutnnanimousconsent, whatever other effect the rule has had it has not had the effect to diminish the amount or quantity of legislation or the sum of useful, important, and effectual legislation which the people have demanded.

It is very often said, sir, that the majority in this country rules-! have heard it repeated once or twice in the discussion upon the question of cloture-and, therefore, that the majority in thls body should rule. That statement is much too broad, whether it be applied to the whole country or to the Senate of the United States. It is much better made in this way, and can be only truly made in this way: the will of the majority expressed under the form of law, or in the form of law, or by the form of law, or in accordance with the form of law, governs in this country and governs in this body, as will be seen in the sequel.

The first form of law to which the majority is subject is the Constitution of the United States, and with respect to this body the second form of law is its own rules. The majority in this body controls its action when action is taken. It passes a bill or defeats a bill. But the m:=tjority in this body has never decided either when action shall be taken or whether action shall be taken at all. That has always depended upon the unit, the smallest possible minority. It is the smallest conceivable mi­nority of this body which determines the question when action or whether action shall be taken.

I heard this body characterized the other day as a voting body. I disclaim that epithet very distinctly. I have heard it described elsewhere as a debating body. I disclaim that with equal dis­favor. This body is best determined by its principal character­i3tic. The universal law and genius of language have given a. name to this body derived from its principal attribute. It is a. -deliberative body-the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Now, voting is an incident to deliberation, and debate is an in­cident t-o deliberation; but when a body is chiefly characterized as deliberativ.e there is much deliberation apart from discussion and debate, and wholly apart from what is called the business of voting.

The essence and the spirit of a body like ours, now over a cen­tury old, may be best gathered from its rules of action, the body of law governing it, always very small, now very brief. Of the twenty-one rules properly affecting parliamentary procedure in this body eleven relate to the subject of deliberation. More than one-half relate exclusively to that subject and have nothing to do with debate or voting. I suppose that the form of law under which the will of the majority must control embraces at least the rules which govern us. Here is Ru1e XXII, one which touches us every day. I think it is the most frequently opera­tive of any rule in the Senate.

RULE XXII. PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS.

When a question is pending no motion shall be received, but­To adjourn, To adjourn to a day certo.in, or that when the Senate adjourn, it shall be

to a day certain, To take a recess, To proceed to the consideration of executive business, To lay on the table, To postpone indefinitely, To postpone to a day certain, To commit, To amend:

which several motions shall have precedence as they stand arra.n.~M. Now, there is not a single one of these motions which relates

to a vote of this assembly, to debate by it, but all relate pri­marily to the business of this body, which is deliberation, and they are all what are called dilatory motions relating only to de­liberation. Take, for instance,.. the motion to adjourn. What relation has th.at to the merits of any bill or measure pending before this body? Take the motion to adjourn, the first in pre­cedence, taking precedence of any question pending here, what possible relation has that to the merits of any question pending? None.

What is the reason, then, why the motion to adjourn has at­tached to it this superlative excellence that it shall be first in order and shall precede all others? I have heard it very fre­quently saJd the motion to ad journ is always in order, and it is very seldom out of order. The Chair is bound almost in any circumstance to entertain it. It has become almost a maxim, the motion to adjourn is always in order. It has not been always in order. The· rule is only as old as the reYolution of 1638. Prior to that time the House could not adjourn (I am speaking o.f an­other parliamentary body) while the Speaker remained in the chair; and the Speaker, a servile tool of the crown, remained in

189~. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1703 the chair twenty-six, forty-eight, even at one time, as it is said, nJt" hours, failing to recognize the m.:>tion to adjourn. refusing to put it, refusing to consider it, and holding the body in session simply by his presence in the chair.

It was under such necessity that the rule now become a maxim, the statute now worn out1 has become the common law of parlia­mental'Y bodies, that the motion to adjourn shall always be in. order; and the reason given for it is that private conference among members is often preferable to debate, and that the body must always have an opportunity at least of resorting to privy conference if it so determine.

I might go on and notice each ot these nine dilatory motions in detail to show how every one of them relates solely to delib­eration, to show how this Rule XXII. connected as it is with all our proc::!dure here, daily, hourly, has characterized and will charac­terize this body as long ns it exists as preeminently deliberative.

All these dilatory motions resting in Rule XXII have their foun­dation in a rule yet older than any in this compilation. It is a rule older than the Senate of the United States itself. All these dilatory motions relating to deliberation, so carefully guarded, so long observed, so characteristic of the Senate of the United St..<ttes, are founded upon a rule not published in this body of rules, n either numbered nor classified. The first rule to which all our rules are subject, sir, the first rule of parliamentary pro­cedure proper, is found in the-Constitution of the United States:

The ycn.s and nays of the members o! eitner House on any question shall, a..t tho desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.

Tho whole series of dilatory motions in parliamentary action here rests for foundation upon the rule I have just read from the Constitution of the United States. I speak of it as the first rule of this body. It is the first. It is older than any of the other rules. It is the first; it is a part of the paramount law of the lanrl.

One might think, in reading it casually, that there had cer­tainlybeen a mistake by the framers of the Constitution; that, as was sometimes said of Homer, they nodded when they put such a mere surface, at first thought, provision into and made it a pa1·t of the organic law, as they might have provided in that in­strument, sir, that you should rise to your feet when putting a question, or that a Senator in addressing you should rise from his seat.

Sir, this provision does not belong to that class. Why is it found in the- Constitution of the United States? Senators have claimed here that a provision to cut off debate is absolutely nec­essary and of the highest superlative importance. "'vVhy was not that made a part of the Constitution of the United States? Sen­ators have claimed here that a provision that a vote shall be and must be taken at some stage, at a certain stage-in other words, the closure-is imperative, is, in the language of the honorable and learned Senator from Connecticut, absolut-ely necessary to the transaction of what is called the business of the Senate and th~ business of the country.

Why then was not provision made for a cloture in the Consti­tution of the United States? The question may be asked, Why should the Constitution-makers have concerned themselves at all about a parliamentary rule for the government of this body? But as they have done so, it becomes very legitimate to ask why did they not provide for the cloture and for the cessation of de­bate, as it is said such rules exceed in necessity and importance all others.

Let us examine this parliamentary rule in the Constitution. What was the object of it? Some man might say the object of this was to make a record. Sir. there was no necessity of such a provision to make a record. Records were made long- before this provision of the Constitution. The majority had always the power to require the record to be made of a vote, and that was the former method; and the minority, a minority of one, had always the power to have his vote entered of record, either '' n.ay " or ' 'yea," and when all the nays were put in the record the absentees and the· yeas were very apparent, and vice versa. There was not the slightest use in the intendment of common parliamentary law oi the world then existing to have inserted for such a reason this provision in the Constitution of the United States. -

Then it is said that the object of this provision was to assist in the passage of bills, or in other words to assist the business of enactment as distinguished from the business proper of this body, delibaration. Let us look at it in that view. It is not said that the yeas and nays of members shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on any bill pending, on the passage of any bill pending; it is said "on any question," the most immate-rial, the most irrelevant, the one most remotely connected with the business pending before this body. For in­stance, on the question of adjournment, the question to postpone indefinitely or to a cerbin day, the question to commit, the question to amend, on any of these dilatory motions one-fifth of

the members present may demand a roll call and a record; and that roll call and record is not for the purpose of showing how a bill was passed; it 'relates to any question. Making a record was amply provided for. The reason of the roll call and record is that deliberation is the province of this body. It is the office of this boay .• Attendance may be compelled; deliberation is compelled by this rule. Voting is not compelled, can not be compelled.

This rule, sir, is found, as I have said before, iJ;l the organic law. It is much aggrandized, it is glorified by the company in which it is associated. This rule that one-fifth of the members of this body may at any time demand a roll call is placed along­side of the inhibition against bills of att:llnder and ex post facto laws. It is placed alongside of the affirmative power of Congress to declare war, to conclude peace, t.o contract alliances. It is placed alongside of that great prerogative writ of personal lib­erty,. habeas corpus.

It belongs to that character of legislation, except that habeas corpus may be suspended, but not even in case of invasion, not even in case of rebellion, can the great power oi the potent fifth of the membership here ever be questioned, delayed, or ignored, no matter what is pending or howirrelevantitmaybeto whatis called or may be thought the chief business of this body. The object of this rule was not to faciliLa.te the passage of laws; it was· not to make a record; it was to compel deliberation. It was to give to the minority a day in court. It may be a long day, broken, interrupted, full of excitement, in which a question is tossed from side to side as a ball between two animated hmds of players. It is just in the midst of this excitement that the rule of the Constitution comes; that it says with imperious mandate, let this cease. Let the roll be called. Let your communic3.tion be yea, yea, and nay, nay. It makes a pause. It compels a p3>use. This rule is and always has been an element of force. It is not the cloture; it forces and compels deliberation, not enactment. It is on the side of the minority , not on that of the ma,jority. .

Now, take this form of law, the rule in the Constitution which I have just read, in connection with Rule XXII in our own body of law to which I have referred. Establish the properconnection.s between them, as we have often here seen done, and the opera­tive relations, with the rule in the Constitution compelling a record, a roll call, and with the rule in our body compelling the entertainment in their order of nine different dilatory motions, having no possible .reference to merits, it will be seen that under the form of law, the highest possible form of law, deliberation is distinctly the business, province, and the office of this body.

It will be seen how impossible under the operation even of the rule in the Constitution and how thoroughly inconceivable un­der the operationof our own rules it will be that debate can ever cease or that a vote can ever be taken as long as there is a dis­senting unit in this Hall1 assisted by one-fifth of,the number. It would take a reconstruction of the entire body of laws of the Senate, if not an amendment to the Federal Constitution per­emptorily to enact what seems to be aimed at by the resolution of the Senator from Connecticut, and those modifications of the same now upon the table of the Senate, and yet the will of the majority rules in this body. ,...

Is not the Constitution of the United States the will of the ma­jority-a will of the majority, permanent, enduring; a law for all generations? Are not the rules of the Senate of the United States, most of them a hundred years old, the will of the ma­jority, the permanent will? The will of the majority rules here in the same manner as elsewhere; the wish of the majority of the hour or of the day, the wish in regard to a pending meas­ure, in regard to a pen din~ bill. in regard to a pending enact­ment, in regard to any parh.amentary action here, does not con­trol. The wish is itself controlled and governed by the will o! the majority, the law of the land, and of the Senate.

The nine dilatory motions now compellable to be entertained by the Chair, the questions in relation to excuse, the questions in relation to apneal, without exha.usting even a very small mi­nority in this Chamber would in a parliamentary manner, in a distinctly constitutional manner, occupy the whole of the re­mainder of the present session of Congress. We must rely upon the assent of the fifth.

I am aware, sir, that snch action as I have alluded to, action confined entirely to what are known as dilatory motions, is called obstruction, but I am not prepared, and I never heard any Senator here who expressed himself ready, to define the differ­ence between obstruction and deliberation. One thing is very certain, the Constitution of the United States makes no distinc­tion between obstruction and deliberation. It provides in ex­press terms for deliberation in the very method which we of the hour might call obstruction.

It iB the fortune, sir, of free parliamentary government to be subject to the sleepless vigil of dissent, of resistance, and of that sort of resistance which may end in revolution. The shadows

1704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 23,

of agitation and of revolution are constantly following the feet of those who are engaged in fcee parliamentary discussion and legislation. Behind obstruction at a greater or less. distance is always agitation, and at some distance and at some time may be revolution. .

We have been frequently entertained here with a description of the hardships, and I do not wish to disparage them, of con­tinuous session, of night sittings. They are very feeble ante­types, they are very frail mimic representations of the camp­fire and bivouac, but they do foreshadow them. I very much doubt, whether the establishment of cloture in this body would tend to increase the chances of public order, of public security, of wholesome agitation, and of legitimate resistance.

My impression is that the establishment of a cloture in this body would have the contrary tendency. I think that it would not diminish the real power of the minority. Cloture is after all suppression, repression here, to be harvested afterwards in boundless expansion elsewhere; and the statesman repressed, the member of this body suppressed, subjected to force and du­ress, returns for that very reason no longer of the minority, but with the majority behind him. A vote by force is not a vote either as to the time when it is taken or as to the character of the subject to which it relates or as to the place where it is cast. A vote by compulsion is not a free act; and yet the first definition of a vote is volition, the expression of the will, abso­lutely free, of the voter.

After all, as I have had occasion to remark upon subjects somewhat cognate, the very highest official functions in a free government are not compulsory and can not be made so. It is made the duty of the Vice-President to recognize a member who rises in this body and addresses him. Suppose he fails to do that; suppose he neglects to do that; suppose he wrongfully, know­ingly, defiantly, refuses to recognize a Senator who addresses him, how shall we compel recognition? I am speaking of the action of the highest functionary. I know very well if the Sec­retary disobeys our orders, 01· if the S~rgeant-at-Arms disobeys the rules governing him, the remedy is very swift, very com­plete, perfect: but with respect to the highest function and duty there is no remedial operation and can be none.

Of course it is possible that the officer might be punished; but that would not restore recognition. It is the duty of a Senator under one of our rules to vote when his name is called. Suppose he does not vote and offers no excuse, how can we compel vot­ing? That is a high function of a member of this body, perhaps one of the highest; and the other, I think, is the very highest function belonging to the Chair: the function of recognition. It is the initiative in the great lesson of parliamentary liberty. Both these functions must depend-they do depend, Senators­upon the sanction of honor alone, stainless honor. They have no other sanction.

There is no obligation upon a Senator or upon the Vice-Presi­dent in respect to these high functions, except the sense of duty and the love of country. Heretofore these great sanctions have been sufficient. They have sufficed for all hours, for all days, for all perils, all dangers; but if they ever prove to be insuffi­cient, how shall the sublime duties and motives, such as love of country and the obligation of conscience and honor, be supplied by the adoption of a parliamentary rule?

Formerly the edge of revolution came very near to obstruc­tion. Tllis was a parliamentary programme of a body older than our own. Appropriation, revenue, and relief were put into the same budget and constituted a part of the same bill. For in­stance, such a proposition as the repeal of the Sherman act, or any other relief, was not attached as an amendment to the budget, because that would have raised the question of cloture and of all other manner of deliberation, but it was placed origi­nally in the.same bill and reported with supplies, with appropria­tions.

Then, when the majority of the body defeated an appropria­tion and refused to grant supplies, defeating therewith relief, they attempted to take supplies by force, without the warrant of law, and that attempt to take supplies was resisted. The ayes and noes became bills and bows; obstruction blosr::omed into civil war. It was no uncommon thing, and happened three, four, or five times during the reign of the Stuarts and the sovereigns who preceded them.

I 01te these examples for the purpose of showing, not thatob­struction is illegitimate, but that it is an extreme remedy. Cloture itself belongs to the same class. I do not think that the rejection or eshblishment of cloture would determine much with respec t to the right or power of a minority here or else­where; but I have been alwayaof the opinion that constitutional deliberation, or, if you please to call it ~o, obstruction, is nearer the line of parliamentary freedom,~of liberty of deb.1.te, than the other rule which is soughtto be adopted, or at least is nowbeing considered.

I am not taking the position that the cloture is unconstitu­tional, but it is in very sharp contrast-not in conflict, but in very sharp contrast-with the only parliamentary rule proper laid down in that instrument. There might be an extremity of emergency which might justify it, but I see none now, and in the calmest times I should much hesitate even to consider it.

We must continue to appeal to the wisdom and moderation and the .well-known devotion to duty of our fellow-Senators. 1 may submit whether there be enough of magnitude in the pres­ent question to justify a resort to the constitutional method of delay and that length of deliberation, ordinarly called obstruc­tion.

Whether we vote or do not vote, the ultimatum is appeal to the country. We must go to the country; we must go to our con­stituencies in either event; an appeal to the country is stronger, is more direct, on the basis of a vote, than that of abstention from voting. Responsibility for obstruction is infinitely greater than that of voting.

In the present condition, as I see it, there is no reason for the adoption of either of these extreme measures, either the cloture or what may be called constitutional obstruction.

There has been a great deal of debate here which seems to proceed on the supposition that this is the last Congress ever to meet. It is not even the last session of this one. The people have an ample remedy in their own hands for the error of the majority, if it be such. The people are not without remedy or recourse. There is nothing in the condition of to-day which would justify proceeding to extremities upon either side.

The present condition does imperatively demand an adjust­ment of our differences, the adoption of middle ground upon which the majority and minority may meet; and this method, whatever it-may be and with whatever sacrifice of interest or opinion it may be accompanied, may be accomplished with a great deal more ease than the establishment of the cloture or any fundamental change in the rules which have so long gov­erned this body.

I have not alluded, Mr. President, either to the establishment or the observance of the cloture which may obtain in another body. I have purposely avoided any allusion to or mention of the same. 1 regret very much that it is becoming more and more the practice in the Senate of the United States to refer audibly, openly, publ"cly, to the action of the other House, and even to name members of the other House in that connection. I have hea,rd repeatedly during this debate references to the action of the other House in respect to questions, and even in respect to this question, and to the action of this session upon the rule of that assembly which obtains there.

Sir, I have believed that the least allusion to the action of the other House, that the slightest mention of the action of the other House: is a very gross violation of the highest privilege of that honorable House, and of the dignity and decorum of the Senate of the United Sta,tes. I regret that it should have become so common. but it is not the less blamable because it is so common and so general.

Mr. VILAS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Indiana sits down I should like to put him a question. Let me say I do not put it antagonistically, but to invite from him his opinion in respect to it, in view of the discussion which he has presented to the Senate.

I understand the Senator from Indiana to speak of the rule that the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the Journal at the demand of one-fifth of the Senators present as the only parlia­ments.ry rule laid down in the Constitution. That is a question of definition. I should have said but for my respect for his opinion on that matter that there was at least one other parlia­mentary rule laid down in the Constitution. There is one rule which governs the power of the Senate, as it does of the House of Representatives alike, and is expressed in the statement that either House may, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.

Now, I should like to ask the Senator from Indiana if the con­stitutional power given to two-thirds to expel a member may be defeated by virtue of the operation of this parliamentary rule in the Constitution, which gives the right to one-fifth to call the yeas a.nd nays; and if the two are not in some sense in that in­terpretation, which he has with his usual magnificent power given so lucidly and vigorously, somewhat antagonistic and in contradiction?

Mr. TURPIE. I think the Senator has made broader the state­ment which he imputes to meths.nimade itmyself. Itisa very common misapprehension. I stated that the rule which I read establishing the roll call in this body at the request of one-fifth of its members was the only rule relating to parliamentary pro­ceedings proper. The rule of which the Senator speaks as to th& expulsion of members does not relate to parliament9.ry proceed­ings proper, it does not relate to a bill, it does not relate to en-

1893. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1705 actments, it does not relate to anything except one subject, and it is a rule of judgment after trial, not of deliberation, and there U! no conflict-not the least-and there would be no confl.ict in any view of the case.

The two-thirds rule mentioned by the honorable and learned Senator is purely judicial, not parliamentary, except that it is prescribed for a parliamentary body when acting as a court.

It has been stated here and we know that usually a majority of this body is effective and effectual, but it takes two-thirds to confirm a treaty. That is not in conflict with the rule of the majority, and I do not think that it conflicts with any principle of parliament..'l.ry law that the vote for expulsion shall be two­thirds or that the method in expulsion is related to any parliar mentary procedure proper or to legislative ac tion.

Mr. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator from Indiana one question: with his permission. I heard the greater part of his remarks, although part of them I was unable to hear, and possibly he h as answered the question which I am now going to put, which is, whether he makes any distinction whatever in his view of the wise or constitutional course between the House of Representatives and the senate, in regard to which the consti­tutional language is exactly the same?

Mr. TURPIE. Idounderpresentcircumstances. Underpres­entcircumstances, Mr. President-and I ask the attention of the honorable and learned Senat..or from Massachusetts specially, for I am going to allude to present circumstances, and I am going to allude in a way without mentioning what everyone knows to be the parliamentary law, the ma.ss of parliamentary law now governing Congress as a whole-:-under present conditions for the last four years, and perhaps for many years to come, at least until this condition changes, the Senate of the United States is the refuge of the minority, permanent, abiding, unchangeable,

• and the principle of asylum ought, as I think, in this body for the present to be as inviolable as it is in any procedure under international law.

I know, sir, what anintense load of abuse , of detraction, of ob­loquy is poured upon the Senate of the United States because we are and. have become the refuge of the minority. I know what burdens of hatred every member of this body must carry when he goes home, because we have insisted that the inviolable right of asylum for the minority shall be preserved here. I am aware of all that. But I think we ought and must bear all this for the sake and cause of parliamentary liberty. Under those conditions I would make some distinc tion between the two sub­jects mentioned by the Senator from Massachusetts, but I have not thought sufficiently upon that particular branch to state dis­tinctions definitely to-day.

Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, I ask that the resolution may now be referred to the Committee on Rules.

Mr. VOORHEES. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. DUBOIS] de­sires to submit a few remarks to the Senate on the pending reso­lution. He has my full consent to do so; and then the resolution may take the course suggested by the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. PLATT. Allow me one suggestion. Mr. VOORHEES. Certainly. Mr. PLAT'r. I supposed yesterday under the rules that the

resolution would go to the foot of the Calendar. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. TURPIE] had the floor, and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. McPHERSON] gave notice that after the Senator from Indiana had concluded he would object to the further dis­cussion of the resolution, and unless there was some other un­derstanding that would carry it to the foot of the Calendar. I am very desirous that the resolution shall go to the Committee on Rules. I do not wish to discuss the matte-r further here, but I should like to submit to the committee some reasons why I think the resolution should be adopted.

Mr. McPHERSON. I am willing to leave the disposition of my m otion entirely in the hands of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES].

Mr. VOORHEES. I do not desire that; but I was going to ask the Senator from New Jersey whether the better course would not be, after the few remarks the Senator from Idaho de­sires to submit, the resolution should go to the Committee on Rules. ·

Mr. McPHERSON. I am content with any disposition of the sub~ect which is satisfactory to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. VOORHEES. We can do that by unanimous consent. The VICE-PRESIDENT. TheChairwill state that two other

Senators have suggested that they desired to be heard in addi­tion to the Senator mentioned by the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. CALL. I asked the Sena.tor from Indiana yesterday to allow me the privilege of submitting some observations to the Senate on the resolution.

Mr. VOORHEES. That is true. I presume that the resolu­tion had better occupy the time it is entitled to to-day, and that will close it. The Senator from Idaho wishes to say something,

as does the Senator from Florida; but I will insist when the regular order is reached at 2 o'clock that the resolution shaU take the 'course indicated by the Senator from Connecticut, its author-that is, go to the Committee on Rules; but I am willing now, since so much of the morning hour has been taken, that the remainder of it may be consumed by the discussion of the resolu­tion.

Mr. DUBOIS. Mr. President, I do not intend to detain the Senate by making a speech at this time. My own impression is that when there is a healthy, substantial sentiment in the coun­try in favor of the enactment of any measure or in favor of the repeal of any measure, their wishes will be c~uried out by the Senate. I think the history of legislation in this country from its beginning bears out that statement. I do not think there was a he:tlthy, substantial sentiment behind the force bill, nor do I believe there is such a sentiment behind the movement tore­peal the Sherman act.

I do not wish to be understood as saying at this time that I would not favor a cloture. It may be that in the future I shall. I do not think, however, that a cloture should ever be imposed in the midstof an exciting debate. I think the Senate should carefully a-nd without prejudice discuss that matter at some time when there is nothing before the body dividing the people.

A few days ago I came across a sermon delivered by Hev. F. W. Robertson, an eminent and eloquent English divine, whose fame extends throughout all civilized countries. It seems to me it so nicely fits the present discussion that I rise simply for the purpose of reading it. He says:

Now, whether a man fiatters the many or the few, the tl.atterer is a despi· cable character. It matters not in what age he appears; change the century you do not change the man. He who fawned upon the prince, or upon the duke, had something of the reptile in his character. He who in this nine· teenth century echoes the cry that the voice of the people is the voice of God is just the man who, if he had been born two thousand years ago, would have been the loudest and hoarsest in that cringing crowd of slaves who bowed be· fore a prince invested with the delegated majesty of Rome, and cried, •· It is the voice of a. god and not of a. man."

The man who can see no other source of law than the will of a majority, who can feel no everlasting law of right and wrong, which gives to all human laws their sanction and their meaning, and- by which all laws, whether they express the will of many or of the few, must be tried-who does not feel that he, single and unsupported, is called upon by a mighty voice within him to resist everything which comes to h1m claiming his al­legiance as the expression of mere will, is exactly the man who, if he had lived seven centuries ago, would have stood on the sea sands beside the royal Dane, and tried to make him believe that his will gave law to the / everlasting fiood. V

Mr. CALL. Mr. President, the resolution before the Senate for a change of the rules which have been observed in this body for a. hundred years is made at a time when the public mind is infl.amed; when it is full of apprehension; when opinions are greatly divided in reference to a public measure which is the subject of considera­tion here and throughout the country.

Whatever may be our views upon the subject of the pendinD" bill, it can not be denied that to a large portion, I say a great majority of the people of the United States, it is regarded as the most important legislation which has been before the country perhaps during the whole period of its existence, if we except the single period of the great civil war. There is throughout the entire limits of our country a deep-seated feeling thu.t the results of this legislation will be more disastrous to the great body of the people than any measure which has been presented to it, I

Before I submit the few observations I wish to make upon the subject of this rule, I preface it with the statement that I am not of the number of those who find occasion for unfriendly criti­cism of the President of the United States, or of hia great and dis tinguished Secretary of the Treasury, or who charge upon the?J: incon~is tency or infidelity in ~dhering to tlie pledges of their pohtwal faith . I regard the President as a man of extraordinary intellect, of unquestionable patriotism, of sympathy with the great masses of the people. He it was who st9..rted the great waves of public reform, of changed legislation looking to the in­terest of the masses of the people of this country, the great t :.triff question, and there is nothing, in my judgment, to abate the con­fidence of the people in him or in the Secretary of the Treasury; nor with the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. VooR­HEES], who advocates this movement upon tbe floor of the Senate, can there be found any inconsistency with his previous decla ra­tions and his lifelong advocacy of every measure which looked toward the advancement and the welfare of the great masses of the people of this country.

The administration of a great public trust. Mr. President, and the duties of a deliberative body and a legislator are vastlv dif­ferent. Caution , conservatism, must be the guide of those who are charged with the execution of the law and the public policies which they find in existence; and I can well see that the Secre­liary of the Treasury and the Pre&_ident of the United States may not have in anywise changed their convictions beca~1se of their advocacy of measures which are here presented.

1706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 23,

Who can doubt that the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. GORDON]. who has been the hero of many a triumphant bat­tlefield, and been repeatedly the recipient of civic honors by his own State, is honest and sincere in his advocacy of measures of relief hereafter to be adopted by this body? Who can question the fidelity of the Senator from Indiana, who has shown so much courtesy and forebearance in the advocacy of this meas­ure?

But these are not rea.sons for a submission on the part of those who have different opinions to the passage of this bill. The questions are of too great importance. They require delibera­tion; they are world-wide in their effects; they are connected with the revolutions which seem to impend over every country in Europe.

See the vast amount of public debt which the most careless observer perceives threatens bankruptcy and the possible result of civil war and social and political revolution. Who doubts that this vast mass of debt, increasing in an almost geometrical progression, accompanied by millions upon millions of paupers, people having scarcely the necessaries of life, and extending to our own country, presents questions of the most serious consid­eration to the statesman?

The simple question of the time when we shall debate these measures may press itself with force to one mind or to another. For myself I re)Zard the pending proposition to change the rules as a proposition to forbid discussion, to forbid debate, to close the only avenues of intercourse between this body and the O'reat mass of the people of the United States.

With the press in the control and ownership of the great moneyed interests of the country; with the power of money as­sailing every legislative body and every legislator; with rank and position and distinction conferred upon those who submit to the will of the great moneyed interests of the country, this tri­bunn,l is the only one in the world where the free and open con­sideration of the people's wants, the interests of the great mass of the people can be had unaffected by those powerful causes. It is here alone in all the world that the people can be heard free from the influences and the solicitations of fortune and the power of wealth. It assails this body; it affects the elections of members hera; but always there will be found here represent­atives, as the Senator from Indiana [Mr. TURPIE], who has just spoken, has said, who will be true to the people, who will repre­sent their interests, who will maintain their honest convictions; and it may be said, and I believe it aan be said, that it charac­terizes this body as a whole.

I share not in the censures which have been passed upon the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]-distinguished in ability and an honor to his country, as I conceive him to be-for his opinions upon this subject; but, Mr. President, I regard this measw·e for the repeal of the Sherman act, whatever may be its specific effects, as but the vanguard of the great battle between the people for right, for justice, for comfort, for happiness in

. every home, and the great consolidated money powers of the world. Who can doubt that we are approaching a period when, if wise counsels do not prevail, there will be trouble more seri­ous! more dreadful, than has ever occurred in this country?

If the predictions and the apparently well-founded opinions of many economists are true-and they are mine-that gradually the people of this country are becoming poorer and poorer; that the great forces of invention and progress are accompanied by increas­ing poverty, increasing want and destitution in the homes of the· great masses of the people, and that it is because of the consoli­dation of the money power of the world; because of its control of the powers of taxation; because of the lease of the powers of taxation to great corpora tions; the monopoly of money, the con­centration of the use of public credit in the hands of a few indi­viduals, which is the effect of our national system, giving the nation's credit as a privilege to a few, a small po'rtion of our peo­ple the exdusive right, the monopoly of banking, the use of the public credit the issuance of bonds, which carry with them a lien upon the labor of every man within this country-if these propositions are true, we may well see, Mr. President, that in this contest between privilege and power and money and the great miSses of the people, the American people will not sub­mit; that they will require of their representatives that such pol­icies and such measures shall be pursued as will remove the pos­sibility of these great and powerful influences.

What then? Shall we close the power of debate here? Shall we give to a. bare majority the right to suppress inquiry, inves­tig· tion, and thought?

Mr. President, I regard the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, of Which so much has been s :1id in these days, when the public press be­longs to the great moneyed interests of the country, when their agents are assailirig every man who does not do their bidding­! regard the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, which is. the faithful record of the people's servants, of their investigation of public questions, of their analyses of the problems which are before

the country and the world, as one of the most important instru­mentalities within our power for the preservation of public lib­ei.·ty, and for the advancement of the happiness and welfare of the great masses of the people of this country.

Mr. President, throughout the entire length and breadth of this country there is want, there is poverty. In every home in the great agricultural r egions of our country the pressure of the money power is felt· no money can be had. Crops are abundant, the earth is fruitful, lines of communication traverse every section and portion of our country, no public disaster has come upon the people, and yet there has been paralysis of trade. Bountiful nature ha~;> gone on and has furnished to the inhabi­tants of our country every means and resource of happiness, of abundance, and yet we find here, from some cause, that the · whole system and conduct of exchange and commerce and the means of bringing comfort to the families of t:t:J.e people through­out the country is suspended, is changed, is paralyzed.

Is not that a question of importance enough to be discussed and considered from now until December? Is that a question upon which any man can speak ex cathed?·a, and say that the remedy for this is in any further concentration of t he power of taxation, of money, of bonds, of liens upon the labor of the coun­try, in the hands of a few individuals? Is not that what is pro­posed by the extension of the banking Eystem and extension o! the nation's credit to them? Is not that what we propose if there ~hall be no further legislation? Do we not declare that the power of issuing money, paper money, token money, shall be placed in the hands of selected individuals, whocancontrol thisscarceand rare and difficult product of gold?

If we are to stop here, if there is to be no free coinage of sil­ver, if there is to be no change in the existing legislation of the country but the repeal of the Sherman act, are we not proposing to give to those people who control the gold of the world the power and the right to issue its necessary token substitute; and what is that? I read in the stat istics given by Mulhall that in 1889 the debt of the principal nations of the world, including the United States, was £6,160,000,000. I see here that in the United States our private and public debts are estimated in the last census at $19,000,000,000, an incre.'lSe within the las't ten years of a vast amount; and ali the debts of the world, according to Mulhall, have increased tenfold in ninety-six years preceding this time.

Here is a tenfold increase of indebtedness in ninety-six years besides the annual tax levies upon the people of the world, to say nothing of the tax levies of municipal corporations, of rai!­road companies, and of the various forms of corpora.tions which are to be found in our country. The increase in the truration upon those people and our own iA estimated at the great a.IDDunt of the public national debt. Yet we find that the great nations oi Europe are grasping gold and locking it up in their military chests for the suppport of the 23,000,000 armed men who are in hostile array against each other, threatening war every day . This great power, this golden treasure, is beingwithdrawnfrom the uses of trade, from the business of the country, and looked up in the military chests of the nations of the earth. What does that mean? 'l'hat means that there is no free and unre­stricted use of the precious metal. That means that the laws of commerce are not applicable, but that they are suspended in their relations.

Now, Mr. President, in this condition of public opinion, al­lowing what we may for a difference of opinion, a:.> shown by controversy, allowing for the opinion of those of us who see in the future nothing but greate.r poverty, greater want, greater oppression, and the advance of monopoly in every form which must necessarily be accompanied by the want and poverty and the degradation of the masses of the people of this country-ad­mitting the possible error of opinion that we may h~ve, is this a time to propose a resolution that shall close free and fair discus­sion in this body, that shall suppress here, when here alon9 the people can be heard, the voice of inquiry, of protestation, and of continued examination?

Mr. President, we have survived the perils of our great civil war, with all its emergencies and all its demands for instanta­neous action, we h ave p .issed through every peril and every cir­cumstance and condition of nc~.tional life for a hundred years without any other power in this body than the force of public opinion. Shall we now, in the interest of those who believe that gold alone is the proper basis for monetary transactions-shall we, in the interest of those great bankers of Europe, the Roths­childs, who deal in the public securities of nations and who ob­tain their wealth alone from the great crushing public debts­shall we, at this time, in the interest of theories, be they correct or incorrect, give it into the power of a majority to close debate in this body?

I do not distrustthePt·esident of the United States. I believe that he will sign any bill for free coinage, or otherwise, that is demanded by the great majority of the people of the United

1893. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE .. 1707 f!Jtates. But I have no idea that he or others will have the power when this proposed repeal bill is passed, until a great political revolution shall have occuned, until perhaps a social revolution ~;~hall have occurred-to meet the combined wealth of the world which depends for its further aggrandizement upon this action in the United States. ·

Mr. President, I do not distrust tha distinguished Senator {rom Indiana [Mr. VOO:&HEES] nor the distinguished · Senator from Georgia [Mr. GORDON]. They are as sincere as I am; they can be relied upon as far as I or others can be relied on in the defense of the views and interests of the people and their pledges in favor of free and unrestrictd coinage of the precious metals; but they will not have the power when this action shall be ac­complished to successfully cope with the forces, the vanguard of which is now here fighting for supremacy in the transfer of power from the people of the whole of this country. . .

In my judgment there can be no doubt of the fact that th1~ 1s the contest for republican government, however others may view it. There will have to be a new sbrt and a new organization of forces. Thomas Jefferson, the founder of this great Democratic party to which we belong, and in which I have confidence, has declared that there was no power in one generation to bind an­other in the imposition of national indebtedness. Under our Constitution the provision in respect to the national debt has been made obligatory after the conclusion of the war, yet as the great Archbishop Walsh, of Ireland, has recently demonstra.ted beyond the possibility of a doubt, the confinement of the busi­ness of the world to a single metal, gold, has doubled the public and private indebtedness of the country.

There can be no question when you have transmitted this vast load of public and private obligation into one single metal and doubled it, that you threaten the stability of the whole of this great fabric of debt. I, for one, with whatever ability I possess, am decidedly of the opinion and judgment that the change into the single gold standard and the transfer of the power of issuing token money, paper money substitutes, to the great bankers of the world will increase the indebtedness of the whole world two­fold. This tt•ansfer into their hands will be the necessary re­sult of th-e power of taxation and will create an increase of the want and poverty and the price of money throughout the whole of this country.

Why, in my State, Florida, the people can get no money. Even in ordinary times they pay for the use of money in their homes a·nd in their business affairs from 8 to 20 per cent. They are poor. Whatever treasures the earth may disclose, they fail to receive the benefit therefrom. Extend your lines of corpora­tions, and still they draw to the great central point, New York, and to Europe, all the money, all the results of labor, and leave those people in a condition of poverty and want.

Now, Mr. President, in that condition of things, when we are called upon for mature deliberation, when the highest forces of the human mind are demanded for the consideration of these problems, when we can well afford to spend months in careful study and investigation; in these times, when the pressure of want is felt in every household in every city, when it is esti­mated with reasonable certainty that there are a million of un­employed men begging for work in order to be able to live, when they are to be seen in the streets of our cities begging for em­ployment that they may obtain the bread of life-in these times, when we are required to examine into some measure of relief, for one I should be willing to ad vance such public works every­where as could be properly utilized; for one I should be willing to commence the construction of intercontinental railroads and canals through the two Ameri0as. For one, I should prefer to consider a proposition for a conference with the great silver­using nations of the world in order that we might combine our rescaurces towards securing the benefits of free coinage of silver and gold and open the mints of these countries to both metal.s.

But, :Mr. President, I mention these things with respect and deference to the President of the United States. Forhimlhave the highest opinion. I am willing to trust him again with the Presidency of the United States. His sympathies, I believe, are as much with the people as are those of any public man in our midst. I am willing to trust his distinguished Secretary of the Treas­ury, whom I vindicate from even inconsistency with the cele­brated speech which he made in the House, but who is now con­fronted with mea~ures of Treasury administration. I would spe:tk with respect of the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], against whom are made so many imputations, but whose opinion as a great statesman I respect. But we have dif­ferences of opinion between them and ourselves and, I think, the great majority of our people.

Consider the able declarations and arguments that have been made by the distinguished Archbishop Walsh, of Ireland, show­ing the condition of the Irish p zople under the land-settlemen-t

act, so beneficent, passed under the leadership of Mr. Gladstone. The evils to which that act was addressed have grown to a greJ.ter burden than they were before the passage of the act. What is true of Ireland is true of the United States by demonstration. The debt will be a double burden upon the people and the taxpayers, in my judgment, if we repeal this law, unless there shall be some additional legislation a.ccompanying it.

Mr. President, it was said by the Senatorfrom Kentucky [Mr. LINDSAY] that those who opposed this bill must necessarily dis­trust the President of the United Statils and the Secretary of the Treasury . and the promises which have been made here by distinguished Senators. I do not distrust them. I believe to-day that they will vote, after this repeal bill shall have been dis­posed of, for a free·coiuage law, and that the President' will ap­prove it, and that the Secretary of the Treasury .himself will also, with perhaps some reserve, because of his character as an ad­ministrator of the Treasury, give his assent to it. But they will have no power to do it.

The public press will be "Unanimously in the charge of this great consolidated money power, which obtai.ns its profits of banking from the public. The representatives of the people here alone will sbnd unaffected by this tremendous money power. A great many people will be sincerely of the opinion that gold, and gold alone, is the safe basis for the conduct of the public and private business affairs of the world. These argu­ments which are now so forcibly made will then be far more forcibly made, will aid the triumph in this controversy of the people who have accumulated wealth, and will give them tenfold more power and strength.

Mr. President, I concur with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. TrrRPIE] who spoke this morning, in the proposition that un­restricted debate here in this body is the hope offreedom, the hope of legislation for the people of the wide world. Here are no st:.mding armies, no kings, no despots, seeking to control the sole bJsis of money transactions. The power of public opinion must control. If so be, it is voluntary. If the money power is allowed control it will be by the conviction of the judgment of these Senators, and, as against them, is the great rushing tide of public opinion. So that here in this body the right of unre­stricted debate and discussion is the last refuge of freedom.

If we are to advance along the lines of progress and invention and these mighty forces which have been so often alluded to in the learned debate which has been had here; if we are to make the people happy, to bring joy and abundance into every house­hold, as it is possible to do, why here is the place for that judg­ment and consideration. We must open wide the access to the waves of public thought and feeling which reach this body. We must deliberate long, carefully, and thoughtfully, accepting the best judgment, the best thought, and the best opinion of the world to guide us in our path of deliberation.

For that reason, Mr. President, while I yield to those who diller from me the same patriotism, the same devotion to the interests of the people, and the same hope of future progress and happiness of the people as I myself have; while I recog­nize their distinguished ability; while I maintain that neither as Republicans nor as Democrats is there need for ostracism of those who differ from us; while I recognize the paramount abil­ity of the President of the United States and of his great Sec­rebry of the Treasury, and honor them for the courage of their convictions; while I recognize in the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. VooRHEES] the fact that he has given a lifelong service to the interests of the people and of freedom, and the fact that he is still as faithful to them as he ever was; while I recognize the fact that he regards this as an appropriate thing to do without change, or substitute, or modification; still I dif­fer from them. We are fighting the battle of freedom. This is the vanguard of the great forces about to meet to not only fight for the repeal of this bill, but to fight for the control of the world.

In my judgment, if a cloture resolution shall be imposed upon this body, if the despotism of restraint of discussion and thought is brought here, we shall be placed at a disadvantage, which will require a reorganization of the great forces which are fight­ing the people·s battles, and we shall have to commence anew our journey in the path of progress and reform which President Cleveland in his great message first advocated. Let t:ts give heed to the public opinion which protests against this proposed action. Let us give pause to action and consider long and with earnest solicitude the eventualities of tho action which we shall take.

Mr. VOORHEES. 1 ask the Seilll.te to proceed to the consid-eration of House bill No. 1.

Mr. PLATT. Let the pending 1·esolution be referred. Mr. VOORHEES. Oh, cert:1inly. Mr. PLATT. I move that the r esolution be referred to the.

Committee on Rules. The motion was agreed to.

1708 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 23,

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. There is a considerable amount of business on the Executive Calendar which the public interest demands should be disposed of. It has been there for some days, and I presume it will take some time to dispose of it. I should be glad to have the Senate go into executive session now for the purpose of taking up that business.

Mr. VOORHEES. I ask the Senator whether he could not call it up at 4 o'clock and dispose of it after that time?

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I do not think it will be possible to dispose of it after 4 o'clock. From what I have heard about the feeling on the question and the disposition to discuss it, I am sure that it will t ake the entire afternoon.

Mr. McPHERSON. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Arkansas if the question of a ppoin tmen ts and confirmations at the present time is more important to the people of this coun­try than the disposition of the pending business, and also is it not possible for the Senate at 4 o'clock, as has been suggested by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, to take up those dis­puted questions and settle them before we adjourn? We have been in the habit of holding executive sessions during the past ten davs after 6 o'clock.

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I have already stated to the Senate what I think about the proposition to hold an executive session at 4 o'clock.

Mr. VOORHEES. I suggest "to the Senator from Arkansas that I myself will ask for an executive session at 4 o'clock, and

. if we then do not dispose of the contested m atters by 6 o'clock, the usual time for a~journment, I will myself agree to an exec­utive session next week at a very early day.

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The Senator from Indiana has as much interest in having the executive business disposed of as I have. I have simply made the motion in the interest of public business and because I know the executive department of the Government is very anxious that the question involved in the matter should be disposed of. I consulted a number of Senators two or three days ago as i.o the propriety of taking the question up, and all, including the Senator from Indiana, proposed that it should be postponed ~ntil Saturday. .

I notified a number or Senators yesterday that the questwn would come up to-day immediately after the morning business. I thought there was a disti~ct un~erstanding among all.Senator:s that it would be taken up Immediately after the mormng busi­ness to-day and disposed of. Of course after it is disposed of (it may not take as long a time as 1 think), if the Senate chooses to proceed with the regula: order it has a right to do so, .but I !Je­lieve that it would be wise to proceed now to the consideratiOn of executive business. However, the Senate can settle the mat­ter to suit itself.

Mr. CHANDLER. I rise to a question of order, and that is whether discussion on a motion to proceed to the consideration of executive business is in order?

The VICE-PRESIDEN1'. The Chair will state to the Senator from New Hampshire that no motion has been made. The de­bate is proceeding by unanimous consent.

Mr. CHANDLER. I wish to say beforehand that I object to debate upon the question of proceeding to the consideration of executive business. Senators will clearly see why there should not be any such debate. The Senator from Arkans~s has un­dert3.ken to make a shtement to the Senate in reference ·to the condition of the Calendar of Executive Business, which might lead to reply from some other Senator, and before the Senate was perhaps conscious of it there would be a debate in open ses­sion as to the condition of busine~s in executive session. There­fore I want to interpose an objection early and immediately against any debate on a motion of that kind.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. VOORHEES. I move that the Senate proceed to the con­sideration of executive business, and I shall ask the Senate to return to legislative business afterwards.

The motion was agreed to; and the S:mate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After one hour and fifty minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 3 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned until Monday, September 25, 1893, at 11 o'clock a.m.

NOMINATIONS.

Executive nominatwns received by the Sena.te Septernbe1· 23, 1893.

UNITED STATES MARSHAL.

Joseph A. Manson, of Tennessee, to be marshal of the _United States ior the western district of Tennessee, vice James W. Brown, resigned, to take effect Noyember_1, 1893.

PENSION AGENT.

Joseph H. Woodnorth, of Waupaca, Wis., to be pension agent at Milwaukee, Wis., vice Levi E. Pond, to be removed.

REGISTER OF LAND OFFICE. David M. Boyle; of Gettysburg, S. Da,k., to be register of the

land office at Pierre, S. Dak., vice Leslie H. Bailey, resigned. RECEIVER OF PUBLIC MONEYS.

James K. Wright, of Grayling, Mich., to be receiver of pub­lic moneys at Grayling, Mich., vice Henry H. Aplin, resigned.

INDIAN AGENT. Joseph T. Carter, of Jacko, Mont., to be agent for the Indians

of the Flathead Agency in Montana, vice Peter Ronan, de­ceased.

POSTMASTERS.

Henry P. Grant, to be postmaste1~ at Helena, in tho county of Phillips and State of Arkansas, in the place of James B. Miles, removed.

James W. Nelson, to be postmaster at Monte Vista, in the county of Rio Grande and State of Colorado, in the place of Sigel Heilman, resigned.

Emil Boehl, to be postmaster at Blue Island, in the county of Cook and State of Illinois, in the place of Frederick G. Diefen­bach , resigned.

William R. Hamilton, to be postmaster at Carthage, in the county of Hancock and State of Illinois, in the place of Charles S. De Hart, resigned .

John S. Klinefelter, to be postmaster at Bunker Hill, in the county of Macoupin and State of Illinois, in the place of Fen-wick Y. Hedley, resigned. ..

Otto H. Stange, to be postmaster at Elmhurst, in the county of Dupage and 8tate of Illinois, in the place of Henry L . Gloss, resigned.

John Adams, to be postmaster at Columbia City~ in the county of Whitley and State of Indiana, in the place of GeorgeS. Mealey, resigned.

Joseph Rice, to be postmaster at Indiana Mineral Springs , in the county of Warren and State of Indiana, the appointment of a postmaster for the said office having, by law, become vested in the President on and after July I, 1893.

James S. But tolph, to be postmaster at Iowa Falls, in the county of Hardin and State of Iowa, in the place of Richard A. Carlton, removed.

Mathew M. Von Stein, to be postmaster at Glidden, in the county of Carroll and State of Iowa, the appointment of a post­m aster for the said office having, by law, become vested in the President on and after July 1, 11590.

I saac Hudson, to be postmaster at Fredonia, in the county of Wilson and State of Kansas, in the place of William D. Christ­man, Jresigned.

Napoleon H. Carlisle, to be postmaster at Covington, in the county of Kenton and St3.te of Kentucky,in the place of Thomas W . Hardeman, removed.

John B. Gaines, to be postmaster at Bowling Green, in the county of Warren and State of Kentucky, in the place of Ed­ward W. Fordyce, r esigned.

John M. Simmons. to be postmaster at Owensboro, in the coun ty of Daviess and State of Kentucky, in the place of John

"H. McHenry, deceased. J ohn Ahern, to be postmaster at Slayton, in the county of

Murray and State of Minnesota, theappointmentof a postmaster for the said office having, by law, become vested in the Presi­dent on and after Aprill, 1893.

Franklin A. Welles, to be postmaster at P,lain view, in the county of W a basha and State of Minnesota, the appointment of a postmaster for the said office h aving, bylaw, become vested in the President on and after April'l, HS93.

John Chivers, to be postmaster at Keytesville, in the county of Chariton and State of Missouri, the (1-PPOintment of a post­ma3ter for the sa.id office having, by law, become vested in the President on and after July I, 1893.

Henry G. Schnelle, to be postmaster at Golden City, in the county of B :trton and State of Mi 'Souri, the appointment of a postmaster for the said office having, by law, become vested in the President·on and after July 1, 1893.

Henry E. Smith, to be postm::~ster a t Willow Springs, in the county of Howell and State of Missouri, in the place of Noah L. Hawk, resigned.

CONFIRMATIONS. Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate Septembe1· 21, 1899.

CONSUL.

· George J. Willis, of Butler, Ga., to be consul of the United States at Port Stanley and St. Thomas, Canada.

1893. OONGRESSION AL REOORI>-HOUSE. 1709

SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS. S.D. Ellis, of Louisiana, to be surveyor of customs

portof New Orleans; in the State of Louisiana., POSTMASTERS.

question, based upon a printed letter which· I send to the desk for the and ask to have read.

The Clerk read a~ follows:

E. Z. Hanks, to be postmaster at Kansas, in the ,county of Ed­gar and State of Illinois.

' Charles W. Carr, to be postmaster at Englewood, in the county of Cook and ~tate of Illinois.

Edmond J. Bradley, to be postmaster at Eldon, in the county of Wapello and State of Iowa.

J. A. Pence, to be postmaster at Gibson City, in the county of Ford and Shte of Illinois.

Rufus Vmch, to be postmaster at Macomb, in the county of McDonough and State of Illinois.

James Stanton, to be p os tmaster at New Hampton, in the county of Chickasaw and State of Iowa.

Joseph A. Smith, to be postmaster at Spirit Lake, in the county of Dickinson and Shte of Iowa . .

Richard Burke, to be postmaster at What Cheer! m the county of Keokuk and State of Iowa.

Joseph T. Evans. to be postmaster at Carbondale, in the county of Jackson and State of Illinois.

John H. Brown, t~ be postmaster at LeRoy, in the county of McLean and State of Illinois.

John B. Briscoe, to be postmaster at Charleston, in the county of Coles and State of Illinois.

Harry E. Wescott, to be postmaster at Lacon, in the county of Marshall and State of Illinois.

Albert J. Ostrander, to be postmaster at Galesburg, in the county of Knox and Shte of Illinois.

William Finley, to be postmaster at Hoopeston) in the county of Vermilion and Sta.te of Illinois.

Alvin Scott, jr., to be postmaster at Naperville, in the county of Dupage and State of Illinois.

William Hunt, to be postmaster at Oakland, in the county of Coles and State of Illinois.

Willis L. Grimes, to be postmaster at Batavia, in the county of Kane and State of Illinois.

Francis H. Ware, to be postmaslier at Millville, in the county of Cumberland and State of New Jersey.

Alexander Livingston, jr., to be postmaster at Englewood,. in the county of Bergen and State of New Jersey.

William H. Carpenter, to be postmaster at Clinton, in the county of Hunterdon and State of New Jersey.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SATURDAY, September 23, 1893.

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. S.AltfUEL W. HADDAWAY.

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and ap­proved.

FINDINGS OF OOURT OF CLAIMS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the find­ings of the court in the case of A. T. Terrell and various others against the United States; which was referred to the Committee on War Claims.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

By unammous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: To Mr. BROOKSHIRE, for three _days, on account of sickness in

his family. To Mr. OUTHWAITE, for four days, on account of important bus­

iness. To Mr. HAMMOND, until October 9, on account of important

business. To Mr. McGANN, for ten days, on account of important

business. QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.

Mr. BRETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilegE~.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BRETZ. Some time ago I had occasion to recommend a

change of postmasters at a little village in my district. Accom­panying my recommendation I also filed a number of personal letters to me asking me to recommend the party I did recom­mend. Somehow or other, I do not know by what means, that recommendation and the letters accompanying it became lost in the multifarious rules and orders and modifications of orders by the Post-Office Department. Later on, on the 18th ·day of

_June, I had occasion to file charges against the postmaster in

CELESTINE, Nov. 18, 1890. Mr. W. D. H'A..MMELT:

DEAR Sm: Will you please be so ldnd and let me no if this Post Office will be moved or not; I hope you not move it. I will prommise you and give you my hand and gust as shure as my name is .Jno. Hasenaur that I will voad the Republican Strate State ticket the next time, and nobotty can scar me oud of it anny more like this time. I am sorry that i did not voated strata this time, but I was to much excidet on that day as i stated before. i served as Election Sheriff all day andontiloneo'clockthatnight. Eva.rbotty loockt at me that day and talk a.boud me being Republican Sheriff. This ma.d me ex­cite and so I did not no wad to do wen I stampt my ticket. Mr. G. F. Zehr 1 heard is working to get the office: of cors he is working onder .J. H. Senz and .J . .J. Mostady and .Jos. Schlegel, the main democrats here, and he wants to move the o1fice to .J . .J. Mostaday, a strong democrat. Zehr is gust work­ing for wisky and make up lyes against me so the other few man has some­thing to laf. I will shore due as i say here; please let me hear from you.

Yours truly, JNO. HASENAUR, P . .M.

[Laughter.] Mr. BRETZ. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to say that the

Fourth Assist:m t Postmaster-General's attention was never called specifically to the language of the letter; but upon that letter I based my charges of incompetency, etc., and I did call his attention to the fact that the charges were filed against this postmaster.

The matter was never taken up for action. Recently, how­ever, on tha 16th day of the present month, I received a letter­but before reaching that point I desire to say that the party to whom that letter was addressed, which has just been read~ was the chairm!ID of the Republican county central committee in that countv.

It was generally understood and believed tb J.t in 1888 the post­master, who wrote that letter in 1890, did vote the Republican ticket under a promise that he would receive the post-office if the Republican D:trty was successful. True to that promise, as it is generally miderstood, he was recommen'ded, and wa~ appointed postmaster of that little village, by the chairman of the county oentral committee. In 1890, at the time of the election, there came up some question as to whether be still held to his promise, and hence the letter was written which I have had read at the desk.

I ·desire to say that I h ave appealed to the Fourth Assistant Postmaster-General in person to make the change. It was de­nied me and my request was steadily refused. On the 16th day of the present month I received a letter from the postmas­ter who signed the letter I have just had read, upon which I based supplemental charges and also filed them with the Fourth Assistant Postmaster-General. I not only filed the letter, but I filed the envelope containing the postmark showing where the letter wa~ mailed. I called his attention specifically and per­sonally to the letter and to the language of the letter; and to my certain knowledge that original letter and my supplemental charges have been on his desk ever since the 16th day of the present month, but, as I h ave said, no action was taken. I was over there yesterday and saw them on his desk.

I now send to the Clerk's desk a letter which I have received and ask him to read it, and after it is read I ask that my supple-­mental charges, which are based on that letter, be also read.

Mr. BURROWS. Mr. Speaker, this is an exceedingly inter­esting story, but it certainly can not be claimed that it involves aquestion of personal privilege.

Mr. BRETZ. It will involve that question when I have fin· ished.

Mr. BURROWS. Nothing has been disclosed yet that indi­cates that we have more than a pleasant and interesting story.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana will please indicate the question of privilege.

Mr. BRETZ. Mr. Speaker, the reading of the letter will in­dicate the question of personal privilege upon which I rose to address the House.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman states that the reading of the letter will disclose the question of privilege.

Mr. BURROWS. I hope it will. Several MEMBERS. Read, read. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the letter. The Clerk read as follows:

[Copy of letter.] CELESTINE, Sep. 18th, '99.

Mr. JOHN L. BRETZ, Esq., Washington, IJ. C.: .

DEAR FREAND I will trop you a. few iines aboud the postoffice matter in Celestine. I hope you will be so kind and let me keep the P. 0. ad this plase as i think will give the best sadisraction as i dond think that thare ar 8 man hear wand it to go were it shell go the ballans is gust boyt to sin ther names to move the office. Dear Sir wat Pola.dick belong to 1 was all was a. Demo­crad gust a. good as the Next man Also i allwas helpt you wen you run tor an omce as well as a.nny botty Els as 1 allwas loock ad you as a. Freand of mine. Wat made me gauge Som in Pola.dick 4 years ago was a big In tress to me altho 1 never toockt no pa1·d in the Cam pane last fall on Ea.ther Site; hope Y:OU will let me keap the omce hea.re; ther as blendy heare wa.nst tho