1889. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOU~E. 897 •

the notes of the hearing before the Committee on Education and Labor upon what is known as the Sunday-rest. bill, fo~ which there has been a great call in the country. I ask that 1t be pnnted as a document.

The PRESIDENT pro tempo-re. As a miscellaneous document? Mr. BUTLER. Are all those petitions to be printed? The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. Only the testimony taken before the

committee, the Chair understands. 1\Ir. BLAIR. That is all. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be so ordered, if there be no

objection. The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

1\IESSAGE FRO:\! TIIE llO"CSE. A messaooe from the House of Representatives, by 1tir. T. 0. Towi.ES,

its Chief Clerk, announced that the Honse had passed the following bills; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. 4106) for the relief of Lieutenant-Colonel Eyre; A bill (H. R. 7501) for the relief of H. Clay Wood; and . A bill (H. R. ).1638) to amend an act entitled "An act to proVIde

for a term of court at Quincy, Ill.," approved August 8, 1888. -The message also returned to the Senate, in compliance with its re­

quest, the bill (S. 205) for the relief of the State National Bank of Louisiana.

The messa(J'e further announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 3782) to ~mend an act entitled "An act declaring that certain water-reserve lands in the State of Wisconsin are and have been sub­ject to the provis~ons of the act of Congress en~itled 'An act gran~ing to railroads the nght of way through the public lands of the Umted States,' approved March 3, 1875," approved September 10, 1888.

1\HSS ANN A ELLA. CARROLL. 1t.Ir. SPOONER. The Senate referred to the Committee on Claims

the bill (S. 3803) for the relief of Miss Anna Ella Carroll, which is a claim for payment for information alleged to have been furnished to the Government during the war. It is the opinion of the committee that the bill should go to the Committee on Military Affairs. I am thel'efore instructed to report it back and ask that the Committee on Claims be discharged from its further consideration, and that the bill and accompanying papers be sent to the Committee on Military Affairs.

The report was agreed to.

.A1tiENDMENT TO A BILL. 1\Ir. SAWYER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by

him to the general deficiency appropriation bill; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, and ordered to be printed.

REPORT ON ALASKAN SEAL ISLANDS.

1\Ir. DA. WES submitted- the following resolution; which was consid­ered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to furnish for . the use of the Senate a copy of the report of Special Agent George R. Tingle, in charge of the Seal Islands of Alaska, for the current year.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. 3106) for the relief of Lieutenant-Colonel Eyre was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Af­fairs.

The bill (H. R. 7501) for the relief of H. Clay Wood was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on 1tiilitary Affairs.

The bill 1(H. R. 11638) to amend an act entitled ''An act to provide

for a term of court at Quincy, Ill.,'' approved August 8, 1888, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The bill (H. R. 12060) to constitute Columbus, Ohio, a port of de-, livery, and to extend the provisions of the act of June 10, 1880, en­

titled "An act to amend the statutes in relation to inlmediate trans­portation of dutiable goods, and for other purposes," to said port of Columbus, was read twice by its title.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. At the request of the Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE], the bill will lie on the table ~ntil morning.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr CULLOM. I wish to have a very brief executive session. I move' that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive busi­ness.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the ~onsid­eration of exec uti >e business. After two minutes spent in executive ses­sion the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.) t]le Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, January 18, 1889, at 11 o'clock a. m.

CONFIRMATION.

Executitlt nomination confirmed by the Senate January 17, 1889.

COLLECTOR OF CUST0!\!8. John Farrington, of Minnesota, to be. collector of customs for the

district of Minnesota, in t.he State of Mmnesota.

XX--57

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, January 17, 1880.

Theiiousemetat12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. MILBURN, D. D.

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

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting conclusions of fact and la~ in the matter of the brig Minerva; which was referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed.

W .AR CLAil\IS. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the assistant

clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting finuings of fact in the cases of Mary E. Wagely, administratrix of Davi~ Wagely, deceased, vs. '.fhe United States· William Lloyd vs. The Umted States; Mary E. West, administratrix' of Richard T. We~t. t·s. The United States, and Eliz­abeth Ann Best executrix of David Best, t:s. The United States; which was referred t~ the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

REPORT OF INTERSTATE CO~illERCE COl\E\IISSIO:N. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following concurrent

resolution of the Senate; which was referred to the Comm.ittee on Printing:

L'lf THE SE!<ATE OF THE UNITED STATF.S, January 16, 1889. Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring herein), That there

be printed 6 000 additional copies of the second annual report of _the In.terstate Commerce Commission, with the appendices therein; 2,000 of said copies ~o be for the use of the Senate, and 4,000 for the use of the House of Representatives.

STATE NATIO:NAL BAXK OF LOUISIANA. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following:

, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED ~TATES, January 16, 1889. Ordered That t.he Secretary be directed to request the Ilouse of Representa­

tives to r~turn to the Senate the bill (S. 205) for the relief of the State National Bank of Louisiana.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the request of the Senate will be complied with, and the Clerk of the House will be directed to return this bill .

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly.

WATERR-ESERVE LANDS IN WISCONSIN. The SPEAKER also . laid before the Honse the bill (S. 3782) to

amend an act entitled "An act declaring that certain water-reserve lands in the State of Wisconsin are and have been subject to the act of Congress entitled 'An act granting to railroads the right of way through the public lands of the United States,' approved March 3, 1875," approved September 10, 1888. . .

Mr. GROSVENOR. I ask unanimous consent that this h1ll be put on its passage at the present time.

1\Ir. HoLMAN rose. The SPEAKER. This bill has already been read when it was laid

before the House on a previous day. It will be read again if any mem­ber so desires.

Mr. HOLMAN. I understand the bill. I do not call for the read­ing. It involves merely the correction of a date.

There being no objection, the Hous~ procee?ed to the cons~dera~ion of the bill; which was ordered to a thud read mg, read the thrrd t1me, and passed. ,

1\Ir. GROSVENOR moved to reconsider the "'ote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as ~ollows: To Mr. ScoTT, indefinitely on account of important busmess. To Mr. FELTON, for one w~ek, on account of important business. To Mr. MORROW, for four days.

RESIGNATIOY OF HON. ALVIN P. HOVEY. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following communi­

cation from the governor of the State of Indiana; which was laid on the table:

EXECUTIVE DEPARTME!IT, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Indianapolis, January 14, 1889.

DEAR SIR: The resignation ofHon. ALVIN P. HoVEY as. a member ofthe,Fif­tieth .Congress from the First. Congressional district of this State was recetved and accepted by me on the 12th day otJanuary, 1889.

Very respectfully, ISAAC P. GRAY;·

Hon. JoHN G. CARLISLE, , D "" Speaker House of Rep1·esentatives, Washtngton, • "'·

REAL ESTATE PURCHASES BY DISTRICT CO:\!MISSION.El!S. The SPEAKER announced the appointment of 1\:fr. T.AULBEE, 1\I.r.

L'EE, Mr. CHIPMAN, :Mr. ROWELL, andllir. BAKER, ofNew~ork, as the

898 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J.ANU.A.RY 17,

select committee to investigate, under a resolution of the House, the purchase of real estat-e by the commissioners of the District of Colum­bia.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGXED.

?tlr. FISHER froru the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had e.xamilted and found duly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: . . . .

.A. bill (S. 154) for the erection of a pubhc buildmg at l\:I1lwaukee, Wis.; .

.A. bill (S. 2726) granting an increase of pension to 1tiargaret S. Hemt-~~; .

.A. bill (S. 182) to provide for the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building thereon, at Omaha, Nebr.; and

.A. bill (S. 1931) to increase the appropriation for the purchas~ of a site for a building for a post-office, court-house, and other offices m Sun Francisco, Cal.

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL EYRE.

Mr. ?ticKENN.A.. In behalf of my colleague, Mr. FELTON, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill which I send to the Clerk's desk (H. R. 3106) for the relief of Lieutenant-Colo-nel Eyre. · -

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Beitenacted etc. That Lieut. Col. Edward E. Eyre, late lieutenant-colonel of

the Firat Ca.lif~rni:.O CavaJ.ry be released from all further liability on account of his receipts and disburseme~ts of funds as acting quartermastet, and the proper officers of the United States Treaslll"Y are ~uthorized and directed, to cancel said liability whether the same be pending 1n court or has become a Judgment, and to close ihe ~ccounts of said Col. Ed ward E. Eyre.

Mr. HOLMAN. I ask that the report be read. . Mr. McKENNA. The report has been read. I can make a srmple

statement of the case· and then, if there is any objection, I will with­draw the bill. Lieute~ant-Colonel Eyrewhileperformingdutywascom­manded by his commanding officer to supersede a quartermaster; which he did under protest. From that quartermaster he received certain funds. He performed the duties of quartermaster for a few months on the march disbursed certain sums, then turned over the balance ot his funds and the vouchers for his disbursements to his successor, and assumed that they had been transmitted to the Department. Thirteen years afterwards he ·wa.s notified that the vouchers had not been pre­sented, and that he was apparently in default some thre_e tho~a:r;td and odd dollars. These are the facts. -u he had been notified m time of his seeming default he could have taken advantage of an act which was on the statute-book providing for the settlement of just such ac­counts.

Mr. HOL1tiAN. What became of the vouchers? Mr. McKENNA. They were turned over to his successor and were

lost. :Mr. HOLMAN. What evidence is there that the vouchers ever ex-

isted? . . Mr. McKENNA. The evidence of General Eyre hunself, who I will

state is a very respectable gentleman, one whose word no person ~ho knows him would hesitate to take for anything, and to whom might be safely intrusted any amount of money.

1tlr. McMILLIN. Does the proof show conclusively that the vouch-ers did exist?

Mr. :McKENNA. Yes, sir. Mr. McMILLIN. .A.nd that the money was paid out in good faith? Mr. McKENNA. Yes, sir. The SPEAKER. Ia there objection to the request of the gentle­

man from California? There was no objection. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and

being eJl::!rossed, it was accordin~ly read the third time! and p~ed. Mr. McKENNA moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was

passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. STOCKDALE. I rise to a matter of personal privilege, and ask the Clerk to read the newspaper extract which I send to the desk.

The CJmk read as follows: A VOTJII TO B:m liA.D ON 1

' NAT" lll'XA Y'S CLADJ:,

(Special.] WASHINGTON, January 15.

At the last session of Congre.'!s President O~eveland vetoed a bill providing for a reference to the Court of Olaims of the claim of" Nat" McKay. The veto message was referred to the Honse Committee on Wa.r Olaims, which recom­mended its passage. At.a meeting of the committee to-day, by a. vote of 7 to 5, it was decided to recommend the passage of the bill over the vet.o, whereupon Mr. STOCKDALE, of Mississippi, became much excited and declared that the bill should never pass the House, no never, as long as ~e [STOCKDALE] could pre· vent it. His chief reason was that in the recen~ Pres1dential campaign Mr. l\Ic­Ka.y had been guilty of "pernicious activity,' had actually rldicul~ and in­sulted the great reformer whose name stood at the head of the losmg ticket. Mr. STOCKDALE's cogent and pertinent ara-uments failed to sway the committee, which declined to reconsider its decision in favor of the claimant.

Mr. STOCKDALE. I will not detain the Hoase-Mr. BURROWS. Mr. Speaker, how does that present a question of

privilege?

Mr. REED. I am afraid that it would take too long if we were all to explain our positions under newspaper criticism. . .

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not understand that thts 1s a ques­tion of nrivilege at all, but the gentleman from Mississippi stated that he rose "to a question of privilege.

Mr. REED. Well, if be wishes to explain--Mr. HOL~I.A.N. I hope there will be no objection to the gentleman

making a statement . The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the gentleman may pro­

ceed for five minutes . Mr. BAYNE. I object unless the explanation is limited to five

minutes . The SPEAKER. The gentleman has asked for only five minutes. Mr. STOCKDALE. 1r1r. Speaker, I do not desire to occupy the at-.

tention of the House upon the facetiousness ofthis article-only upon its falseness. In the committee, when the question came up I stated that it seemed to be admitted on all hands that the bill could not pass at this se813ion--

Mr. DUNHAM. ?tlr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman has no right to state what occurred in the committee.

The SPEAKER. He has a right to state what he said himself, but he has no right to disclose the proceedings of the con;mittee or the po:R­tiou taken by other members. If the gentleman thmks proper to d~­close what he said himself, the Chair sees no objection.

Mr. STOCKDALE. I stated, as a reason, that I had voted for this bill in the committee and in the House, but that 1\Ir. McKay bad made a personal attack on the Executive because he had failed to sign the bill--

:Mr. DUNHAM. I rise to a parliamentary inguiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman can not take a member off the

floor with a parliamentary inquiry. _ Mr. DUNHAM:. Then I make a point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. DUNHAM. I make the point that the gentleman has no right

to state how he voted in the committee. _ The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks he has. [Laughter.] In other

words, the Chair supposes that when ever the minority of a committee present their views to the House, the fact is disclosed that they 'Yere against the proposition in the committee. The_gentleman has a r1ght to state what his own action was in the comro1ttee. The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed. .

}t!r. STOCKDALE. Mr. Speaker, I was saying I do not desire to detain the House to notice the oppressive facetiousness of this art~cle­only its falseness. .A. misrepresentation in a paper of the standing of the Tribune even expressed in this silly way, may injure a member so humble as ~yself. What I rese!lt in the article is th~t I am re~re­sented as acting unbecomingly in presence of the comnuttec of which I am .a member.

There were but eight members of the committee present, and as the vote on the ?t!cKay bill was taken the committee rose and dispersed, and I said not a word of what the 'l'ribune represents me as saying.

I did not use any of the language nor assume the manner attributed to roe in the Tribune. What I said on the subject was said in are· spectful way to the commit~ and be~ore the vote was taken, to t~e effect that while I had voted m comrruttee to report the McKay bill favorably and voted in the House for its passage, I was oppose~ to the committee reporting the bill back now with the reco~endat10n th~t it pass over the veto of the President, and in explanation of that po~­tion I said that it seemed to be conceded on all bands that the bill could not pass over the veto at this session; that I did not believe that ?tlr. ?ticKay expected it to pass, but that Ur. McKay had made a bit­ter attack on the President, which reflected on his integrity, on account of his veto of this bill, and was still pursuing that course, and that he sought to procure a report from the,War Cla~ COmmittee reco~­mending its passage over the veto to emphasize and stren_gthen his criticism· that I regarded it as improper that the War Clauns Com­mittee in' its official capacity should re-enforce a citizen in his attack on the Execntivtt of the United States, which seemed to be the main ob­ject; that so far a.B I was concerned I did not propose to be mustered into that column; that I wanted the committee to understand tba~ ~y action did not indicate that I would oppose the passage of the bill1n the next Congress; that I had nothing to do with Mr. ~Ic~ay's quar­rel. I simply on my own account declined to b~ used m 1t. . I stated that I would do the same thing were the Executive a Republican.

I have examined and reported as a subcommittee a number of cases in this Congress, some of them large and laborious, and I do not believe' I know the politics of any claimant whose case I examined, unless I , knew him personally beforehand. I did not know that ?tlr. McKay was a Republican until he told me yesterday, when I gave him m:y: rea-

1 sons for making a minority report. :Mr. McKay did not send thiS ~e­port to the Tribune. He is a gentleman, and could not descend to IDIS· representations. I do not suppose the Tribune desires to do so. What­ever in this article differs from what I have said is false.

H. CLAY WOOD. . i 1tf.r. REBD. 1\Ir. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent ~o discharge the

1 Committee of the Whole House from the fUither COilSlderation of tho:

1889. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 899 ,bill (H. R. 7301) for the relief of II. Clay Wood, and put it upon its passage.

The SPEAKER~ The bill will be read, subject to the right of ob­·iection. I The bill is as follows:

B e it enacUd, etc., That the sum of $()96.10 be paid, out of any money in the 1Treasory of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to H. Clay Wood, in fiill satisfaction and discharge of any and all claims against the United States (or the loss of property by said H. Olay Wood at the evacuation of Fort Cobb, Ihdian Territory, in May, 1861, and at Indianola, Tex., in the autumn of 186l,jn consequence of the surrender of the military department of Texas by General Twiggs.

' Mr. HOL?IIAN. I hope there will be some explanation given of this bill, or that the report will be read.

iir. REED. I can put the explanation of the bill into a very few words.

Lieut. Henry Clay Wood was one of two .officers who lost personal property on account of the surrender of General Twiggs in the mili­tary department of Texas. The other officer was Capt. Joseph B. Plummer. His loss, that of Captain Plummer, has been paid by an @.tt of Congress, and this bill is to reimburse Lieutenant Wood on the same account.

It has been customary under such circumstances to reimburse of­ficers for losses that have been plainly proved, as in the case of ship­wreck.

Mr. HOLl\IAN. How much was paid to the other officer men-tioned?

Mr. REED. About a thousand dollars. Mr. HOLMAN. This was personal effects? Mr. REED. This was for personal effects, and the report of the

Committee on War Claims is made in favor of it. There being no"objection, the bill was considered and ordered to be

engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. .

Mr. REED moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. · TEBY OF COURT, QUINCY, ILL.

1\Ir. ANDERSON, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con­sent to discharge the House Calendar from the consideration of the bill (H. R. 11638) and put it upon its passage. This is a bill to amend the act entitled 'An act to provide for a term of court at Quincy, ill.," ap­proved August 8, 1888.

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read, subject to objection. The bill was read, as follows: Be iC ena.cted, et<:., That the act entitled ".An act to provid.e for a tel'm of oonrt

at Qwnoy, Ill.," approved August 8,1888, be, and the same is hereby, amended by striking out, in lines 4 and 5 in section 3, the following words" for the dis­posal of the unfinished business ther-eof."

There being no objection, the bill was considered and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

:Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa.ssed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. FISHER, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that \l;ley had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same, namely:

A bill (S. 1931) to increase the appropriation for the purchase of a ~ite for a building for the post-office, court-house, and other offices in San Fmncisco, Cal. ; and

.A. bill (S. 182) to provide ior the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building thereon a.t Omaha, Nebr.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

1\fr. SPRINGER. I demand the regular order. The SPEAKER. The regular order is the further consideration of

the bill for the admission of Dakota. Mr. CIUSP. In pursuance of the notice given last week, I desire to

call up to-day the contested-election caso of. Smalls vs. Elliott. I will state, 1\Ir. Speaker, that I would not do so If there was any assurance or. I ~ad any idea that the pending proposition would be disposed of Withm a reasonable period, say within an hour or two. But I have no silch idea and no such assnrance· therefore I ask the House to permit ine to call up the contested-electidn case now.

.Mr. SPRINGER. I have conferred with several gentlemen on the Qther side "!ho wish "t:o spea~ on this question, and they have agreed that they will be satisfied With an extension of the time for general debate amounting in all to one hour and ten minutes, and I desire to eubmit a motion that all general debate be closed in an hour and ten minutes and then we can proceed under the :five-minute rule. We Wish to dispose of this proposition as soon as possible under the rules of 1

t,}le House, a nil I ask every gentleman present to assist us in bringing it to a speedy conclusion, so that other matters may go on. I hope the

gentleman from Georgia will not insist upon calling up the election case to-day.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia calls up a privileged matter, the contested-election case from the State of South Carolina.

:Mr. SPRINGER. Then I must raise the _ question of consideration against it.

.Mr. BAKER, of New York. I hope the gentlemanfromlllinoiswill couple with his motion a request for unanimous consent that all gen· tlemen who desire to do so may have leave to print upon this ques­tion.

l\1r. SPRINGER. I ask unanimousconsentthattha£leave begiven. · The SPEAKER. Unanimous consent can not be asked now until the other matter is disposed of, unless the gentleman from Georgia waives it for the present. .

1\Ir. CRISP~ I call up the contested-election case. 1\fr. SPRINGER. And against that I raise the question of considera­

tion. The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House proceed to consider

the election case? The question was taken; and on a division there were-ayes 48,

noes 74. So the House refused to consider the election case.

ADMISSION OF DAKOTA.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I move now that all general debate upon the pending bill be closed in one hour and ten minutes. Pend­ing that I n.sk unanimous consent that all gentlemen who wish to do so may have leave to print remarks in the RECORD on this question.

There was no objection. Mr. DINGLEY. How is the time that the gentleman from Illinois

proposes to allow for general debate to be divided? Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman from Colorado will occupy one

hour and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. W ABNER] ten minutes of the time.

Mr. GROSVENOR. The time so far having been occupied mainly by the Delegates from the Territories and the members of the Com­mittee on the Territories, it seems hardly fair to now limit the time to an hour and ten minutes and give one hour of that to a member of the Committee on the Territories.

1\f.r. SPRINGER. But that is to be divided amongst a number of gentlemen. I will see that the gentleman from Ohio shall have a part of the time.

M.r. GROSVENOR. I stated very respectfully yesterday that I would like to have ten minutes in which to express my views upon this question, and I do not propose to consent to any disposition of the time which will not permit me to do so.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentlemen present any amendment? Mr. GROSVENOR. I ask to do that. Mr. SPRINGER. When the bill is· under discussion under the five­

minute rule the gentleman will be enabled to express his views upon the measure.

Mr. GROSVENOR. I do not want to speak on the bill under the :five-minute rule. ·

Mr. SPRINGER. I will make it one hour and twenty minutes and give the gentleman ten minutes' time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois then moves that gen­eral debate be limited to one hour and twenty minutes. Is there ob­jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

1\fr. SYMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield fifteen minutes of my time to the gentleman from 1\Iinnesota [:1\fr. MACDONALD].

1\lr. MACDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I will re­quire all that time, because I do not wish to speak on the general principles of admission to any great extent. That has been covered by the general debate which has preceded me. I am prompted in speaking at all upon this subject by the same motives that prompted me to introduce the amendment which I have submitted to the sub­stitute proposed by the chairman of the committee [Mr. SPRINGER], and that is to secure action upon the proposition to admit all the Territories named in his substitute as proposed States, and to secure such action as will be satisfactory to the people thereof, and which will at the same time be satisfactory, I believe, to the ~ority of this House.

Now, I know personally that the Territory of Dakota is ready for admission as two States, and that what we understand to be South Dakota and North Dakota are each of them separately anxious to be admitted as free and independent States, and are each in fa-vor of di­vision almost (if not actually) unanimously. I believe that all the proposed States mentioned in the substitute o~ the gentleman from illinois are entitled to admission, and supposed 1t would be conceded, until I heard the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. STRUBLE] yesterday, that New Mexico, as well. as the others named, would be admitted by this act without objection; and I must say that I have heard nothing said by the..i,:entleman from Iowa that I regard as a valid objection to the admiSSion of the Territory of New Mexico as a State. It has the requisite population, having 175,ooo·at least, and compares favorably in that respect with the Territory of Montana and other Ter·

900 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17,

ritories which that gentleman does not object to have admitted, and in its productions it is considerably in advance of these and much superior in the possession of the elements necessary to make a great State to some States of this Union. But, sir, as I said before, I am desirous to have action taken by this Congress, and especially of seeing Dakota ad­mitted soon as two States. A great injustice has been done the people

. of Dakota by their admission being delayed so long. It would do no good to discuss the cau~es of this delay. I hold that it has been be­cause other measures were given preference, to its exclusion, and not because of political bias, as has been claimed. But let that pass. Let us act, and by respecting each other aim to secure the passage of a bill

"as the majority desire. Recognizing the fact that there are a larger number of gentlemen on

this :floor who are in favor of admitting South Dakota under the con­stitution presented here, and being one of those in favor of admitting South Dakota under that constitution, I have prepared an amendment to the substitute of the gentleman from Illinois which ought to be ac­ceptable to him, because it relates only to the proposed States of North and South Dakota and does not interfere with the omnibus character of his substitute or- the provisions thereof relating to Montana, Wash­ington, or New Mexico.

Now, South Dakota is ready to be admitted. The constitution that was submitted to us for consideration here has be~n subjected to as severe a criticism by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] as he evidently was capable of. . After listening to those criticisms and all that has been said of the proposed constitution of the new State of South Dakota by the gentle­man from illinois and others, I am fully satisfied that if the Territory of South Dakota should hold another constitutional convention the chances are more than even that they can not improve on the document they have already submitted to us; and, with all due respect to the gentleman from Illinois, I must say that his criticism of that document, taken as a whole, is a high compliment to it, as I believe he himself, on reflection, will admit, he being unable to point out more serious ob­jections.

Now, what are the alleged defects? The first criticism that he made was shown in the debate to be a mere typographical error. The next was on the provision limiting the sessions of the Legislature to sixty days.

In respect to that I need only say that that provision has existed in the constitution of our State for over fifteen years. And it was not adopted hastily, but was adopted as a separate and distinct proposition after we had becpme a State, and was submitted by the Leg-islature of the State, and the same clause is in the constitution of many other States. As I understand the clause giving women the right to vote, it simply confers upon them a right similar that which women have in our State, to vote for school officers and at school meetings. His criticism in ref­erence to the provision giving the Legislature the power to repeal certain charters is shown by the wording thereof to be a mistake. It is clearly intended to include municipal corporations. It is a manifest misprint by omitting the word "municipal," and we have the right and it is our duty to presume that in .the original constitution it, is correct. But no court would say that it was not intended to mean municipal corporations. Upon its face it wasclearly the intention of the framers of this constitution that this legislative power was confined to mu­.nicipal corporations, for in the copy before us the word "cities" is .used, and thus places this beyond doubt. I do not hesitate to say that this constit-ution is creditable to its framers, and will compare favor­ably with that of any other State in this Union.

Entertaining these views and believing that that constitution is as good a consitution as South Dakota could adopt if the question was resubmitted, and knowing it to be, if anything, more carefully drawn than the constitution of the State that I in part represent here, I feel that it would be a great wrong to require the people of South Dakota, up:m a mere sen-timental consideration, to go to the trouble and en- , gage in the turmoil of holding another State convention. I know that there are gentlemen upon this side of the House, if not upon the other, who in the face of the election held in Dakota upon the question of division, in which North Dakota decided against division by a majority of 10,000 votes, believe that the question ought to be resubmitted. Now, I am satisfied that the sentiment of the people of North Dakota is entirely different at the present time; but to meet the . objection based upon that ground I have incorporated in my amendment (which is in part the Senate bill with some slight changes) a provision sub­mitting the question of division to the people of North and South· Dakota, and making the admission of both or either contingent upon that vote. Before incorporating that provision in my amendment I submitted it (as also the other one which I sha,ll presently mention) to gentlemen here representing both North and South Dakota, gentle­men belonging to both political parties-! refer to Chief-Justice Tripp, Judge Spencer, Judge Moody, and 1\Ir. Stevens, a gentleman who has been sent here as a delegate to represent North Dakota by the recent convention of North Dakota held at Jamestown-and they all agreed that this provision should be inserted, being entirely satisfied that both sections are now in favor of division, and are therefore perfectly

willin_g that the Question shall be submitted at the eame time as the other questions are submitted, as provided in the bill.

:.M:r. WARNER. Your amendment would admit South Dakota with­out further Congressional action.

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, sir, without further Congressional action. In addition to this, there i"' also a further provision (which is also satisfactory to the gentlemen I have named and to other gentlemen who represent the Territory here) requiring a new election for Rep­resentatives in Congress, and State officers. These are the changes which I propose to make in what relates to Dakota from the . Se:c ate bill. So far as the amendment that I propose is concerned, it, differs from the amendment or substitute proposed by the gentleman from Illin.ois [Mr.,.SPRINGER] only in the fact that under my amendment South Dakota can come in under the Sioux Falls constitution. I believe that it is unnecessary to resubmit the question, and that they could not improve the constitution if another convention were held. Following what I have referred to are provisions which are in effect an e:c.abling act for North Dakota after its o:cganization as a Territory. So far as my amendment relates to Uontana, Idaho, and New Mexico, it is the same as the gentleman's substitute. That is all I have to say on that point.

Being a Western Repre3entativc, I have two or three serious objec­tions to raise to certain provisions c~mtained in the substitute of the gentleman from Illinois. Section 12 of that substitute contains a pro­vision which certainly ought not to be included in this act. If gentle­men will refer to that section of the substitute they will find that it provides for the disposal of the school lands to purchasers at a price not less than $10 an acre; but, in a provision, beginning in line 9 of that sec­tion, the substitute provides that in all cases where settlers shall have located upon such school lands prior to the 1st day of January, 1890, with the intention, in good faith, of purchasing the lands, they can procure them at $6 per acre. Now, I do not believe there is a W!'lst­ern gentleman here or others who have had such ~xperience as we haYe had-indeed it does not require that a man should have had any ex­perience in the West for him to know, in view of the weaknesses of human nature, that, before January, 1890, with that clause in this act, there would not be a valuable school section in either North or South Dakota that would not be "settled upon" and taken at $6 an acre, by parti«;~s who would go and locate upon them between now and that date.

My friend from illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] also criticises the provisiou in the Senate bill for a division of the property and of the indebtedness of the Territory. I insist that the provisions of my·amendments, or oftbe Senate bill (which is the same thing upon this point), clearly pre­scribing how the divi,sion shall be made, are infinitely superior to his proposed plan ofleaving the question to three gentlemen to be 'appointed, who would be liable to disagree, and to leave the whole matter in an unsettled and chaotic condition. Therefore I am in favor of the pro­visions· of my amendment (or bill) as to this also.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has ex­pired.

Ur. MACDONALD. One word more and I have done. I will say to the gentleman from Illinois further that his bill donates to the Ter­ritories of Dakota a much larger amount of the · public lands than is given to these Territories by my bill, and I do not believe that he in­tends that. He proposes to give more than the friends of Dakota ask.

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman is led into error from the fact that the bill changes the existing laws which carry with them these ~ona­tions without any acts of legislation, namely, 500,000 acres for mter­nal improvements and swamp and overflowed lands. Thoseh&r-ebeen repealed as tO this_ act; and in lieu of them such donations are given as are expressed in the bill, and which represent the unanimous judg. ment of the Committee on Territories.

[Here the hammer fell.T· · Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the time of the gen­

tleman from Minnesota [Mr. l\IACDON ALD] be. extended ten minut~s~ as I understand the time of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. SYMES] has been parceled out.

Mr. SPRINGER. I believe the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 1\I.A.CDON.A.LD] asks only five minutes; and to that I make no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (:.M:r. DOCKERY). Is there objection to extending the time of the gentleman from Minnesota :five min~tes, not to come out of the time allotted to general debate? The Obarr hears no objection.

1\Ir. M.A.CDON.A.LD. My amendment, which is in this respect sub­stantially the same as the bill introduced in the Senate by Senator PLATT, provides for 30 sections for capitol buildings, aggregating 19,-200 acres; for universities, 72 sections, aggregating 46,080 acres; for agri­cultural college, 90 sections, aggregating 57,600 acres; for penitentiary, exclusive ~f .the 20 sections, 12,800 acres; making an aggr~gate of 135,-680 in add1tion to the 500,000 acres ·mentioned by the gentleman from illinois. The amount oflands provided in the act ofMarch ~' 18~1, I have not had time to ascertain; but for capitol buildings, pemtentiary, agricultnral college, universities, schools, reform schools, .an~ de~f and dumb asylum the substitute of the gentleman from llim01s g1ves to these Territories an aggregate of·373,680 acres.

1889. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 901 M:r. Speaker, I do not wish to say anything more upon this subject,

except to appeal to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] to yield tbe point I have suggested, and not insist that this constitution shall be submitted to the people of South Dakota. I believe that South Dakota ought to be admitted, and should have been before this; but it is an open Recret that gentlemen on this side of the House-and I con­cur in their view-believe that these several Territories ought to be admitted in the form of au "omnibus bill." They fear that if this is not done aU of them will not be dealt fairly with. I have theref<lre retained that feature intact; and I simply differ with the gentleman from Illinois in this, that I propose that South Dakota shall not be subjected to the annoyance and expense of another constitutional con­vention-this, and nothing more. In every other respect my propo­sition corresponds with his. Certainly he ought to agree to this sug­gestion; and I trust that gentlemen on the other side will agree to this and cease to press the Senate bill. In making this appeal I am simply striving to bring about results that I know the people of North and South Dakota are anxiously hoping for.

I hope gentlemen on this side will take this· view also of this ques­tion. It seems to me it must be recognized that it would be an act of injustice to require the people of South Dakota to do over again what they have already done and done so well.

Mr. SPRINGER. I will ask to have p~inted in the RECORD, in an­swer to the remarks just made by the gentleman from Minnesota[Mr. MACDONALD], the proceedings of a meeting, composed of both political partiP.s, held in Minnehaha County a few days ago.

The SPEAKER pro itrnpore. · Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] to print in the ;RECORD what he has indicated? The Chair hears no objection.

The publication referred to by Mr. SPRINGER is as follows: [From the Sioux Falls Press, January 13, 1889.]

THE COUNTY CONVENTION-THE DELEGATES TO HURON-RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED.

In pursuance of the joint call of the chairman of the Republican and Demo­cratic county ·central committee, a mass convention met at Germania Hall at 2 o 'clock yesterday to choose delegates to the Huron convention, which hns been called for Wednesday, January 16. A. B. Kittredge was elected chairman and C. 0. Bailey, secretary. The following delegates were chosen: J. l\f. Bailey, jr., D. R. Bailey, C. E. l\IcKinney, Cyrus Wallts, l\Iark Bridge, W. E. Wiley, B. F. Campbell, J. W. Boyce, W. H. Lyon, C. S. Palmer, W. R. Burkholder, E. J. EIJiot,~ E. G. ·wright, .M:. Kaufman, J. T. McCe.rrier, J. B. Cloudas, J. J. Murry, D. B. uilden, V. Wuest. · After e. spirited debate the following resolutions were adopted: · •· Whereas the people of South Dakota are urgent and unanimous in their desire for admission mto the Union at the earliest moment that admission can properly be secured; and . .

" Whereas it ·is uncertain whether anything looking toward admission will be done by the present Congress, and equally uncertnin whether there will be an extra. SQSBion of the .Fifty-first Congress; and

"Whereas serious defects exist in the Sioux Falls constitution, notably that limiting tlle State indebtedness to $.'500,000, when th'e bonded debt made on be­

·half of the publfc institutions located in outh Dakota already exceeds $667,000, ·while from present prospects the State of South Dakota is liable to begin busi-ness without a dollar in the treasury; and

" Whereas certain changes required by the Platt bill, which is now before the lower House of Congress, provide for the resubmission of parts of the consti-tution to popular ~ote; and . . . "Whereas the tenure of office of the various officials elected under the Sioux Falls constitution is indefinite and uncertain; and . "Whereas certain counties in South Dakota did not send delegates to the Sioux _Falls .constitutional convention, some delegates have died, and some have left the Territory; and · .

"Whereas the population of South· Dakota since the choice of these delegates in June, 1885, has increased from -263,000 to over 375.000, nearly one-third of the present electors having had no voice in what was then done ; and

"Whereas admission into the Union can be secured under an entirely new con­stitution practically as soon as under one which must agai1,1 be submitted to popular Yote,e.nd which confessedly will even then need amending in other im­portant respects: Therefore,

. " Be it re-solved by the eleclors of Minnehaha Count.v in mass convent·ion assembled, That the interests of all classes will be best subserved by admission into the Union under e. constitution which does not contain the objectionable features found in the Sioux Falls COJ}stitution, and which will give every legal voter now in South Dakota an equal voice in determining certain disputed provisions of the consti­tution, the choice of. temporary State capital, and the selection of State officers, members of the Legislat.ure, and Congressmen. ·

"Resolved, That we, electors of Minnehaha County, firm in the belief that the quickest, best, and most satisfactory way of getting into the Union will be under e. new constitutiOn, favor the calling of a new constitutional convention for the making of a. new fundamental Jaw for the State of South Dakota.

''Resolved, That the delegates chosen by this convention to represent 1\linne­haha. County in the statehood convention at Huron, on Wednesday, January 16, be instructed to urge that convention to ask the Legislative Assembly of Da­kota, which is now in session at Bismarck, to pass a law providing for a new con­stitutional convention for South Dakota, whose delegates shall be apportioned upon the total vote polled at the late election for delegate."

On the call for a division of the house it developed that of the one hundred and · f~~r~=~~~U~~~ore or less, who were present., all but twelve or fifteen favored

Mr. SYMES. I yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ADAMs].

1\Ir. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many members of this House there are who ha.ve ~o profound a contempt for the intelligence of the people of the Terntones as to suppose that thev can be imposed upon by this transparent subterfuge ~~own as the ,, omnibus" substi­tute for the Senate South Dakota mil. ·The gentleman from New

' York [Mr. · Cox] delivered the other day a eulogy on the intelligence and progressive spirit of the peopl~ of the West. It was deserved by them, and it was creditable to h1m. But how can he imagine that they will fail to see what he evidently does not fail to see, that under

this proposed omnibus bill the people of Washington and Montana and every other Territory do not obtain a single substantial advantage which they can not obtain without the passage of the bill, while the passage of this bill and the consequent defec'\t of the Senate bill will have the practical effect of continuing for one year longer the outrage on the people of South Dakota which they have already suffered for about a year at the hands of this House ?

Now, I do not choo3e to argue the question of the propriety of ad­mitting the Territories as new States as soon as they are fit. We are all agreed as to that. And on the point of the division of the Terri­tory of Dakota {in which I believe the gentleman from New York agrees with me) it is not fit that I should detain this House long. But as in this substitute bill t.here is a provision that that question shall be voted on again, and as in the otherwise muchless objectionable om­nibus bill of the gentleman from Minnesota [M:r. :MACDONALD] there is a similar provision, I want to say simply this: The question whether Dakota shall be admitted as two States or as one is not a question for the people of Dakota alone. It is a question which interests us as the representatives of the entire American people; and if a large majority of the people of that Territory, north and south, should vote in favor of the admission of the Territory as one State, it would still be our duty to insist on its divis!on into two States.

We ought to see to itin admittingStates hereafter that no new State sball be exceptionally large or exceptionally small in population. As Dakota is a level and fertile Territory its vast area will maintain in the years to come a Yast population. It is in the interest of the United States that the vast population which is destined to fill that area shall be represented bv four Senators at the other end of the Capitol instead of by two.

The unequal representation of the people of the United States which prevails in the other House of Congress is an evil. It has no j usti fica­tion whatever, except a historical justification. It is a part of the original compact, and that is all. We may not be able to do away with that evil so far as existing States are concerned, but it is our duty to see to it as far as we can that all States which shall hereafter come into the Union shall be, when fully developed, average States· in popula-tion imd area. .

The average area of the thirty-eight Statesoft~e 'Union is about 55,-0(JO square miles, I think, or in that neighborhood.

Mr. COX. Much less than that. .Mr. ADAMS. Very well. IfDakotais admitted and divided equally

the area of each of those two States will be over 70,000 square miles. Ur. BAKER, of New York. Seventy-five thousand. M'r. ADAMS. Not quite, I think; but call it 75,000. More than

half as large again as New York or Pennsylvania or Ohio; nearly half as large again as Illinois, which has but 56,000. These two new States will be large enough; and they will be populous enough, if the fertility of the soil and the enterprise and intelligence of their present popula­tion give any indication of their future growth. I think there is little doubt, either in Congress or out of Congress, that the people of Da­kot:t, North ·and South, would vote by a large majority to divide the Territory and admit it as two States.

But I say again that the question of the proper size and boundaries of new States is one in which the people of the other S.tate_s have the right to exercise their judgment, as well as the people of the pruposed new States, and that it would be our duty to divide Dakota even if the people now residing in the Territory preferred to be admitted to the Union ns one State. What, then, is our present duty toward South Da­kota, with a South Dakota bill pending before us which has already passed the Senate? Our duty is to admit her at once.

The Senate bill will need amendment. It is necessary because of the inexcusable delay of the House in acting on the bill, which passed the Senate in April, 1888, nearly a year ago. Now, we ought to amend the bill by providing for an election of State officers and of members of Congress at the earliest practicable day. I have prepared an amend­ment fixing the date of the election on April 9, 1889. The resubmis­sion of the question of the name and boundaries of the State can take place at the same time. I take this date from the proposed substitute bill of the gentleman from :Minnesot..'l> (1t'fr. 1\IACDONALD], and I wish to s:ty of that bill that if any omnibus bill ought to pass that is the bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out, first, the practical effect of passing the Senate bill with the amendment I propose and the amend­ments sent up yesterday by the gentleman from Dakota; secondly, the practical effect of pnssing the Senate bill without these amendments; and thirdly, the efrect of adopting the omnibus bill of my colleague [Mr. SPRINGER] and passing it as a substitute for the Senate bill. In the first case the members of Congress from Dakota will be elected early in next April. They will recehe their certiiicates of election within a few weeks thereafter. They mm take their seats early in the first session of the Fifty-first Congress, even if it should be a special session ca1led by the next President of the United States.

In the second case named, South Dakota would become a State at some rather indefinite time next summer or autumn, and the Senators and Representatives of that St lte would t!l.ke their seats at the regular December session of the next Congress. In the third case named, that is, in case the substitute of my colleague becomes law, South Dakota

902 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-_HOUSE. JANUARY 17,

would not become a State until- the Fifty-first Congress could pass an form into the Union. This bill has a tendency to delay that, and ought act for that purpose. A bill would have to be introduced. It would be not to have been presented, and would not have been presented if the referred to a committee. It would be reported and go on the Calendar. object and design had been to relieve certain communities from the. op­It would ha. veto take its chances with election cases, and perhaps with a pression under which they have suffered for reasons that are purely po­tari:ffbill. 1t might not become a law till late in the first session or litical. Six. hundred thousand people have been practically disfran­even till the second session of the next Congress. That is the practical chised from the last Presidential election by this maneuver in Dakota effect of passing the substitute bilL alone, and it is proposed still by the Mme men to throw other obsta-

Mr. BAKER, of New York._ Does the gentleman refer to the snbsti- cles in the way. . tute bill of the gentleman from illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], <>r the substi- Everybody knows likewise, lfr. Speaker, that the admission of each tute bill of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MACDONALD]? Territory is a question that ought to be taken up and considered onits

Mr. ADAMS. I do not refer to the bill of the gentleman from Min- individual merits, and there is no reason for tying up the undisputed nesota, as it is not open to the objection I have named. Let me say of cases with those that are disputed. It may be possible that the Ter­that bill, Mr. Speaker, I mean the bill of the gentleman from Min- ritory of New Mexico has very nearly reached a position and condition nesota, that although it is a long bill as it appears in the RECORD, it is under which it ought to be .admitted into the Union, but no one who easily understood by those who have examined the other bills pending has listened to this debate can say that it is an undisputed question. before us. It is the Senate bill, so far as it relates to South Dakota, We all know that it is not. This dispute about the condition of New while it is substantially the Springer omnibus bill as far as it re- Mexico is by no means necessarily a reproach upon its inhabitants. lates to all the other Te:x:ritories. There may be some variatio~ but ThisUnionought.to be homogeneous within certain limits. It ought to that is the substance of it. 1t contains enabling acts for an the Terri- be alike .from one end of it to the other; and each new State, when ad­tories named in the bill of my colleague, excepting of course South mitted.into the Union, ought to be composed of a population which Dakota. . can from its nature act in harmony with the rest of the States of the

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to passing enabling acts for Union. That is the ground obviouSly upon which everybody puts the these Territories, except for New Mexico. With that one exception, I non-admission, and even thenon-presentatiou for admission, of the Ter-believe the next Congress will be ready to admit them a.ll. .As to New ritory of Utah. . Mexico, I have ~me doubt, and 1 believe that in the country at large There is no doubt that the improvements which have been going on and in the next Congress there will be some question-raised whether in the condition ofNew :Mexico, if continued, will in time remove any the time for the admission of New Mexico has arrived. In .a case of doubts which exist to-day, and will give her a population the average don bt like this I think a Congress ought not, in its last session, to pass of which will be in accord with the sentiments and feelings of the peo­an enabling act which will have to be ratified by a succeeding Con- ple of the United States. And I ·say it is a wrong, here attempted to gress. be committed upon these Territories about which there is no doubt,

It is in the legislative discretion of the Fifty-fust Congress to deter- to thrust upon CongresS needlessly a question about which there is mine whether to admit New Mexico or not. If we now pass .an en- doubt-grave doubt-and about which there is dispute. It can arise abling act for New Mexico, and the people of that Territory act on it, frOm nothing except a disposition to get into this Union a State the and frame a constitution and submit it to the next Congress, it will situation of which is doubtful, at the expense of those Territories with still be the duty of that Congress, if it deemed it unwise. to admit regard to which every one is agreed. New Mexico, so to declare, and to refuse admission, notwithstanding Now, Mr. Speaker, why should this be done? Why should we sub­the enabling act and all that has been doue under it. If on the other mit to it? What reason is underlying it? It has the -appearance­hand we refuse to pass the ena"t>ling.act and the people of New Mexico although I do not charge it, for the chairman of the Committee on the go on notwithstanding and frame a constitution and submit it to the Territo1ies would hardly be guilty of it-it has the appearance of a next Congress and that Congress deems it wise to admit New Mexico political maneuver. [Laughter.] It has the appearance of an attempt as a State at that time, it will be their bonnden duty to do .so. to put somebody in the wron,g, by saying to us on this side of the House,

With regard to New Mexico we all know that there is a difference "Vote for the admission of that Territory here ·and now, or else you of opinion on this floor and ..among the people at large, and perhaps have got to vote against the admission of all of them, and that puts you even among the people of the Territory, as to whether it should be in an unfortunate position, a position which you have got to explain, admitted or not. I do not intend to discuss the merits of that ques- and a position which you have got to ex~se.'' But I think it will be tion. I do not say, indeed I can not say, how I shall vote on that discovered that the people of the United States are too wise -and too question in the next Congress if I live to take my seat there. I do sensible to be deceived by .such an obvious poSition of affairs . .. When say that my duty in voting on that question in the next Congress will this bill goes over to the Senate, if this attempt to foist this omnibus depend on my conviction as to the wisdom of the measure when it is bill upon the pending bill is pemi.sted in-if this goes to the Senate,.-it presented for my vote. seems to me that it should go with the moral force of oppasition to some

It will not depend on what this Congress shall have done. Therefore, parts of it, so that finally, when we get the results of the conference I think that in a case of doubt such as the case of New Mexico IS it committee, we may be able to admit that Territory which the Senate would be unfair to the people.atlarge, and unfair to the next Congress, have abeady voted to admit, and which ought to be admitted instantly, and unfair to the people of the Territory of New Mexico to _pass an and which will enable us to do justice to the other Territories -about enabling act in the last session of thiS Congress, when we h.ave no strong which there is no question of dispuk. assurance, 33 we have in the case of the other Territories named in the 1rfr. WARNER. It is not my purpose to make an .extended .argu­bill, that what we do and what is done un~et.ouractwill be ratified by ment upon this question. I said in substance aU that !desired to say the Fifty-first Congress. on this question at the first session of this Congress. Yet it may be

Mr. GROSVENOR was recognized. well, sir, to recur to the history of these Territorial bills. It is well :M:r. STilES. Mr. Speaker, the ten minutes to which the gentleman known that South Dakota in the fall of 1885 called a constitutional

from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR] is entitled are not to be taken out of the · convention, -adopted a constitution that no member upon this floor con­time allotted to me in this discussion. tends is not republican in form. The honorable chairman of the Com­

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.. DocKERY). The Chair so under- mittee on Territories may differ with the good people of Dakota DB to stands. some of the provisions ofthat constitution; but that is simply a differ-

.Mr. GROSV.ENOR withholds his remarks for revision. [See Ap- ence of opinion between a citizen of the State of lllinois and the citi-pend1x.] zens of the Territory of Dakota, and upon a question of that kind the

~fr. SYMES withholds his .remarks for .revision. [See Appendix.] citizens of Dakota should be peTmitted to control. }fr. REED. 1.1r. Speaker, of course I do not propose to discuss the Now, sir, iii February, I think, 1886, three years ago, the Senate

proprieties one by one of the adm.ission of the large number of Terri- passed a bill to admit South Dakota upon the constitution thus adopted, tories which .are embraced in what is generally called the "omnibus and carving out the Territory of North Dakota. That came over to

. bilL" I desire at the threshold of my .remarks to protest aga.iru.t this this House. With this bill this House did nothing. At an ~rl7 day perpetuation of a system of grouping the Territories together, a system of this Congress the Senate passes again a bill for the a.dmlSston of which prevailed and had its Bole excuse under the divided system of South Dakota, and carving out the Territory of North Dakota. The freedom and slavery in which this country used to live. There is no Senate furthermore passes a bill to enable Washington Territory to sense and no occasion for employing that system to-day. There can be come into the sisterhood of States by an enabling act. no relation between the situations of the different Territories which It is a well-known fact from the proceedings upon this floor, with· will justify the party in power in attempting to force a multitude of out disclosing the secrets of the committee, that tbere was no ll.iffer­States .in or out without giving to each proposed State an opportunity ence of opinion between the Democratic members of the committee to be .heard upon its individual merits. and the Republican members that Dakota should be admitted into the

The Teni:U>ry of South Dakota, everybody knows, ought to be ad- Union. mit tea at once, promptly, without any delay. Everybody knows tha·t The only question ofdis_pute as to Dakota was whether South Dakota the effect of this omnibus amendment which is proposed by the chair- should come in as a State under the constitution adopted in 1885, and man of the Committee on the Territories will be inevitably to delay the that North Dakota be given an enabling act to enable it nt som~ future admissionofthatTenitory. Everybody knows, further, that the region time to come in as a State, or whether Dakota. should be admitted as called ''North Dakota'' ought to be put in train for .admission in due , one State-a proposition which it would se&m that people who were

1889. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 903 ~xious or were willing to have action upon that question would have brought squarely before Congress- and submitted it without any en­tangling alliances to the judgment of their fellow-members, whether this Territory, an empire, should be admitted as one State or whether it should be carved into two States. There was never any question of dispute as to Washington Territory between the members of the committee. There was no dispute as to Montana. We .all agreed that these Territories should be admitted as States. Why ia it, I ask the chairman of the committee; why, I ask my friends upon the other side, is it that we have had no legislation for these Territo­ries? Is it not a fair proposition I submit? Is it not treating the ~embers of this House fairly, saying nothing about the rights of the Territories, that members should have an opportunity to vote upon Dakota without having it linked with any other Territory? That we should b.ave a right to vote upon Washington, Montana, Utah, or any other Territory as a separate and distinct proposition none will qne&:­tion. Why link the fortunes of one Territory to those of any other? Is this fair; is it honest? The claims of no Territory should be ad­vanced or retarded by being placed in an omnibuS bill with any other Territory.

Why should the destinies of the people of Washington Territory be arbitrarily linked and tied with those of New Mexico? Why should we be asked to do this with the great empire of Dakota, that to-day has all that goes to make a people great and prosperous, with a population equal to any in intelligence? It is fully abreast of any State in the Union in its industries, its agriculture, its educational institutions, from the-eommon school to the university. Why has this been done? I will leave that for the chairman of the committee to answer.

Members of this Honse have contended-and I class myself among that number-that the people of New Mexico, at the last session of Congress, when tliis matter was brought forward, were not-at least it was not shown to the committee-fitted for the duties, rights, and privileges of statehood.

Now, if you ask me for one of these reasons I say, in addition to what was said by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. STRUBLE], that on the 3d day of ~larch last tQ.e learned gentleman who soably represents the Territory of New Mexico made a report; reciting what? The gentle­man, among other things, said in that report that, ''from 1860 to 1880, '' a period of twenty years marked with unparalleled growth in this conn­try; twenty years in which the great West had almost become the con­trolling factor~ the United States, an era of unprecedented prosperity; yet amid all this prosperity, amid all this growth, according to the gen­tleman's report-and he cites the census of the United States to support him-

There were fewer acres of land tilled in the Territory of New l\Iexico in 1880 than in 1860, the number of farms in 1880 being actually less than in 1860.

I believe, sir, that upon the educational growth and development of a community largely depends the future welfare and greatness of a people.

In the language of General Grant, I believe that-In a Republic like ours, where the citizen is sovereign and the official the serv­

~t; where no powerise.xeroisedexceptbythewillofthepeople, it is important that the sovereign-the people-should possess intelligence, and that the free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us a. free na­tion.

Sir, take two of the Territories that are linked together in the sub­stitute, New Mexico and Dakota if you please. The learned gentle­man, the Delegate from New Mexico [Mr. JosEPH], at the first session of this Congress cited, as something of which his people should be proud, that in tlle years 1886 and 1887 they had expended for the pay­ment of teachers in their public schools in that Territory-the schools where the future citizens of the State, the legislators, the men who are to control and govern the destinies of that State hereafter, are to be

- educated-that they hadexpended for the maintenance of those schools the munificent sum of$33,000; while, sir, in the same period thegreat empire in the Northwest, upon which thesundoesnotshinesofavorably as it shines upon New ~Mexico, had expended, instead of the pal try sum of$33,000, the munificent sumof$2,600,000, without a cent of it com­ing from the public lands-the benefits of these you have deprived the Territory of-all paid from a tax levied upon the people; yet you persist in keeping from them the school lands to which they were entitled.

Mr. ~JOSEPH. Will the gentleman allow me to correct him on that point?

Mr. WARNER. Certainly. MT. JOSEPH. I stated in my speech in May last that the sum of

$53,000 .was being expended during the then current year, and that up to the t1me when I was speaking $33 000 had been expended. ~

1\Ir. W AR~ER. I have. the ex:tra.'ct from the gentleman's remarks here, but I will not take time to read it. The gentleman Bpoke also yesterday of the number .of school-houses in hia Territory. Why, sir, the valleys and hilltops m every neighborhood of Dakota are dotted with school-houses1 while the report on New Mexico, which the gentle­man cited, shows there 'Yere forty-one P.ublicschoo~, being one pnb_lic school to each 3,000 miles of her terntory! It IS true New Menco levied a tax of 3 mills upon the dol~ar of assessed value of the property of New ~1exico, which amounted m round numbers, if collecte~ to $178,000 for school purposes.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. WARNER. I wish a few minutes more. Mr. DOCKERY. I hope the gentleman will be allowed to proceed. There was no objection. Mr. WARNER. Bot, Mr. Speaker, either through the inefficiency

of the law, the inattention of the people, or the corruption of the offi­cials, I care not which, only $45,000, in round numbers, of that tax ever found its way into the school fund. Sir, I believe that New 1\:Iexico in the last few years has been advancing. I believe that she is touching elbows with her sister Territories. I believe that the con­struction of railroads bas infused new life, new energy, a new and a higher civilization into the old citizens. There is a breaking away from the past. I know there are men there of equal int1lligence with those found in any other part of the Union-men of energy, men of enterprise. I have nothing to say against the morals of her people. I take it that they are as high as those of any community, and God knows that upon her religion I have never either publicly or privately ~ommented. Nor do I concur in any statements that reflect either upon tli.e religion or morals of her people. It is true that in years past she has been a laggard among the Territories. Let her show that she is in the highway of enterprise wit.h her sister Territories. I say to my friend from New Mexioo that while as a proposition to-day I doubt-! hon­estly doubt-the propriety of admitting New Mexico as a State, yet if I am driven to vote for New Mexico in order to get in the Dakotas, Montana, and Washington, I would rather err on the side of favoritism to the people of New Mexico than to longer continue this burning out­rage upon the people of the other Territories. [Applause. J One word more. The people of the Territories, as was said by the eloquent rep­resentative from Washington yesterday [Mr. VOORHEES], understand this question fllil well. We must do something more than weave choice garlands of rhetoric, let me say to my friend from New York [Mr. Cox];­we must show our faith by our deeds, by doing something. The gen­tleman fi·om -Washington gave you yesterday the pathetic story of his

_struggles and his defeat. A man equal in intelligence and energy with any upon this :floor, elected to this Congress by nearly 2,000 majority, laboring here, in season and out of season, in the inte,rest of his people, yet defeated in the last election by your wrongs to the Ter­ritories. He can justly charge his defeat at the doors of his own party. He can charge it to your inattention, to your lack of sympathy with the interests and the aspirations of his people. He was slain in the house of his friends. So in Montana, the Delegate from that Territory came up with nearly.4,000 majority; his successor, a Republican, is elected by a majority of five or six thou...~nd. The people of the Territories do not take part or interes:t in t-hese petty differences which show themselves ' here. They do not sympathize with these attempts to get party ad­vantages. Let us treat Dakota fairly. Pass the Senate bill, gen­tlemen on the other side, who cheered when I said I would vote for the admission of New Mexico rather than keep out the other Territories; but I beseech of yon, do something that will yield good to the pN>ple of Dakota.

Pass a bill here that shall enable the people of Dakota to become a State within the next few months; pass your enabling acts for Wash­ington, North Dakota, and Montana. _ Then, if you wish, bring us to a vote on New Mexico· and I do not say now that- ! would vote even against New ~Iexico, though I do not believe that she is entitled to statehood. But let this question be so presented that we may vote upon the rights of each of these prospective States. You should learn wis­dom on the Territorial question by the blunders of the past.

The SPEAKER. The .time allowed for general debate has expired. Mr. SPRINGER. I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk may an­

nounce the numbers of the sections of the South Dakota bill, without reading them at length; and that as each section is announced any member may offer an amendment to that section. I make this request for the purpose of saving time.

Mr. BURROWS. You do not mean the" South Dakota bill;" you mean the Senate bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. · The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the proposition of the gentle­

man from Illinois, that the sections of the bill be read only by their numbers, and that as the number of any section is announced mem­bers be permitted to offer amendments to that section. The Chair heara no objectioD.-

The Clerk proceeded to read the sections of the bill by their num~ bers. When section 2 was reached,

Mr. STIIES said: My colleague, the chairman of the committee [Mr. SPRINGER], will remember thatthere wasan amendmentprovidingfor boundaries, which I believe ia applicable to this second section.

Mr. GIFFORD. That is all provided for in the Senate bill. Mr. SPRINGER. The boundary question is covered in the Senate bill. Mr. SY~1ES. Then this section does not need amendment? Mr. SPRINGER. No, sir. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were read by their numbers, and no

amendments were offered. When section 9 was reache~ The SPEAKER said: The gentleman from Dakota [Mr. GIFFORD]

has pending an amendment to this section, which will be read.

904 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17,·

The Clerk read as follows: Amend section 9 by striking out the words "ninety sections of," and inserting

in lieu tllereofthe words "one hundred and twenty thousand acres." 1\Ir. SPRINGER. That is in accordance with the act of Congress.

There is no objection to it. The amendment was agreed to. Sections 10, 11, 12, and 13 were read by their numbers, no amend·

ment being offered. When section 14 was reached, .Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR said: I move to amend by striking out,

in line 3 of section 14, the word "five" and inserting the word "t~n." .., ·

1\fr. SPRI~"'GER. There will be no objection to that, I presume. :Mx. GIFFORD. There is no objection to it. The amendment was agreell to. The Clerk announced section 15. l\1r. WILSON, of :Minnesota. I move to amend by striking out, in

lines 5 and 6 of section 15, the words ''five thousand dollars'' and in· serting '' $3, 500. ''

1\.Ir. Speaker, in the bill before the House th~ salary of the district judge is fixed at ·$5,000 per annum, whereas in the various States of the Union, with very rare exceptions, the salary of the district judges is $3,500. And I may say that in the State of Dakota the business of the district judge of the United States will be very small compared with that of such judges in the other States. It is therefore absnrd to say that we must give in this new State a salary of $5,000 while in other States, where the business is ten times as great, the United States district judges are receiving only $3,500. I have therefore moved this amendment.

Mr. SYl\IES. Mr. Speaker, I think that a salary of $5,000 is not too much for this district judge. A bill proposing to fix this amount as the salary of the various district judges has ·on numerous occasions been presented in Congress, and bas been passed by the Senate; and it is generally understood that if a vote were taken in this House on the subject the salary of every district judge of the United States would be fixed at S5,000. I think that this salary is not too large for~ United States district judge at this day, because during the last fifteen years th~ salaries of the district and circuit judges of the various States have been continually increased until now mruly of these officers are receiv· ing $5,000 a year. I say that any active lawyer who has not passed the days when he can earn a proper reward for his abilities by his prac· tice, and who proposes as a United States district judge todohisduty, will not accept the position unless the salary be $5,000. I think that the worst economy tbe Government of the United States has ever in· dulged in is the payment of cheap salaries to cheap judges.

It put:S second and third rate men on the bench instead of first.rate men. Where you give a district judge $1,500 more per annum, the difference between $3,500 and $5,000, he will save the United States in the mode in which he will administer justice in that court $10,000 a year as a rule.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. WILSON, of :Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the gentlem~n from Colo·

mdo [Ur. SYl\ms] who bas just taken his seat, either has said or as· sumed that the salary ofStatejudges is as high as $5,000 a year ordi· narily.

Mr. SYMES. In some States. Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. In some States I admit it to be true,

but in the majority of States it is not true. Take for instance the State of Minnesota, adjoining the Territory of Dakota.

Mr. BAKER, of New York. Is the gentleman opposed to the gen· eral increase of the salaries of these judges?

Mr. 'VILSON, of 1\finnesota. I am in fa.vor of a proper increase in the salaries of United States judges, but it is absurd to say we should gi,·e a judge in the State of Dakota $5,000 per annum when we are giving a United States district judge in the State of Minnesota, in the State of Iowa, in the State of Wisconsin, in the State of New Jersey, and in the State of Ohio, and many other States only $3,500, when in those States the judges are required to do five or ten Urnes the busi­ness which will be required of any judge in Dakota. [Cries of ''Vole!''] Dakota should be the last State and not the first in which the ealacy should be increased.

The raising of th.e salaries of judges is not a guaranty that we will get better men for judges. Experience disproves the claim, and gen· tlemen may be assured that there :will not be the least difficulty in filling the office by one of the best lawyers in Dakota.

Mr. BA.YNF.. L~t ~e inquire of the gentleman from Minnesota whether the absurdity IS not m the fact that the United States district judges aet only $3,500 a year when .they should get $5,000 a year?

Mr. 'VILSON, of Minnesota. I d1d nothearthequestionofthegen. t1eman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BAYNE. My question was whether the absurdity is not in the fact that the United States district judges get only $3,500 a year in· stead of $5, 000 ?

1\fr. WILSON, ofl\1innesota. That is not the question I am discuss· ing now. I am discussing the question of raising the chn.racter of judges by raising their salaries. Common observation shows it does not have t:lilat effect. I am speaking of the absurdity of giving a sal-

ary of $5,000 to a judge in Dakota when in the States where the sal­ary is but $3,500 the judge has to perform from five to ten times as much business as will be required of the Dakota judge.

Mr. RANDALL. I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BAYNE] that we have two United States judges in Pennsylvania who, I believe, receive $4,500 a year, and there bas never been a time in my experience when we have had a bad judge at that salary.

I ask, 1\Ir. Speaker, whether it is fair in this way to raise to $5,000 a year the salary of ajudgein the proposed State of Dakota when at the lower rate of pay the Government secures the services of as ac­ceptable judges as there are in· the United States? All the salaries should pass in review and no unfair discrimination made as proposed. The Pennsylvania judges do many times the work as is probable in Dakota.

Mr. HOLMAN. I wish to make a single remark on this subject. Take, for example, the State of Indiana. It pays $4,000 a year to its supreme judges. The salary of the district judge is $3,500. The pres­ent district judge of Indiana is one of .the ablest ·lawyers in the State and was transferred from the supreme bench of Indiana to that posi· tion. He cheerfully left the bench of Indiana to take the lower salary on the district bench.

Mr. RYAN. What was the term on the supreme bench of Indiana? 1\Ir. HOLMAN. The term was six years. 1\.Ir. RYAN. He left it, then, to take a life position on the United

States bench. Mr. E;OLM.A.N. Yes, here is a. life position, and the salary of $3,500

a year is. worth more than the higher salary where there is a limitation of the term.

1\Ir. SPRINGER. I hope we will have the previous question. Mr. BAYNE. I move to strike out the last word. ?tfy colleague is

mistaken, I think, about the judges in Pennsylvania getting $4,500 a year;

Mr. RANDALL. That only shows a greater disparity. Mr. BAYNE. In some of the States they get $3,500.

· Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. In the bulk of them. 1\fr. BAYNE. While in some they get $5,000. I introduced a bill in the Congress before the last, and also in the last

one, increasing the salaries of the district judges throughout the conn· try to $5,000 a year, and the circuit judges to $6,000. In the last Congress the Senate passed a bill increasing the j ndicial salaries to $5,000 per year, and I had hoped the House would favorably consider and adopt that proposition. I hope that this measure will pass, giving the judge of Dakota and the other new States $5,000 a year, because I wish to emphasize the injust.ice done to the judiciary throughout the country by paying them but $3,500 or $4,000ayea.r for the service they render the people. I think this Government can afford to pay its ju­dicial officers a reasonable and fitting compensation, and when the State of New York pays its State judiciary and even its local judiciary sums ranging from $8,000 to $12,000 and $15,000, I think the United States Government can well afford to deal justly at least, if not liber­ally, with its judiciary and pay its judges the small sum of $5,000 a year. In Pennsylvania they get $4,000 instead of $4,500, as su~gested by my coUeague. I think we ought to give this new judge, whoever be may be, $5,000, and increase the salaries of all the other judges to the same snm. ·

1\Ir. KEH.R. Mr. Speaker, the proposition now pending, I believe, is, to reduce the amount propos:d by this bill as compensation to this iudge to $3,600 a year. I believe that is the proposition of the gen· tleman.

I do not think there is any difficulty in getting the very best kind of material for the bench at that price throughout this country, and 1 have no sympathy with the constant efforts which are being made by some men on this side of the House to increase these judicial salaries throughout the country.

The most eminent men who ever sat on the bench in some of the Western States, including a man who has not a peer within the last twenty-four years, Judge Breese, who sat upon the bench of Illinois, received but $1,000. In my own State we pay only from $1,900 to $2,500 a year, and men of good ability can always be found who are thoroughly competent and qualified to occupy these positions at that price. For that reason I am convinced that $3,600 for the judge in this Territory, as proposed by the amendment, is ample. \Ve have too much need for money in other directions in this country to be ap· plying this constant pressure to increase the salaries of men who want to occupy high social positions with large salaries, and therefore I hope the amendment in this case will be adopted.

Mr. SPRINGER. I demand the previous question on the amend-ment to this section. . .

The previous question was ordered. 1\fr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. Iwanttomoveafurtberamendment-­The SPEAKER. The previous question has been ordered. 1\Ir. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. What is the pending question? The SPEAKER. On the amendment to strike out '' 5, 000, '' and in-

sert·." 3,500." · The question was taken; and on a division there were-ayes 781

noes 59. So the amendment was adopted.

1889. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 905 The next amendment was offered to section .26 by ·Mr. GIFFORD, of

Dakota. The SPEAKER. This amendment has already been printed in the

RECORD. Mr. DINGLEY. Let it be again read. Mr. GIFFORD. It relates to the date. The Clerk read as follows:

Amend section 26 by striking out the words "28th da.y of August, 1888," and insert in lieu thereof "the first 1\Ionday in June, 1889."

Mr. ADAMS. My propose,d amendment would come in there and . would strike out the same words, but would insert in lieu of "June 1st " the "9th day of April, 1889."

1\fr. GIFFORD. !-will say to the gentleman that thatis entirely ac­ceptable to us. ' M:r. BAKER, of New York. I hope it will be adopted in thatJorm.

Mr. ADAl\.fS. I desire simply to say that I took that from the bill of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MACDONALD], who told me it was suggested to him by the gtntlemen from Dakota here.

.Mr. GIFFORD. I accept that. The amendment of Mr. ADAMS was adopted. l\1r. GIFFORD. There is also an amendment of mine to section 27. The SPEAKER. If there be no other amendment to section 26;

Mction 27 will . be now considered, and the Clerk will report the amendment of the gentleman from Dakota.

The Clerk read as follows: . Amend section 27 by adding thereto the followin~: "And a' said election there shall be elected the State, judicial, and other officers and members of the Legislature of the said State of South Dakota provided for in the constitution of said State, and also two Representatives in the House of Representatives of the United. States Congress; and if a maJority of the votes cast at said election, upon the acceptance of both change of name and boundaries and of said constitution, shall be in the affirmative, as hereinafter provided, the governor, judicial and State officers thus elected shall have power to at once qualify and enter upon the duties oftheir. respective offices, and they and the members of the Legisla­ture thus elected shall hold their offices until the next general election, in No­vember, 1890, unless otherwise provided by the laws of said State1 and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. The go'\"ernor shall nave authority to at once convene said Legislature, and said Legislature thus elected ma.y, in the manner provided for by la.w, elect for said State two Senators to serve in the Senate of the United States Congress; and the Representatives duly elected at said election provided for in this section, and the United States Senators thus chosen, if otherwise legally qualified, shall be ad111-itted to represent said State ~f Sout_h Dakota in th~ Congress of the United States."

Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. · I desire simply t.o·say this, Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that this amendment ought not to be adopted now. If before this State is admitted these further questions are to be decided, suppose on the question of accepting the name of ''South Dakota'' the State would vote "no," or in regard to the boundaries that the State should vote ''no.'' Where is the necessity for the election? Shall it all go by default? ·What would be the result? It seems to me that the :first thing is to let the election herein provided for take place; let the election be held and the question determined first wbethel' or not the State shall be admitted, and then after the admission of the State, and as a consequence, South Dakota can take care of herself. It seems to me that this bill as reported would be better without the amendment.

1\Ir. GIFFORD. 'If the gentleman will permit me, I will state to him that this is the usual proceeding; that it has been done in many prior instances, and there are a great many precedents for it. Of course if the constitution fails to receive a majority of the votes of the people, the whole proceedings fail. But this is the usual mode of electing the officers-all the State officers-so that the whole machinery of the State government can go into operation whenever the constitu.tion takes ef­fect. This is the usual manner of proceeding in these cases. Our people are united on this. It is agreeable to the Senate, and was agreed to by them. ·

.1\.Ir. JOSEPH D. T.A YLOR.. Why did not the committee report that upon the bill?

1\Ir. GIFFORD. This bill was not reported by the committee. Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. Has the committee passed upon that

question? I\1r. GIFFORD. This amendment was agreed upon by the commit­

tee. Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. Then, if the committee has agreed to

it., I withdra.w my objection. The amendment was adopted. The reading of the bill was continued and concluded. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk has completed the reading

of the Senate bill by sections. 1\Ir. BAYNE. I demand the previous question on the third reading

of the bill. 1\Ir. SPRINGER. I have the :floor, I think. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Illinois. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out all after the enactimr'clause

of this bill nnd insert the following. . o

1\Ir. BURROWS. What is the offer of the gentleman? Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike ~mt all after the enacting clause

of the Senate bill and insert the amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk. It is the substitute.

Mr. BURROWS. I make a point of order against the substitute. Let it be read subject to objection.

1\Ir. SPRINGER I ask unanimous consent, so as to save time, to omitthereadingofthissubstitutefrom the fact that it is precisely-­

Mr. BURROWS. I desire to have it read. :Mr. SPRINGER. It is precisely in the words printed in the RECORD

yesterday mornin~, and has been before the House, and every gentle­man knows what is in it, aud if I can have--

Mr. BURROWS. I desire to have the substitute read, or a portion of it until I can see what it is. -

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the substitute . Mr. BAYNE. A parliamentary inquiry, 1\Ir. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 1\Ir. BAYNE. No one arose in his place to offer this substitute, and

I arose and demanded the previous question on the third reading of the bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania will not as­sume that he has· the right to take this bill out of the hands of the committee .

The SPEAKER.. The Chair is advised by the gentleman who occu­pied the chair at the time, that the gentleman from illinois was recog­nized. Besides, the order on which the House is proceeding expressly provides that the gentleman from illinois shall have leave to offer that substitute. The Chair will cause the order of the House to be read.

:M:r. BAYNE. If the gentleman will admit his laches I will not in-sist. - • ·

.Mr. SPRINGER. I will not admit any laches ~ the ~atter. Mr. BAYNE. He sat perfectly still. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report t~e substitute . . [After a

pause.] Tpe gentleman fro~ Jllinois asked unanimous consent to dis-pense with the reading of the su~stitute. . . .

1\Ir. SPRINGER. I have asked unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the substitute, but the gentleman from 1\!icbigan (Mr. BURROWS] objects. . .

Mr. BURROWS. I stated when the substitute was offered that I desired to "make a point of or<l:er against it. · - ' ·

The SPEAKER. It_has not y~t been read.- .. Mr. BUR;ROWS. Let it be read ~ubject. to t~e point. of order. I

desire to haye that·paper read, or a portion of it, until I can see what it is.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read it. _ .Mr. SPRINGER. It is preciSely the text prin~d ~n the RECORD

yesterday morning. . , . . . . The Clerk proceeded to read the substitute, an~ re3:d_ down to the

proviso in line 40 of section 2. . . 1\fr. BURROWS. The ~lerk ~as read S'(lffi.cient for my purpose. So

fur as I am concerned I will not ask for the further reading of the sub­stitute.

The SPEAKER. Is there further demand for the reading of the sub­stitute?

There was none. Afr. _BURROWS.. 1\Ir. Speaker, I d~sire t~ make t~e point of order

against the ~ub~titute that it is not in order under Rule)CVI, clause 7. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that he has examined the order

of the House as carefully as his opportunities w:ould permit, · a~d us far as possible has examined other orders made by the House hereto­fore. setting ):>ills for consideratiot:l on partic~lar day~ anq. prescribing the method of proceedil:tg, and has b_een u~able to come to any satis­factory conclusiqn as to wh~t was the real intention of the House in this case. Under these circumsiances the Chair has thop.gh~ it proper to. submit the question to the House, so that it may decide for itself just what it meant by this o~der; and inasmuch_ as be h3s determined to sub~it the q~estion to the House, the Chair desires· to call ·the at­tention of members to that fact, in order that they may give attention to tlle argument as it proceeds.

Ur. BURROWS. I think the Chair does not appre.hend. the point of order that I intend to make. In Rule XVI, clause 7, the latter por­tion of the clause, there is this proviSion:

And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consid­eration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

The substitute now submitted is offered, not under the order of the House but under the rule, for this reason: The order of the House spe­cifies that the gentleman shall have leave to offer Bouse bill No. 8466 but instead of offering that bill we have offered a substitute, every pag~ of which is different from the bill specified in the order. Therefore, the gentleman can take nothing by the order, and as this substitute (which I understand is the caucus substitute) is offered under the rules of the House, and not under the special order, and is on a different sub­iect from the bill we are now considering, the language of the order will not help the gentleman, but the substitute must stand or fall under the rules of the House.

The SPEAKER. The Chair supposed that it was the substitute mentioned in the order of the House.

Mr. BURROWS. It is not. Now, Mr. Speaker, upon this question I desire to be heard.

906 OONGRESSION:A:L RECORD-· HOUSE. JANUARY 17;

Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman allow me to explain? 1tfr. BURROWS. Not now. I desire to make my point of order

without interruption. Mr. REED. I think the gentleman from lllinois ought to have a

chance to explain. [Laughter.] · Mr. BURROWS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question.

We must oow proceed under the rule of the House and not under this special order. The only question presented is whether this substitute, which provides for the admission of Montana, Washington, and New Mexico, is a subject different from the one under consideration. If it is a different subject, then the rule says that it must be rejected. If it is on the same subject, then it is admissible. It is true the substi­tute contains, in one portion of it, a provision in regard to Dakota which is the subject of the Senate bill, but if there is any provision of the .substitute which is not germane, or which is out of order under the rule, of course the Chair is aware that that disposes of the entire amendment and it must all fall.

So in arguing the question it may be presented in this way: L-, .a propomtion to admit New :Mexico on n. bill to admit Dakota the same subject or a different subject? That is the only question. Now I affirm, 1'1!r. Speaker, that to h<!ld t~at this substitute, which pro­vides for the admission of New Mexico and other Territories, is in order would be to Teverse the decisions of the House of Representatives for three-quarters of a century and throw us back to the confusion of the Congress of the Confederation. .In that Congress it was the universal practice to load a bill with all sorts of amendments, so that a proposi· tion which arrested the attention of the House in the b~ginning was completely changed. Public bills were changed to private ones, and private bills into public bills; and such was the confused state of par­liamentary practice that in 1781 that Congress found it necessary to adopt a rule on amendments to which I desire to call the attention of the Chair. That rule was as follows:

No new proposition or m.otion shall be admitted, under color of amendment, &s a substitute for the question OT proposition under consideration.

The First Congress in 1789 adopted the same rule. Mark ib:llanguage: 'r No new proposition or motion shall be admitted under color of amend­ment to any proposition." Now, under that rule it was held both ~ the First Congress and in subsequent Congresses that it only ~xcluded the ''new proposition" when it was offered as a substitute. A new proposition could be -offered as an n.mendment, and ·would be in order whether germane or not; but a new proposition, even if germane, could not be offered as a substitute. So the-practice under the foregoing rule did not Telieve the difficulty. This condition continued until 1822, when the present rule was adopted, which has remained in force with~ out modification ever since.

Let me repeat its language: No motion or proposition on .a subject different from that under consideration

shall be offered byway of amendment. Is a proposition to admit New ?tfexico the same proposition as to ad­

mit Dakota? Is it the ' same -subject, or is it a different subject? It can not be said that it is the same subject, because it relates in a ge­neric way to the Territories. That would be opening a door so wide that everythlng relating to the Territories could be admitted nnder color of amendment, and it would run counter to the whole current of the rulings of presiding officers of the House of Representatives.

A few citations will serve to elucidate the pofut and es'tablish the practice.

This question was first presented in the Twentieth Congress. A. resolution wa.s introducOO. instructing the Committee on Manufactures to send for persons and papers and to inquire into a certain subject pending before that committee. An amendment was offered to that resolution, authorizing the colnmittee in their inquiry to examine the question of the ta.ri1f and make a report on a. certain matter connected therewith. A point of order was raised under this rule that this. amend­ment presented a different subject, and was therefore not in order. Mr. Stevenson, then the Speaker of the House, ruled it out of order under the rule which I nave read.

In the Twenty-seventh Congress a bill was being considered making appropriations for fortifications and ordnance, and for the suppression of Indian hostilities, appropriating a certain sum therefor. A. member offered an amendment that the funds received from the sale ofpa.blic lands should be dedicated to the satisfaction ofthe termsofthisappro­priation bill, devoting these moneys to meet th_e amount appropriated by the bill. A point of order was made that this was not germane; and Speaker White p~omptly suatained the point, holding that the proposition was on a different subject; and upon an appeal being taken to the House the Speaker was sustained and the amendment was ruled out of order.

In the Thirtieth Congress a bill was pending to extend the time for locating military land warrants in t:he State of Virginia. An amend~ .ment was proposed fu that bill providing that these land warrants might be located on any public lands subject ta . entry. A point of order was made that the amendment was not germane; and Speaker Winthrop under· this rule promptly held the amendment put of order, deciding that it w~ not germane to the bill. So the amendment was excluded.

Again, in the same Congress, a resolution was pending to in.strnct a certain committee to ascertain the salaries paid to United States dis· trict judges throughout the United States, and providing that wherever the salaries were less than $2,000 they should be equalized and aU the salaries placed at that amount. The general subject under oonsidera· tion was the salaries of officers of United States district courts. So an amendment was offered that this same committee should inquire into the salaries paid ~ United States district attorneys and marshals, and where they fell below a certain amount thn.t those salaries should be equalized.

A point of order was made that this proposition was not on the same subject-matter; tbat the subject under consideration was the salaries of United States district judges, and that the proposed amend­ment relating to the salaries of United States marshals and district attorneys, although they were officers of the same courts, would not be germane. Speaker Winthrop promptly excluded the amendment, citing this very rule and declaring the amendment out of order be­cause it was on a different subject. Upon an appeal the decision of the Chair was sustained. That. as a gentleman near me suggests, is ' 'on all fours'' wtth tbe case presented here.

In the Thirty-first Congress anothercaseinvolvingthisquestiona.rose, though perhaps not so pointed as those to which I have referred. A proposition was pending fixing the amount of stationery to be allowed each member of the House; and it was proposed as an amendment to in· corporate a provision to regulate the salaries of the employes of·the House. Speaker Cobb, of Georgia, promptly ruled this amendment out of order, as not being germane and in violation of the rule I have cited.

In the Thirty-first Congress a bill was pending perup.oning a widow of a soldier of the Mexican war. An amendment w~ offered providing that the pensions of widows of soldiers in the ~Ie:rican war should commence from the a ate of the death of the soldier and continue _ -through the lifeof the beneficiarY. A point of order was made that the amendment proposed a different subject from the one under con· sideration, ~d Speaker Cobb promptly excluded the amendment as not being_.german.e.

I have found bnt'OD.e decision which even points toward the idea that :this substitute could be in order under this rule, and that case i8 this: A bill was pending fixing the western and northwestern boundary of the State of Texas, and it provided that the State should relinquish all territory exterior to -this line, and also all claims against the United . $tates. To this bill an amendment was offered, ,proposing to organize the ~erritories of Utah and New Mexico, giving them a Territorial gov· ernment; and that amendment was held in order by Speaker Cobb. But he ex-pressly stated that it was so held because the propositio1;1 pending related to the territory acquired from Mexico, aud as the amendment proposed a disposition of the same territory-to wit, Utah and New Mexico-he would hold that it related to the same subject. He held, therefore, the amendment in order because it related to a part of the territory which we had aequjred from Mexico; and, strange to say, the decision of the Chair was sustained on an appeal. ·

But in the same Congress, and in less than two months afterward, another proposition was pending-a proposition to admit California­and an amendment was pcoposed-to such bill to organize a Territorial government for Utah._ Speaker Cobb then held, in accordance with his previous decision, that this amendment was in order, because Utah was a part of the terri,tory. acquired from Mexico. An appeal was . taken from that decision, and the House reyersed it by a vote of 115 to fri. The reference to this decision in Cushing's Manual is misleading, for upon .an examination ofthe Journal I find that in this case the de· cision of the Chair was overruled by the House, and thus the proposi~ tion for the organization of the Territory of Utah was held to be out of order under this rule as an amendment to that bill.

And in the Thirty-fifth Qongress (and I will cite but two or three cases more) a bill was pending to n.mend the various acts granting the right of pre-emption to settlers. An amendment was offered giving to settlers 160 acres of land. The bill rela~ed to the public domain, but a point of order was made against this amendment donating 160 acres of land. The point of order was made that it was jn 'fiolation of this rule, and Speaker Orr in that case excluded the amendment under the rules. An appeal was taken from the decision, au·d the House sustained the Speaker and rejected the amendment.

In the Thirty-sixth Congress a bill was pending to establish a Ter­ritorial government for the Territory of Idaho. An amendment was offered establishing land offices in that Territory. The bill pending was in reference to the government of the Territory of Idaho. A point of order was made against the amendment that it was not in order under the rules beca~se it was on a different subject, and Speaker Pen~ ningtou promptly reJected the amendment. An appeal being taken, he was sustained by the House.

One more citation from the Thirty-fifth Congress which appears to me bears pretty directly on this question. It was when .sl?eaker Orr occupied the chair. The bill pending was for the adm1Bs1on of Oregon into the Union, and the amendment offered w~ an amendment authorizing the people of Kansas to organize a Teuitortal government. That would seem quite like this case. Let me read the case:

The House then resumed the consideration of the bill of the Senate (8. 239)

1889. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 907 lor the a.dmission of Oregon into the Union, the pending question being on the lf:notion of :Mr. Alexa.nder H. Stephens to commit the same to the Committee of the Whole Honse on the state of the Union.

After deb81te, . Mr. Alexander H. Stephens withdrew his said motion to commit. The question then being on the third reading of the bill, Mr. Grow proposed to submit a.n a.mendment, in the na.tnre of a. su):>stUute;

·~:O~da.~dK;.'n~:.t being, in substance, an ena.bling a.ct for the Terntorles of

i Not to .admit Oregon as Senate bill proposed, but pass an enabling act for Oregon and Kansas much like the condition presented now. .

1\Ir Sandidge made the point of orde-r that the said amendment was not in orde;, on the ground that it was not germane to the bill.

The Speaker-

Speaker Orr- , decided that the amendment was out of order under the fifty-fifl.h rule, which '4eclares that "no motion or proposition on a subject dift'erent from that under consideration sha.ll be admitted under color of amendment." "

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Grow appealed. .

~~~e~:~~~H. Stephens moved that the a.ppea.l be laid upon the ta.ble. And the question being put, · It was decided in the affirmative-yeas 126, nays 92,

Why, only in the Forty-eighth Congress there was a hill i)emling in the House to change the eastern and northern judicial districts of Texas

1and attaching parts of the Indian Territory for judicial purposes to this district. An amendment was offered creating a new district in the In­dian Territory, conrls to be held in the Indian Territory, and the-pres­ent occupant of the chair promptly rejected the amendment on the ground that it was not germane; that it was on a different subject from 'the one under consideration; holding that the bill under consideration provided only for the change of.boundaries of a dist~ct alr.e~y estab­lished and ·although it took m a. part of the Indian Terntory an amendment to establish another district embracing the Indian Terri­tory was not germane to the bill, being a subject different from the one under consideration.

It has frequently been held that no public bill can be changed into a private bill and no private hill into a public bill.

I submit, therefore, in the light of these authorities and rulings that this amendment is not in order. .

Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, we are not considering this point ~f order under the special order of the House, but under the rules of this body. If 1t should be held that this substitute is in order, then the oppor­tunity of my friend from Iowa [Mr. WEAVER] has come, and his Oklahoma bill can be attached to this Senate bill as an amendment in order. SoyoumayadmitAlaska; a.ndtheverypurposeoftherule, which was that the House should know in advance what it would be called upon to consider, what it would be called up~m to yote on, wo~~ be nullified, and we would be bro~ght to ~he. con~ide~tion of p~oP?&tions about which we had not the slightest mtimation m the begmnrng.

I wish to say in conclusion that I make this point of order not for the purpose of hindering the admission of these Territories, but, on the contrary, for the purpose of facilitating their admission. I am glad this order provides that even if the substitute sho.uld be excluded it is still within thepower of the ~ntleman from Illinois to proceed at once to the consideration of the bills for the admission of 'Vashington, 1\Ion­ta.na., and New Mexico. This will be in order, and this being a contum­ing oi:der, the only e-ffect of the r~jection of the substitute, or if the Chair shallTule it out of order, will be that we will be brought to a direct vote on the Senate bill as amended, which can be concluded this ~rnoon, and we can then proceed to the consideration .of the other bllls.

The SPEAKER. When the gentleman from Michigan made the point of order the Chair supposed t.hat the gentleman from illinois had

·offered as a substitute the bill H. R. 8466, which is the bill mentioned in the order made by the House. Of course, if the gentleman has not offered that bill, the question w.hich ·the Chair proposed to submit to the House has not yet arisen. The Chair supposes that a mere tech-

. nical difference between the two bills would not be material For in­stance, a correction of a mere clerical error, or something of that sort. But it seems that the proposed substitute now offered by the gentleman from Illinois contains provisions <>fa. :SUbstantial character and not con­tained iii the original House bill. The Chair thinks,- therefore, that the order does not apply to it, and believes that in accordance with the practice of the House and its rules, ever since the House overruled its own decision in the case of California, that this substitute is not in or­der under the rules. The Chair holds, therefore, that the substitute sent to the desk by the gentleman from illinois does not come within the terms of the order made by the House· and hence is not in order under the rules and practice of the House. ' [Applause on the Repub­lican side.]

:Mr. SPRINGER. Now, l\Ir. Speaker, I offer--Mr. REED. I hope t-he decision of the Chair will not deprive us of

the proposed explanation of the gentleman from illinois. [Laughter.] 1\Ir. SPRINGER. I now offer this as a substitute, and will then

make the explanation which the gentle:QJ.an from .Maine seems to de­sire.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois now offers the sub­stitute mentioned in the order of the House.

Mr~ SPRINGER. No, not at this time. I desire to submit first a parliamentary inquiry, whether I have the

right to offer it as I now propo~--Mr. BURROWS. I make the point of order against it. 1\Ir. SPRINGER. W.ait until it has been read. 1\Ir. BURROWS. I would like to hear it nad, if it is not the House

bill referred to in the order. ~fr. SPRINGER. It is substantially that bili The SPEAKER. The gentleman, of course, has the right .to have it

read and offer it as a .substitute, but still it would be subJect to the point of order. The Chair, however, prefers not to decide a question of order until the question arises.

Mr. SPRINGER. Then I ask that the proposition be read. The SPEAKER. It will be read. The Clerk read as follows:

' -Strike out all .after the ena.cting clause and insert in lieu thereof House bill 8166 with certain amendments thereto; so that th.e same .shall read .as follows:

Mr . .BURROWS. That will not do. The SPEAKER. The Chair holds that all the gentleman has the

right to do under the oroer of the Honse, ~e on m?tio? of the g~­tleman from Illinois, is to <>ffcr .as a substitute for this b11l Honse J:>ill 8466. After that has been offered~ if the House should entertain and oonsider it, tbe Chair has heretofor-e stated, in response to a question propounded bythe..gentlemanfrom ?!iaine, thatthe -substituie wo-ufd be subject to amendment in a proper way under the rules and practwe of , the House. That i.s as iar as the Chair can go.

~Ir. SPRINGER. I .offer to stlike out, then, all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof House bill 8466.

Mr. REED. When are we to have the -explanation? 1\fr. SPRINGER. When this question is stated. Mr. BURROWS. Against the substitute now proposed I desire to

make a point of order. Let it be read, subject to objection. The .SP-EAKER. The Chair will state that on this point of order

the Cbair proposes to take, under the circumstances. t_he judgment of the House itself. The order made by the House proVJdes-

Tha.t the Committee on the Territories be discharged from the.further oonsid­eratior.. of Senate bill num.bered 185-

Then describing the bill-and tha.t it sha.ll be considered from da.y to' day, etc. , with leave to offer as a substitute,t.herefor House bill Sl66.

Th-e Chair has examined the orders heret<>fore made, as stated a few minutes ago upon similar subjects, and from the interpretation put upon them has been unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion .as to whether or not it was the intention of the Honse that the gentleman from Illinois should not be cut off by the previous question, or should have-.the right to present it subject ta a point of order. m whether the House should proceed to entertain and vote upon it. The order. does not so specify. It ouly provides that it shall be in order to offer. it. It does not say tb.at he shall be ~lowed to offer it and .have a !ote upon it but simply the right of offenng. He .has offered 1t, _notWithstand­U:g the fa-ct that the gentleman from Pennsylvania attempted to move the previous question.

Mr. ~fiLLS. Wbat is the preci8e question? The SPEAKER. The question will be, Shall the proposed substi­

tute be entertained and considered by the House? ·That is the ques~ tion which the House will determine.

Mr. BURROWS.. Upon that I desire to be heard. Mr. SPRINGER. I ·think I may be permitted to make the state­

ment that the gentleman from 1rlaine has asked me to make. 1\Ir. REED. 1 have .repeatedly asked. Mr. WARNER. 'Vill the chairman ofthe eommittee [Mr. SPRINGER]

permit me to make this suggestion, as a member of the committee, for the pnrpose of taking the House out of the difficulty that we are now in? I would suggest, in good faith, to the chairman of the committee, that we go to work and admit Dakota under the Senate bill, and im­mediately take up Washington, 1\Iontana, and the others. ~ha~ would get us out of this trouble. [Derisive jeers on the Democratic ~e.)

MT. BURROWS. MT. Speaker, I desire to be heard .on this pomt. The first substitute which the gentleman presented havmg been held properly to be out of .order u~der the ~les, he now off~ as. a second substitute the bill numbered m the spec1al order, and will cl;um, I BUp· pose that by virtue of that order the point of order was waived, and that' we are estopped from making any point of order against it.

I wish to call the attention of the House to the language of that order. After providing that the Senate bill shall be taken up nta. cer­tain time, the order continues:

An9 with leave to offer as a substitute therefor House bill84.66.

Mark the language: Willi leave to offer as a substitute therefor House bill 8!66.

I affirm that it has never yet been held by any presiding officer, and bas never been determined by this House on.a vote, that such an order as that waives all points of order upon a bill authorized to be presented. Under that order the House simply gives leave to offer a snstitute; that is all. And what is the meaning of the term "to atfer?" "To bring before;, "to bring about;" "to hold out;" "to present;" "tQ

908 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17,·

exhibit;" "to proffer; " "to tender." That is the meaning of the term " to offer."

And by this order he has the fnll right, and there is no question about it, to offer or tender this bill as a substitute. That order does not go beyond the right to offer it as a substitute; and when offered it is subject to the rules of this House, and must be offered under and in conformity with the rules of the House. It must stand or fall under the rule which declares "that no amendment or substitute shall be in order on a subject different from the one under consideration."

I am sustained in this view by a decision which the Speaker bas made within a week, to which I desire to call the attention of the House. It will be remembered that we have a rule making a confer­ence report always in order, and which provides that a conference re­port may be presented at any time. That is the language of the rule, ''may be presented at any time.'' Last week a conference report was presented by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DIBBLE], and unC.er the language of the rule when he bad presented the conference report be contended it could be considered, and no motion to adjourn would be in order. It was argued that the mere presentation of such a report was a barren ceremony if it did not carry with it the right also to consider. The language of this order, ''leave to offer,'' can not con­vey any larger meaning than the rule to which I have referred, and yet the Speaker held that when the conference report was presented the terms of the rule had been fully satisfied. This is the language of the Chair: ·

The nineteenth rule of the House provides that the presentation of reports of committees of conference shall always be in order, except when the Journal is being read. Under this rule it has been held that the presentation of o. report is in order.

Then the Speaker said the literal terms of the rule have been complied with: ·

The report has been presented to the House, and the terms of this rule haYe been satisfied and complied with.

So that when the gentleman presents or offers his substitute the lit­eral terms of the rule have been complied with and the literal terms of this order have been complied with, and the substitute is open to any 'objection that may be urged against it under the rules of the House. If the gentleman desired to go further and make this substitute in order, he could nry easily have done so if he bad said:

Shall have leave to offer this substitute, which substitute shall be in order. Then there would have been no question about it. There is noth­

ing in this order but the right to offer I have just suggested, the terms in which all orders of this kind are made. I have looked in vain for a single order, obtained either by suspension or by unanimous consent, couched in the language of this order, under which it was claimed that all points of order were waived. In the Forty-third Congress General Garfield moved this-and I call attention to it, as the question is to be decided by the House. General Garfield said:

I want to offer this: "Resolt•ed, That the rules of the House be so suspended that the follmvingsec·

tion shall be in order as a part of t.he text of the bill making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government."

" Shall be in order " is the language. .And the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BLOUNT] in the last Congress, on the Post-Office appro­priation bill, asked unanimous consent that a certain provision might be incorporated in that bill-not that be might have leave to present it. This was his language:

Mr. BLOUNT. Believing that the House will appreciate the force and justice of the criticism made by the Postmaster-General in the extract which I have just read, in relation to the present compensation of third-class postmaster~, I nsk unanimous consent that on the 2d day of March, of this year, the Commit­tee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads should be allowed to place in the Post­Office appropriation bill, for consideration by the llouse, a. proposition author­izing an allowance for rent, etc.

That was agreed to, and the rule prohibiting new legislation on ap­propriation bills was thereby suspended. The gentleman from Geor­gia [.Mr. BLOUNT] made a like request yesterday. He asked leave to present a certain proposition in the bilJ. But suppose that in~tead of asking the privilege of incorporating it in the bill he had simply asked leave to offer it when the bill should be under consideration by tbe Honse, and suppose that leave had been granted, would any member here contend that the point of order could not be made against it? So the J:!:entlemau from Illinois [:rt.:Ir. CANNON] asked that the rule might be suspended in regard to an appropriation bill, and that a certain amendment might be allowed to be incorporated in the bill.

In other words, the mere right to offer the proposition does not do away with a point of order when it is offered. This is the first oppor­tunity we have had to make the point of order. It could not be in­terposed when the order was made, because that was simply an order saying that a certain bill might be presented. That order has now been executed and the gentleman has presented his bill, and this is the first time that we have had an opportunity to make the point of order against it.

But it is said, what was the intention of the House? If the Chair Will! to pass upon the question, he might say he would go outside of the language of the order and ascertain if possible the intention of the House. I do not know what that intention was. I simply know that so far as I am concerned I listened to the order very carefully; I voted

for it because I believed that it would not prevent us from making the point of order, and had r believed at that time that we could not make the point of order against the substitute when offered, I should not have voted for the order.

But it will be said that, under this construction of the order, the gentleman gets no additional rights. He had the right under the rule to offer the substitute, and if it be held that the order gives him no additional rights be gains nothing by it. Does that concern you or me? Are we operating here and considering this bill under the in­tentions of the gentleman from Illinois, as they shall be disclose<! lrom time to time, or under the terms of this order and the rules of the House? I bold that we arc operating under this order, and under the order the gentleman can go no farther than to offer this substitute, and that when presented it is subject to all point~ of order; and I make the point of order the same as against the other proposition, that it is not germane to the bill under consideration.

Mr. MILLS. 1\lr. Speaker, the questiOn which tbe Chair is to sub­mit for the decision of the House is, what did the House mean by the language used in this order? It is one of the rules for construing all lawsthatyoumustlooktotheintention of the law-making power. You must look to the old law as it existed, the mischief that existed, and the remedy that was intended to be applied for that mischief. These are cardinal principles which must be kept in view when we come to construe this order. Now what was the old la.w? lt was that the ·senate bill was in the Committee on Territories, where it was beyond the reach of this House for consideration. House bill No. 8166 was on the Calendar, reported and ready for consideration whenever the House might reach it. It was the desire of the House that these two bills should be considered together, but under the rules they could not be considered together. Under the rules of the Honse, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], if be desired, could offer his bill, House bill 8466, and have it ruled out, but it would not be in order. So that, if the position assumed by tho gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BuR­ROWS] be correct, the additional rule which was made by the House confers no privilege whatever upon the bill of the gentleman from Il­linois; and the House in making the order did a thing that was without auy purpose whatever, a thing which did not aid at all in the solution of the problem or hi effecting the remedy desired. The House intended, I say, that these two bills should be brought up and considered together, that the question of admission should be decided, not only for the one Territory of Dakota, but for all the Territories mentioned· in these bills, at one and the same time, and the House took the bill out of the Com­mittee on Territories by a special order, and brought it here and laid it on the table subject to be considered by the House. By the adoption of that order the House revoked, for the time being, the rule which prevented Honse bill 8466 from being offered as a substitute for the other, and made it in order to be offered as a substitute, so that the whole question might be taken up by the House and considered with ref­erence to all the Territories and decided at one time.

That was the intention of the House, and this order must be con­strued to carry out the intention of the House, and from the language used it seems to me clear that that was the intention, and that the or­der conferred upon this House t.he power to consider this substitute, and not merely to have it offered. The order was not intended merely to provide that it might be offered and ruled out under the exlsting rule, but the House, for the purpose of considering this bill, changed the existing rule and made a new rule by which the two bills were to be considered together.

Mr. BURROWS. Will the gentleman permit a question? :Mr. MILLS. Cel'tainly. M:r. BURROWS. Would you hold that if this order read, "shall

have leave to offer a substimte," all points of order would be waived against the substitute?

.Mr. MILLS. No, sir; I would hold that the whole question was to be determined together.

Mr. BURROWS. But you think that by mentioning the number of the bill the point of order is waived?

1\:lr . .MILLS. No, sir; the point of order is not waived, but the rulo is overruled for the time being by a new rule.

1\Ir. BURHOWS. Suppose it should turn out that the bill men­tioned by number in the order was the river and harbor bill, could not the point of order be made against it?

Mr. MILLS. No, sir; it could not. The House can by its order overrule any rule of this House; and it can make in order any bill when another is being considered, whether it applies to the same sub­ject-matter or not. Und.er ~eneral parliamentary rules, the river and harbor bill would not be m order as an amendment to a bill on another subject.

Mr. PETERS. Do I understand the gentleman from Texas to Ray there is no doubt as to the intention of this order?

Mr. MILLS. I think there is none; there is none in my mind. Mr. PETERS. Then you differ with the Speaker in regard to that. 1\fr. MILLS. That may be. I do not regard the Speaker as entirely

infallible. I do not believe he speaks by inspiration. He is a humau being like the rest of us.

Mr. REED obtained the floor.

1889. CONGllESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 909 Mr. SPRINGER rose. 1\Ir. REED. If the gentleman from Illinois desires to make an ex-

planation, I will yield. • Mr. SPRINGER. I will state that when this matter was being con­

sidered between the majority of the Committee on Territories and the minority members of that committee, this particular resolution was submiltcd to the minority, or at least to the gentleman from New York [.Mr. BAKER], who in reference to this matter represented the minority, and I understood tha.t the resolution was agreeable to them. If I had had the slightest idea that this business was to be taken out of the hands of the Republican members of the Committee on Territories, and that the other side of the House was to look at every technicality in regard to the(] nesti.on, I should have been more careful in dealing with it. But I thought we had reached a conclusion which was satisfactory to both sides of the House, and in that view this order was offered by me under a motion to suspend the rules, and it was agreed to. When it was pending, the gentleman from :Maine [Ur. REED] inquired of me why the resolution asked leave to offer this House bill as a substitute for the South Dakota bill, and in answer to that question I statecl:

necause it would not be in order to make it unless we did so. 1\Ir. REED. 'Vhy do you not take up South Dakota-No; that is not the point. Mr. REED. Read that; it seems to begin well. [Laughter.] Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, it reads very well.

1\Ir. REED. It is ur_derstood that all other legitimate amendments m~y be of­fered ?

Mr. SPRINGER. Certainly. It shall be considered in the House as in Commit­tee of Lhe Whole, which will admit any proper amendment. I desire to say to the gentleman that opportunity will be given to test the sense of the House by yea-and-nay votes upon every substantial proposition that the minority of the Committee on Territories desire t-o have a vote taken on.

Mr. REED. Why, then, do you ask for special leave to make the substitution? Mr. SPJUNGER. Because it would not be in order to make it unless we did so. Therefore, I concede all that the gentleman from ::Michigan has stated

with regard to this proposition. It was for the purpose of avoiding the mles which he has been citing that this proposition was introduced. I stated further:

There is a bill pending in the Committee on Territories in regard to South Dakota. It would not be in order to move o.n amendment to that, except as re­lating to Dakota, unless this express leave shall be granted to embrace other Territories.

And that statement having been made, the House immediately adopted the order.

Now, this statement having been made in answer to that inquiry, I submit to gentlemen on the other side whether they did not under­stand tbat I was of the opinion that I could not offer the substitute 1mless the leave of the House was given, which was then sought and wn.s then given with that express understanding.

!lfr. REED. If you thought that you could not offer that substitute without leave, why did you offer the substitute which you did offer?

ltfr. SPRINGER. I will explain that; I am very glad the gentle­man has asked me that question. The substitute which I did offer was the substance of House bill No. 8466 with certain amendments thereto which were germane, and will now be germane to that, and will be moved at the proper time, one of which--

Ur. REED. Why did you not explain that this was not the propo­sition which the order of the House authorized you to offer?

Mr. SPRINGER The gentleman from Michigan took me off my feet and insisted upon making his explanation of the point of order, and I sat down, as I always do, when that gentleman insists upon taking the floor before I have it, because I always like to hear him speak. This is the first opportunity I have since had to explain the matter. And I want to state that there is not a proposition in the substitute I originally proposed that isnotgermanetoHousebill8466; therefore it is in order to move House bill 84G6 as a substitute for this. It is in order to move that bill with amendments, provided each amend­ment proposed is germane to it. I did no more than that, and I will call attention now to the principal amendment which was germane, and which I wish shall now be brought to the consideration of the House.

1\Ir. BAYNE. Right there I want to call the gentleman's attention to the RECORD.

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman will excuse me at this moment. I want to finish my statement.

The principal feature of the amendment is contained in section 3. The o~iginal bill, known as House bill 84.66 (and to move which lea>e was g1ven by the House), provides for one Dakota-one State; but the substitute which I desirecl to offer in lieu of that contained an amend­ment in section 3, which permitted Dakota to be divided and to come into the Union as two States, and for the purpose of having the meas­ure harmonious all the way through, and in accordance with the change in this principal feature, several other amendments were inserted so that the bill as proposed would be a harmonious whole, and would result in bringing about wha~ p:~ntlemen on t~e other side insist ought to be done, ru.mely, the diVISIOn of the rr:erntory of J?a)r?ta into t~yo States, assuming that the people on both s1des of the d1V1drng line desire·such division.

Mr. REED. Well, it is not now "a harmonious whole."

l\Ir. SPRINGER. It is harmonious, because as it stands now it pro­vides for one Dakota.

1\Ir. REED. But it is not ''a harmonious whole,'' because an amend­ment was needed to make it so.

Mr. SPRINGER. It is harmonious if we want to admit one Da­kota.

Mr. REED. That is to say, it is harmonious if we argue the matter_ one way, and not harmonious if we argue it another.

Mr. SPRINGER. No; my friend desires to be fa-cetious at the ex­pense of the facts.

1\Ir. REED. On the contrary, I am very serious, because I think there is something concealed under this; and I will be very frank in stating what I believe it is. I think you intend to claim that the House having ordered the admission of this substitute, it can not be amended.

Mr. SPRINGER. Oh, no; not at all. ltfr. BAYNE rose. Mr. REED (to Mr. SPRIKGER). I think you had better listen to

these suggestions, because you are misleading yourself. ~Ir. BAYNE. I want the gentleman to listen and be convinced on

this point by the RECORD. M:r. SPRINGER. The ~entleman may read the RECORD. Mr. BAYNE. Then I ask the Clerk to read what appears in the

RECORD. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois yield

for that purpose? 1\Ir. SPRINGER. Yes, sir; I desire to hear the matter read. I do

not know what it is. lt{r. BAYNE. The very proposition came up whether your substi­

tute would be susceptible of amendment or modification. An inquiry on that point was made, and the Speaker replied that it was an en4

tirety-that but one amendment could be offered as a substitute after the Senate bill had heen perfected. You proceeded upon that hypoth­esis because you wanted the House to consent to the amendments pro­posed by the Delegate from Dakota, and they were agreed to; and you had your proposed substitute in due form--

Mr. SPRINGER. Let the RECORD be read; let us see what it shows.

The Clerk read as follows: The order under which the House is now proceeding provides that this bill

shn.ll be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and in the Committee of the 'Vhole on the state of the Union bills are read by paragraph for amendment, or by sections, as the House may choose, so that unless some understanding be had the Chair thinks that when a section is taken up and discqssed and amended, that would preclude a recurrence to a. pre"\ious section unless by unanimous consent.

1\Ir. ADAMS. Then I will ask unanimous consent (of which, however, I may not choose to avail myself) to submit a motion hereafter to strike out t,he sec­tions providing for an election to ratify the change of name and Lhe change of 'Joundo.ries.

The SPEAKER. In order to prevent confusion hereafter, it would perhaps be best that the bill be read by sections, or that it be understood that amendments may be offered to the di.frerent sections without regard to their orde1·, as the Honse proceeds with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. DuNN. I wish to make another parliamentary inquiry. It is generally understood that the gentleman from Illinois [l\Ir. SPRINGERl will offer a substi­tute for this bill after the text is completed. Now, the question is, will thatsub­stitnte be read by paragraphs, so as to admit of amendments, as in the case o! the original bill?

The SPEAKER. 'l~he substitute would be one entire amendment. 1t1r. SPRINGER. As an entire amendment it is subject to amendment

as well as anything else, is it not? Certainly it is. Mr. BAYNE. Re..1.d the following paragraphs. Mr. SPRINGER. To show that was the intention the gent1eman

from New York proposed an amendment, and it was printed in the RECORD.

l\Ir. BAYNE. Let the Clerk read the followin,g paragraphs. Ur. SP.l?.INGER. Very well. . The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dn.~ . .An.d when adopted it could not be amended further? The SPEAKER. After a substitut-e is agreed to, it is not subject to amcntlment. 1\lr. REED. But it can be amended prior to a vote upon tbe substitute. The SPEAKER. Of course. Mr. CUTCHEON. I rise to a parliament-ary inquiry. The bill has now been

read the first time. Is it not the regular ortler to read the bill by sections for amP.ndment?

The SPEAKER. It is. Severall\IEMBERS. Regular order. l\lr. SPRINGER. I desire that the friends of the bill should have leave to put

in just such amendments as they desire to perfect the text, being those prepared by the Delegate ft·om Dakota [l\Ir, GIFFORD].

lt-Ir. REED. ltfr. Speaker, I am bound-to say to the gentleman from illinois that makes that matter perfectly clear, and I ha>e a distinct recollection of pressing that question to the point it bas reached. So it is evident we can amend this if it is arrreed to.

Mr. SPRINGER. Then tlJe only qu~tion is whether the leave to offer carries with it the lea>e to consider, and as that was expressed and it was understood at the time it was for that purpose, I hope the House will sustain the proposition. [Cries of" Vote!"]

Mr: REED. I hope the House will permit me a single word. The Speaker announced after careful comparison of this order with similar orders in past times that he is unable to state what could have been the meaning of the House, and therefore leaves it to the House to de-

. termine its method of procedure in this particular case.

910 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17,

Now this leaves to the Honse an opportunity to do what every fair man will cQnsider to be jnstand right. No man can stand up here and give any reason whatev-er why the fate of one Territory should be linked with the fate of another. There is not even the poor excuse there would be an opportunity to get up some other bill relating to some other Ter~ ritory, for unless I am mistaken this order gives an opportunity for us to go directly throogh with the whole list, each in its tum. ·

Now, why should not the Honse do it? Let any man ask himself what is fair to the Territories and what is fair to the country, and he can give himself no other answer than that each one ought to be con­sidered on its merits. What object is there in bunching these Terri­tories, in collecting them in a group? Surely there can be no other than to give the weaker the advantage which accrues to the Territories which have the stronger reason. Now, i!3 that fuir to the Territory under discussion? As the matter stands now, unless the Honse changes the present aspect of it, we shall proceed to vote on the immediate ad­mission of South Dakota. Why should we not do it? C:m anybody give a reason why we should not? Therefore I ask this House to pause upon the brink of an action which will possibly prevent the admission of a Territory which every man in this House agrees should at once become a State.

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, this is a deliberate at­tempt to distract attention from the question before the House. [De­risive laughter on the Uepublican side.] The question before the House-gentlemen may laugh, but honest men will hav-e to answer this question-the question before the Honse is what was meant by the order or compact we entered into here, that the right was resexved to offer a substitute for this Senate bill Does that mean by reserving the right to offer the substitute that you hav-e not the right to entertain the substitute or consider it? Does it mean that this is a mere chiltl­iah thing, a mere play upon words, without force and effect, or has it any substantial' meaning? That is the question.," and it is not whether we shall vote for one of the Territories or for all of the Territories to­gether. That is not before us; that is not the question; and as honest men we are bound to vote on this question.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. MILLS] gave certain rules that are understood and unquestioned as to the construction of such matters. The context read here from this very RECORD shows what was meant, and there is another rnle of construction to which there is no excep­tion, that where one consttuction wonld give no meaning, force, or effect to the contract, it is not admissible as against one which would giv-e force and effect and meaning to it. The latter must in all cases be adopted.

Now, do we mean here when we solemnly enter into this contract, reserving the right to offer a substitute, that we might offer it, send it to the desk, have it read, and have the Speaker say yon can not con­sider this, or then have the House say you can not act upon it or vote upon it? , · . It would be a mere empty farce. It is childish and absurd, and

against all the rules of construction, and this is nothing but an attempt to lead us away to another question not now before the Honse, and the consideration of which does not at this time demand our attention.

[Cries of ''Vote!" "Vote!"] Mr. BAKER, of New York. .Mr. Speaker, I desire to make one or

two brief obserrations in regard to this matter for the purpose of cor­recting a misapprehension which seems to exist in the minds of certain gentlemen. The first question that confronts us is, what will be the effect if the House shall vote to consider this omnibus bill? Plainly, it will be to turn what is now a plan for the admission of the State ot Dakota into the Union into simply an enabling act in connection with four other Territories. If the bill shaH pass in that shape it goes back to the Senate as an amendment to the act for the admission of South Dakota. It then goes to the conference committee, and what will be the resnlt? Simply to defer for two years at least the admission of the States of Washington, of Montana, and of New Mexico. But if we go on and consider the matter as it stands before the House, we shall have immediately the State of South Dakota; and under the order of the House we have a right to go on here and consider, bill by bill, the questions as to whether :Montana, North Dakota, Washington, and New Mexico shall be admitted, or if they are in shape to come in under an enabling act, while South Dakota will have the rlght for which she has been contending in vain here for seven long and weary years.

Mr. BLAND. Will the gentleman allow me a question? Mr. BAKER, of New York. Certainlv. Mr. BLAND. I wish to ask if it waswnot the understanding of the

gentleman, as a member of the Committee on the Territories, when this order was made, that the purpose was to consider the substitute?

Mr. BAKER, of New York. My friend the ch::~.irman of the com­mittee talked with me in relation to the matter, and proposed to make Honse bill 8466 the bill to come before the Honse. ·

l'lfr. BLAND. But waat was your understanding? :Mr. BAKER, of New York. . I am coming to that. It was con­

tended on the part of the minority of the committee that it was our duty to take up and consider tho Senate bill, No.185. The honorable chairman of the committee yielded the point and prepared the rule . accordingly, and it was presented to the House and agreed upon in the terms in which it now stands upon our record.

M:r. BLAND. But that is not the question I asked the gentleman. Mr. BAKER, of New York. I am coming to that. l\1r. BL.A.ND. What I want to know is if the understanding was

not between the gentleman from Illinois and yourself that the order was to be m::~.de for the purpose of consideration without regard to points of order.

Mr. BAKER, of New York. No thought was given to points of order. The main idea was to get before Congress tairly and squarely the question whether South Dakota was to be admitted.

Mr. BLAND. But what was your understanding of the order? What did it mean in your opinion?

Mr. BAKER, of New York. There was nothing said about it; noth­ing thought about it. The whole object w as to bring the Senate bill, No. 185, before the Honse.

Mr. BLAND. But was not that the understanding, that it was to be considered ?

M:r. BAKER, of New York. There was no understanding about it; not a word was said.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. What did you understand? Mr. BAKER, of New York. Just this precisely--Mr. BLAND. In all candor, did yon not understand when that prop­

osition was offered that it was offered to be voted upon? :M:r. BAKER, of New York. I understood you were to have a

chance for South Dakota, and the concluding portion was t{) give us an opportunity to consider the other questions.

Mr. BLAND. Well, that is a1l right. Mr. BAKER, of New York. Yes, that is all right. 1\fr. DOCKERY. Then stand by the agreement. 1\Ir. BAKER, of New York. Wby, there was no agreement about it. 1\lr. BRUI\11-L Mr. Speaker,. the question before the House, as I

understand it, is a question of the construction of a rule of this Honse raised on a point of order made by the gentle.man from Michigan.

The Chair, as I understand it, declined to give his decision upon that point of order, but submits the question to the Honse. Before a vote upon that question has been taken the assertion is made that an agree­ment had been entered into that this substitute should be offered and voted upon, and I have yet to Jearn between whom that agreement was made; and whether, if there be any agreement, the parties are able to contract; whether, if there be any agreement, it was an agreement entered into upon the floor of this House.

For one I will say that if such an agreement was entered into upon the fioor of this Honse openly I will not object, and will vote in favor of allowing the substitute to be voted on. But, Mr. Speaker, if the agreement was entered into between certain gentlemen in a commit­tee-room, although it is not clear, then I say it becomes our duty to vote against tbe admission of this substitute, because gentlemen can , not in committce·rooms, and ought not, make an agreement that vio­lates a rule of the Honse. Therefore, ·the question of agreement not being fully established, I think it becomes the duty of members of this House to vote as their judgment dict{l.tes upon the qne::.tion of order pure and simple. [Cries of .. Vote!" ''Vote!"]

l\1r. VOORHEES. I desire to say one word. 1\Ir. SPRINGER. I hope the gentleman will be heard. l\1r. VOORHEES. Inasmuch, Mr. Speaker, as I was somewhat in­

timately connected with the proceedings upon which this order was based, H may not bo out of place for me to state briefly just what took place. In my zeal to secure some order of the House by which th~se admission matters mi9ht be considered, I put myself in consultation witlt several of my fnends on the Republican side of the House, and notably with my good friend from New York (::M:r. BAKER],_and it was understood between him and me tha.t if an order could be drawn whereby the consideration of this entire question could be begun on Senate bill185, a bill for the admission of South Dakota, he individu­ally would agree to a proposition looking to the offering at the proper time of the substitute, being House bill 84G5. It was distinctly agreed, as I understood it, that that proposition might be voted upon. If it was voted up, t.he friends of the South Dakota measure would rest content, and if voted down, this side of the House would be content thatSouthDakotashould come in by virtue of Senate bill185. I carried that proposition to the chairman of the Committee on Territories, and upon my statement, while I was sitting bJ: him, this o;derwas formu­lated by him and banded to me . . I took 1t to my fnend from New York [Mr. BAKER], and he in turn carried it to members on his side of the Honse. Just what transpired between him and the Republican members with whom he consulted I know not, but I do kuow that the distinct understanding between the gentleman and myself was that this substitute should be offered at tbe proper time; that it should be voted up or voted down, as the case might be. ·

?tfr. BAKER, of New York. Will my friend allow me 1·ight there-1\Ir. VOORHEES. Certainly. · Mr. BAKER, of New York. Do yonnotrememberthe fact that the

concluding words of the resolat.ion were-That thereafter other bills i n relation to the admission of the Territories re­

ported from the said committee shall be in order in t.he House in ¥ke manner until disposed of, to be co~:~sidered in the order .fixed by the comnuttee.

I remember, 1\fr. Speaker, speaking of the effect it would have and the attitude we would be in with reference to Montana, Washington,

1889. QONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 911 and New Mexico in case Senate bill 185 should prevail; that under this Mr. BURROWS. 1\Ir. Speaker, there is no such understanding on pro'\"L<don, in these concluding words, we were in a shape to "'Permit the this side. House to proceed with the other measures; but it had nothing what- 1\Ir. DOUGHERTY. I rise to a parliamentary inqutry. ever to do with the question whether the substitute should be voted The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The gentleman will state it. upon or not, I think. 1\Ir. DOUGHERTY. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. BucH-

.1\fr.BRUU.M. Will the gentleman permit me a question at this point? .AN .AN], the gentleman from Maine [M:r. REED], the gentleman from [Cries of "Vote!':] . New York [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from Illinois [M:r. SPRINGER],

Mr. VOORHEES. Certainly. and various other gentlemen are all on the floor and talking together. Mr. BRUl\UI. Does the gentleman know of any agreement entered Which one is entitled to the floor'? [Laughter.]

into except in a committee-room? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment 1\ir. VOORHEES. Only just what transpired as I have stated. It proposed by the gentleman from New York.

seems the Speaker was under misapprehens·on. The agreement was Mr. BUCHA....~AN. I rise to a...parli:lmentary inquiry. made on the floor just in the manner suggested by me. The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The gentleman will state it.

1\fr. BURROW'S. I desire to ·say simply one word. I have no doubt Mr. BUCHANAN. I have already stated it. It is that the amend-bot that it was the intention of the gentleman frqm illinois to so frame ment as offered does not agree with the terms of the substitute before his order that the point of order would not be made against the sub- the House, the bill H .. R. 8466. To that it has beenreplied that unan­stitute. I have no doubt there was some understanding of that kind imous consent has been given to bring before the House the substitute among members of the committee. When I came in, and the gentle- originally offered by the gentleiDml from illinois and ruled out of order man moved to suspend the rules aml pass this order, I said at once to by the Speaker. I desire to k.Jlow whether that is the fact or not, and gentlemen near me that that would not prevent the point of ord~r being if so at what time that consent was given. I did not hear it. made. I have made the point of order in perfect good faith, and it will Mr. COX. I would like to have the record read on that point. The be a v-ery dangerous precedent if it can be defeated now. As there Chair certainly put the question very plainly and clearly, asking for seems to be some mislllderstanding about it, and as gentlemen will unanimous consentto consider this substitute. If the Reporter's notes vote upon the question of the substitute rather than upon the point of do not show the matter in that way, I am very much mistaken. order, I will withdraw the point of order. Mr. BUCHANAN. Which substitute does the gentleman refer to?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment to the gentleman's 1\[1·. COX. The one printed in the RECORD yesterday morning. substitute is now pending. The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e (1\fr. CRISP). The Clerk informs the

The Clerk proceeded to read the substitute. Chair that such consent was given. The present occupant of the chair 1\Ir. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, as this amendment iR now before was not at tha~ time presiding.

the House and the reading of it has been waived, I desire to call at- Mr. FARQUHAR I rise to a parli..'l.mentary inquiry. I submit tention to certain amendments which I desire shall be offered thereto. that it is rather unfair to overrule the ruling of the Chair of only an

1.1r. llAKER, of New York. Are you going now to ask for a vote hour ago. on the substitute as printed in the RECORD? The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

1\tr. SPRL.'TGER. The gentleman from New York does not object The only question raised is a mere question of fact. to taking a vote on the substitute which I have offered as printed in 1\Ir. BURROWS. There is certainly n misunderstanding. It was the RECORD, containing only such amendments as are germane to my understanding that after the other substitute was ruled out the House bill 8466. gentleman from Illinois offered House bill 8466 as a substitute; and

Mr. BAKER, of New York. I suggest that the first thing in order we are now considering that with such amendments as gentlemen may is a vote on the substitute of the gentleman from Minnesota [1\Ir. 1\.IAc- desire to offer. DONALD]. Mr. COX. The Chair put the question as plainly and clearly as

Mr. SPH.INGER. The gentleman from New York who is now in ever a motion was put in this House, asking for unanimous consent the chair [:Mr. Cox] desires to move au am<mdment, and as he is not for the consideration of the substitute as printed in the RECORD ol • on the floor I will offer it for him. yesterday.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (1\Ir. Cox). The Chair will state the ' Mr. BURROWS. I did not hear it. propositi"n. Unanimous consent has been given that the substitute Mr. COX. Everybody heard it. proposed by the gentleman from Illinois is now pendin~-the substi- Several MEMBERS. Oh, no. tute as printed in the RECORD-tow hich the gentleman oilers nn amend- 1\lr. COX. I appeal to the record. ment. Mr. BUCHANAN. I stood within 30 feet of the Chair and did not

Mr. SPRINGER. This amendment, I desire to state-- hear it. · Mr. BUCHAN AN. Let us have that amendment read. Several 1\IEMBEBS. I did not hear it. Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman from New York desirestoofferan Mr. COX. The gentleman from New York [Mr. BAKER] indorses

. amendment which I will offer in his behalf. I desire to make a re- my statement, and tlie Reporter's notes will sustain it. quest of members. It will greatly facilitate this matter and enable us The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that the only ques­to reach a vote much more quickly if they will allow me to substitute for tion raised is a question of fact as to whether the House did-or did not the proposition which is pending the one which I originally submitteu. give unanimous consent to consider the substitute printed in the REc-

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. ORD. The present occupant of the chair was not in the chair at the Is there an amendment yet offered? time when the action in question was taken. Therefore the Chair will

The SPEAKER pro tempore (1\Ir. CRISP). The substitute is pend- cause the Reporter's notes to be read to ascertain what they show. ing. 1\Ir. BURROWS. That is right; let them be read. .

Mr. BUCHANAN. Let us have the amendment read. Mr. COX. I am willing to-stand by the Reporter's notes. Mr. COX. I offe1· the amendment which I send to the desk to be The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Reporter will write out whatever

read. there may be in the notes on this subject, so that it may be read. Tho Clerk read as follows: Mr. MACDONALD. I rise to a. parliamentary inquiry. I under-On pages 4 and 5 of substitute, strike out all afLer the word "second" to the stand that the substitute of the gentleman from illinois is not now be­

end of the paragraph aud iusert: "The State of North Dak:otn. shall be entitled fore the House. to one Representative in Congress, and South Dakota. shall be entitled to two Uep,·csentatives in' Congress until the apportionment under tbe eleventh cen- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Reporter's notes which will show sllll." what did take place are now being written out and will be read.

Mr. COX. I wish to say a word in explanation of tha1i amendment. Mr. BAKER, of New York. It is fair for me to state, as one of the As South Dakota has a population of 375,000 or more-- friends of the Dakota bill pure and simple, that ~der all the ~ircum-

Mr. BUCHANAN. But there is a question back of that. That stances we ought by unanimous consent to consider the substitute of amendment docs not fit in there. The substitute pending is House bill the gentleman from illinois as printed in the RECORD as the basis for 8466. amendment, hoping that if any subs!itute is to be adopted, it will be

Mr. COX. I ask the attention of the House for a moment. Inns- that offered by the gentleman from Mmnesota. [lt1r. MAcDONALD]. In much as South Dakota has population enough for t,wo and n half · this way we can facilitate the matter, have speedy action upon it, and mem?ers !_propose to gi'\"'e her at least two members, and as North Da- put an end to it. I ask unanimous consent that this course may be kota IS entitled to one I provide that she shall have one member until taken. the next census, and I hope there will be no objection. Mr. COX (to Mr. BAKER, of New York).- Has not that consent

Mr. BUCHANAN .. I am not objecting to that. I am calling atten- already been given? tion to the fact that 1t ~oes not fit in that place. It is drawn as an Mr. BAKER, of New York. I so understood. amendment to the substitute that went by the board. Mr. COX. I appeal to the Reporter's notes to justify my statement.

Mr. SPRINGER. Unanimous consent was gi'\"'en to consider that in Mr. BAKER, of New York. The gentleman from Dakota so under-lieu of the other proposition. stood.

Mr. BUCIIANAN. I do not understand that unanimous consent .M.r. COX. And as I supposed so did every man here. was given. Mr. BAKER, of New York. But there was so much confusion in

Mr. COX. Unanimous consent was asked for and given to consider the House-the substitute as printed in the RECORD. Mr. SPRINGER. Then let it be agreed to again.

912 CONGRESSIONAL REOOR.D-HOUSE. J.ANUA.RY 17,

Mr. COX. I want the Reporter's notes read. 1\Ir. BUCHANAN. I have no objection to that. I simply desire to

understand the condition of affairs. I did not understand any such consent was given. If we had less noise and more business we could get along better.

Mr. BAKER, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I make this request for unanimous cons~nt, so that the Macdonald amendment shall be fi:!lly and fairly considered and voten upon.

Mr. BURROWS. That will be right. Mr. SPRINGER. The only objection I offered to that suggestion,

when I had the conference with the gentleman from Colorado, was that it would take two hours to read the substitute; and I would now ask unanimous consent that after the amendment which I desire to submit to this substitute be voted on, we may then have a vote upon the sub­stitute of the gentleman from Minnesota without reading it.

Mr. s-~IES. You mean his amendment to the substitute. Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir, his amendment to the substitute. Mr. BAKER, of New York. I prefer that the substitute of the gen­

tleman from Minnesota should be voted on before that of the gentle­man from Illinois. It must be so as a matter of order.

Mr. SPRINGER. I have agreed that the gentleman from Minnesota shall have a vote on his proposition after this other question has been submitted to the House. I think that is fair.

Mr. BAKER, of New York. Members of the House have read both the propositions and understand this question.

Mr. SPRINGER. I call the attention of my friend from New York to the fact that when I had drawn this order providing that House bill 8466 should be first considered, wit.h leave to offer the Senate bill as a substitute, the reques.t came from his side that the mn.tter should be arranged the other way. I have yielded everything to you; why should yon not be willing to yield this to me?

Mr. REED. Regular order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order is demanded. The

Reporter's notes, when written out, will be read. 1.Ir. COX. The regular order is the amendment which has been

submitted. I do not propose that unanimous consent shall be asked until the Reporter's notes are read.

Mr. SYMES (to Mr. Cox). Assuming that you are correct, this is another proposition.

A MEMBER. The point of order made by the gentleman from Michi­gan was withdrawn.

~Ir. BURROWS. Of course it was understood when I made the point of order that I would withdraw that point, as against the bill named in the special order, if the Speaker decided in my favor.

Mr. BAKER, of New York. There is no question about that, and in behalf of Dakota and the friends of Dakota I renew my request for unanimous consent that the vote be now taken, first on the substitute of the gentleman from Minnesota [U:r. MACDONALD], and second on that offered by the gentleman from Illinois (1\fr. SPRINGER].

Mr. LODGE. Regular order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from 1\fassachusetts de-

mands the regular order. 1

Mr. BURROWS- Let the official report be read. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is in such a state of con­

fusion that it is utterly impossible to hear gentle~en upon the floor. The Chair is informed by the Chief Official Reporter that he has not yet obtained the statement, to which reference has been made, in the official notes.

1t1r. WARNER. Permit me just a moment. I wish to make this suggestion. I was sitting here paying attention, a.s I thought at least, to the action taken upon the substitute, and my remembrance is that the Speaker said this--

Mr. CUTCHEON. I rise to a question of order. It would be in­teresting to know what the gentleman from Missouri is saying, but we can not hear a word of it.

TheSPEAKERprotempore. Thepointoforderiswell taken, and the Sergeant-at-Arms will aid the Chair in preserving order upon the floor.

The Chair will -state that in the absence of any notes furnished to the Chair on this question, the present occupant of the chair not being then in the chair, it is not in order for him to decide upon a question of order any more than it would be for any other member of the House. Therefore, if it is insisted upon, the Chair must leave that question to the House-whether it did give unanimous consent or not to the sub­stitution of that bill. It is merely a question of fact about which there is no information immediately available.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Ohio. Let the request for unanimous consent be again stated. ·

M:r. BURROWS. I desire to say a single word. The gentleman from lllinois presented as a substitute the bill named in bis order. There is no question about that. And after discussion-after I had made the point of order-I withdrew the point of order against that substitute, it being the one named in the special or~er. Now that substitute is under consideration, as is clearly understood by gentle­men on this side of the Honse. Gentlemen on the other side of the Rouse seem to have adopted a different view, and hold that the propo-

sition under consideration is the one which was ruled out by the Speaker. There is a proper way to settle the question of difference. Now let us proceed to that.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] then occupying the chair states that unanimous consent was given by the House to consider, in lieu of the substitute offered by the gentleman. from Illinois, that which-had been printed in the RECORD.

Mr. LODGE. That is a mistake. Mr. BURROWS. If there is any record of that I would like to have

it produced. Mr. OWEN. Let the Reporter's notes be read. Mr. LODGE. There is no such record, as I understand it. Mr. SPRINGER. I understand that the Journal Clerk made a min­

ute of the proceeding, and made it at the time, which corresponds with the statement of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. COX. And that statement is confirmed by the gentleman from Dakota and others.

Mr. LODGE. ·wen, let any such statement be read. Mr. BURROWS. Let us have tile record. It will be sufficient. M:r. SPRINGER. I ask for the reading of the Journal entry made

at the time. Mr. BURROWS. No; let the Reporter's notes be read. M:r. SPRINGER. But the Chair has stated that the Reporter's notes

have not yet been furnished, or that they did not catch the remarks in the confusion prevailing.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Ohio. Ngr did anybody else. Mr. SPRINGER. There wa.s a great deal of confusion at thetime-­Mr. REED. If there was so much confusion pr6vailing at the time

that even the Reporters did not get the language, how could we be ex­pected to have had such an understanding?

Mr. COX. There was such an understanding. It was clearly stated. The Journal Clerk's evidence, which I call for, is better than that of an incompetent reporter's notes. There was no such ·confusion pre· vailing as to prevent the ~greement from being heard and understood by the House. •

The SPEAKER pto tempore. The Chair will state that the present situation in which the House finds itself is largely attributable to the want of order on the floor, and appeals to the House to aid the Chair in enforcing the rules.

Mr. CUTCHEON. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it. 1.1r. CUTCHEON. If the Reporter's notes do not show that any such

unanimous consent was given, and this entire side of the House, almost without exception, were not aware that any such consent was given, can it be considered by the Chair that the House is bound by any such consent?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The only question, the Chair will state, that is presented by the situation now is one of fact as to what sub­stitute or bill is before the House. As stated before: the present oc­cupant of the chair did not occupy it when either of these propositions was before the House; but when he takes the chair he is informed by the gentleman from whom he took it [1\-Ir. Cox] that the pending proposition brought before the House by unanimous consent was that which was printed in the RECORD by the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CUTCHEON. l\.1y inquiry relates to that precise state of facts. Under these circumstances, there being no record by the Official Re­porters, and this entire side of the House understanding that there was no such admission, can it be considered as binding upon the House, and mnst not the Chair submit it again to the House?

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I wish to make a parliament­ary inquiry: whether it would be in order, under the circumstances, to move to reconsider the unanimous ,consent given, by any member, as everybody is presumed to have voted for that? If so, I move to reconsider the unanimous consent, so as to go back to where we were. If the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from illinois made an agreement which the Speaker thought was to be carried out, but which the I(ouse misun(j.erstood because of the confusion prevailing, would it not be better to reconsider that action and put things back where they were before that was done?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that the_ Re~ort­er's notes have now been copied, and will probably throw some light upon the question. They will be read.

The Clerk read the following transcript irom the Reporter's notes: :JI.Ir. BAKER, of New York (to Mr. SPRINGER). Are you going now to ask for a

vote on the substitute as printed in the RECORD? · l\Ir. SPRINGER. The gentleman from New York does not object to taking a

vote on the substitute which I have offered as printed in the RECORD, containing only su~h amend~ents as a~e german~ to House ~ill 84.66. *

The~entleman from New York now in the chair (1\Ir. Cox) wishes to offer an amendment, and as be is not on the floor, I will offer it for him. .

The SPEAKER pro tempo1'e (Mr. Cox). The Chair will state the propos1tion. Unanimous consent bas been given that the substitute proposed by the. gentle· man from Illinois' [Mr. SPRINGER] is now pending-the substitute as prmted in the RECORD-to which tho gentleman offers nn amendment.

Ur. BURROWS. There, it seems that the gentl.em~ from New York had not asked unanimous consent. It ia simply stated that it

1889. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 913 was given. Why can not the gentleman from Illinois take up the sub­stitute and offer his amendment?

Mr. SPRINGER. I will explain that to the gentleman if I can get order.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I ask that the order be re­considered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CRISP). The gentleman from Kentucky asks that the order be reconsidered.

Mr. SPRINGER. I object to that. I think this agreement is already made, and I want to explain that the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesotar--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question now is on the request of the gentleman from Dlinois, asking unanimous consent to substitute the bill printed in the RECORD for the substitute offered by him.

Mr. BURROWS. Which is it? There have heen several bills printed in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The substitute. Mr. SPRINGER. I desire to make a brief statement--The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is endeavoring to determine

what is before the House. Mr. SPRINGER. I have sent the bill up to the Clerk's desk. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state this: As he i:m­

derstands the request of the gentleman from Illinois, he asks unanimous consent that the substitute which was ruled out by the Speaker on a point of order be considered as pending now as the substitute offered by him.

Mr. MACDONALD. I object. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota bas

objected. The Clerk will repo;rt the' substitute offered by the gentle­man from Minnesota.

1\Ir. SPRINGER. I do trust that gentlemen will treat me with fairness about this subject. I stated to the gentlemen on the other side favoring the· amendment that they desired to submit, that the South Dakota bill should be perfected in just sul.!h language as they desired it should be offered and voted upon, and I asked a similar favor for my­self and for this side of the House, which was that each side of the House could present all the propositions that it desired and have a vote upon them; and that is all I desired.

It would delay this matter a long time if I have to go through with all these small amendments that have been put in this proposition for the purpose of perfecting the text. There are several of them that are merely inaccuracies in regard to several matters, and it will delay this thing a long time if we are to go through them. Therefore it was printed in the RECORDasgentlemendesired to have it, and asthefriends of the bill on this side desired to have it. I hope gentlemen will deem it due to the House and the country to allow the House to vote upon them, and that is all we request.

Mr. REED. There are two propositions to be before the House. One is the South Dakota bill of the Senate and the other the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Illinois. Now, both of these have to be perfected under parliamentary law in accordance, not with the wishes of the friends particularly of the one or the other, but in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the House; that the House, if not interfered with, will determine which of the two alternative proposi­tions it will vote upon. The gentleman from illinois has said the South Dakota or Senate bill has received its amendments. Now, will he con­sent that the amendment of the gentleman from :Minnesota [Mr. l\IAC­DO~ALD] may be offered and voted upon as an amendment to his sub­stitute?

Mr. SPRINGER. If you will allow it to be done without reading the whole of it, as it will take two hours to read it. ·

Mr. REED. That means that the House is to vote upon a proposi­tion of that lcind without reading it, and that is the only way it has to ascertain whether it is absolukly unsuitable and improper.

Mr. SPRINGER. It would require a long time to read it. Mr. REED. And if it requires time to do it, what is the difficulty

about it? · Mr. SPRINGER. I have '!lo objection to its being brought to a vote;

and only ask this to save time now. 1\lr. UEED. Let us vote upon it, then. Mr. SPRINGER. I will yield for him to offer it now. .Ur. REED. I understand from the friends of the South Dakota bill

that they have no objection to this course, namely, the presentation of thesubstituteofthegentlemanfromillinois [Mr. SPRINGER], and that ·a prior vote shall be taken on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [:Mr. MACDONALD], and any such other amendments as may be f<?~nd necessary by the llouse to perfect it, and then, when both .propositiOns are ~erfected, t~ take a vote upon the alternative­that 1s, upon the substitute; and 1fthat substitute i2 voted down then upon the admission of South Dakota. . · '

Mr. SPRINGER. Which substitute do you meun? . Mr. REED, · If the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota is

carried, then it becomes a part of the substitute of the gentleman from Illinois; and if it is voted down by the House, then it is substituted by the South Dakota bill.

XX-58

Mr. SPRINGER. I will agree that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MACDONALD] may now move his substitute, the South Dakota bill, and take a vote upon it.

Mr. REED. But that is not the proposition. The proposition is that that shall be submitted and voted upon as a substitute for your substitute.

Mr. SPRINGER. I understand that that is agreeable to the other side of the House.

Mr. REED. It is an amendment to your substitute. !twill be first voted on, of course.

1Ir. SPRINGER. All right. I will agree to let the gentleman from Maine say what is fair in this respect and I will agree to everything that he says.

:Mr. REED. Then you will be quite sure to get what is fair. [Laughter.]

Mr. SPRINGER. I am so desirous to have a vote upon this matter that if the gentleman from Maine will take charge of it and indicate what votes will test the sense of the House, I will agree to anything he propose~.

Mr. SYUES. If the gentleman had said that this morning there would not have been so much time wast-ed.

Mr. BURROWS. Mr. Speaker, is it understood that the amend­ment of the gentleman from Minnesota. [Mr. MACDONALD] shall bein order?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is pending, offered by the gen­tleman from illinois [blr. SPRINGER], a substitute for the Senate bill. The first thing in order is the reading of that substitute, to which amendments may be offered if desired. .

Mr. SPRINGER. That reading was waived at the beginning of the session to-day.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. But the substitute must be con• sidered.

Mr. SPRINGER. I know that; but the reading was waived. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Then if there be no amendment, the

question is on agreeing to the substitute. Severalli!EMBERS. No! No! ·Mr. KELLEY. The amendments to be considered to the substitute

are those offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MAcpoN ALD], and not other amendments.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report thefirst amend· ment pending to the substitute.

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman from New York (.1\Ir. Cox] de· sires to offer an amendment. Let that be read.

Mr. KELLEY. There is no objection to the amendment of the gen· tleman from New York, except that it has not received unanimous consent.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the first amendment. The Clerk read as follows: On pages 4 and 5 of the substitute, strike out all after the word "second" to

the end of the paragraph, and insert: ·• The State of North Dakota. shall be entitled to one Representative in Con­

gress, and South Dakota shall be entitled to two Representatives in Congress until the apportionment under the eleventh census of the United States."

Mr. SPRL.~GER. I hope that will be agreed to. Mr. BUCHANAN. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. [Cries of

II Vote I '' II Vote ! ''] I purpose to know where this House stands, let the cries of "Vote, vote:!" be as numerous and as long as they may. There has been confusion enou~h upon this important question. I de­sire to make a parliamentary inquiry. An amendment is now pro­posed, which seems to be an amendment to the substitute headed

. "House bill 8466," and I desire to know if that bill is the pending substitute?

The SPEAKER. The present occupant of the chair is not aware that anything else has been offered.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Then I would askthemoverof the amendment at what line on page 4 the amendment comes in? ·

Mr. COX. I supposed I was offering an amendment to the substi­tute offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] to come in at the bottom of page 4. ·

Mr. BUCHANAN. And headed in large print "Substitute?" Mr. COX. Yes. Mr. BUCHANAN. But that is not the answer that the Speaker

makes to my inquiry. Mr. SPRINGER. While the present occupant of the chair was out

it was agreed that this was to be considered instead of the other. Several MEMBERS. That is correct. The SPEAKER. That being the case, of course that proposition is

pending. The Chair had ruled it out of order in the first place, but now the Chair is advised that there has been an agreement that the proposition printed in the RECORD shall be considered as a substitute.

Ur. BUCHANAN. I have no objection to either, but I want to know which is which.

The SPEAKER. That, then, is the order. The question is on agreeing to the amendmentjust read. ·

The amendment of Mr. Cox was agreed to.

914 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17,

Mr. SPRINGER. Now I yield to the gentleman from .Montana. [Mr. TooLE] to offer an amendment to the substitute.

The amendment was read, as follows: Provided at tlle time of election of delegates, as provided in section 2 of this

act, the constitution framed and adopted by the constitutional convention at the session thereof begun Monday, January 14, A. D. 1884, and concluded February 9

1 A. D. 1884, at Helena1 1\Iont., shall be submitted to the people of said Ter­

ntory for their rati.ficatton or rejection, and all persons entitled to vote for dele­gat under the provisions of this act shall be entitled to vote upon the ratifica­tion or rejection of said constitution Each elector voting at such election for delegates shall havewrittenorprinted upon theticketthewords"Forthe old con­stitution" or "Against the old constitution;" which said vote shall be canvassed as provided herein for the canvass ofvote.s for the election of delegates, and if, when all the votes for or agains t the adoption of said constitution have been ca.nva.'ISCd in the manner aforesaid, it shall.appear that the constitution has been ratified by a m!\iority of all the votes cast, then and in that event the constitu­tional convention which may aSRemble in said Territory of 1\lont-ana., as pro­vided in subsequent sections of this act, shall resubmit to t.he people of Mon· tana, at the election provided for in this act, for ratification or rejection, the constitution so adopted aforesaid, withsuchchanges only as relate to defining judicial districts, the salaries of county officers in counties organized since the adoption of the constitution, and such other changes as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of this act.

])fr. SPRINGER. There is no objection to that amendment so far as I know, and I hope it will be agreed to.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was not agreed to, there being-ayes 4, noes 92. :ltfr. PAYSON. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Where does the

amendment just proposed come in? Mr. SPRINGER. At the end of section 2. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. SPRINGER. I desire to offer an amendment to my substitute,

to come in at the end of section 3. Mr. STRUBLE. !Ir. Speaker, is another amendment in order to

section 1? The SPEAKER. This amendment is one entire proposition, and un­

der the rules is not required to be considered by paragraphs. An amend­ment to one section does not preclude a subsequent amendment to a preceding section.

Mr. STRUBLE. If I understand the substitute now before the House, I desire to offer this amendment-

The SPEAKER. There is one amendment pending-that offered by the gentleman from illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], which will be read.

The Clerk read as follows: At the end of section 3 of the substitute insert: " Seventh. That at the election for delegates to the constitutional convention

in Sooth Dakota each elector may also have written or printed on his ballot the words· For the Sioux Falls constitution of 1885,' or the words' Against the Sioux Falls constitution of 1885;' and if a majority of all votes ca&t on this ques­tion shall be 'For the Sioux Falls constitution of 1885,' and if a division of the Territory is authorized as provided in this section, then it shall be the duty of the convention. which may as..<;emule at Sioux Falls as provided herein, tore­submit to the people of South Dakota, for ratification or rejection at the elec­tion provided !orin this act, the constitution framed at Sioux Falls and adopted November 3, 1885, and also the article!! and propositions separately submitted at thnt election, with such changes only as relate to the name and boundary of the proposed State, to the reapportionment of the judicial and legislative dis­tricts, and such amendments as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions o( this act; and if a majority of the votes cast on the ratification or rejection of the constitution sball be for ihe constitution irrespective of the articles separately submitted, then the President of the United Ht:ltes may issne his proclamation, declaring the State of South Dakota admitted as a State in the Union from and after the date of such proclamation. And the Territorial government of the Territory of Dakota Bhall continue in existence thereafter and apply-to that portion of the Territory not embraced in the State of South Dakota. until the State of North Dakota is admitted into the Uniori; but the archives, .records and books of the Territory of I>a.kota shall remain at the capital of North ~kota. until an a.greem..ent iu reference thereto is reached by said State."

Mr. BAKER, of New York. This is a. part of the substitute pro­posed by the gentleman from Minnesota.. The presentation of it in this manner is not in accordance with the agreement which was made when the gentleman from Maine was on the floor. It was fairly un­derstood we should have 3 vote on the substitute of the gentleman from ~Iinnesota. .

Mr. SPRil""'GER. This does not change that agreement at ull. ])!r. REED. I submit to the gentleman from illinois that this was

not within the scope of the agreement. I think he bad better with­draw it.

~1r. SPRINGER. My agreement was tha.t the gentleman from Minnesota might offer his proposition as a substitute for mine after it ha.d been perfected. by the amendments which would be offered.

Several MEMnERS. Oh, no. .Mr. REED. . I think u~n ;reflection the gentleman flom Illinois

w1ll see that thiS was not w1thm the spirit of the agreement. Mr. SPRINGER. .A13 I.understand the Chair, the regular order is

tha.t we must perfect thLS before a vote on the substitute can be taken.

Mr. HEED. The proposition of the gentleman from Minnesota [Ur.l\lAcnoyALD] is not a substitute! but an amendment; and a square vote wns to be taken on it. I submit to the gentleman from illinois that be ought not to propose this amendment.

Mr. SPHINGER. I want to explain why this proposition would carry out what some gentlemen have insisted E~honld be done, and why the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota will not.

1\.ir. BAKER, of New York. The whole question is covered by the amendment of the gentleman from :Minnesota.

Mr. SPRINGER. I insist it is not, and if I could have the atten­tion of the Honse for a few moments I think I could convince every gentleman here that his amendment would throw everything into the most inextricable confusion. For the sake of preserving the measure from being absolutely meaningless or irreconcilable I have offered this amemlment. I can explain in a. few moments what the amendment provides. It is very different from the proposition of the gentleman from Minnesota. It proposes that at the time delegates are voted for in South Dakota each elector may have written or printed upon his ballot the words ''For the Sioux Falls constitution of 1885 ' 1 or ''.Against the Sioux Falls constitution of 1885;" and if a majority shall be in favor of that constitution, and if a division should be ordered as pro­vided in other portions of the bill, then when the convention assembles it bas only to make such changes in the constitution as may relate to boundaries, to the name of the Territory, to the reapportionment of the judicial and legislative districts, and such amendments as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the act of Con­gress. There is a want of such compliance in that constitution in many respects, rendering it necessary that the convention should take such action as I have stated; and then the constitution as amended by the convention is to be submitted to the people in November next. Thus this Territory is treated just as Montana has been treated in the amend­ment just agreed to.

If the constitution as amended should be approved by a vote of the people, then the President is to issue his proclamation admitting South Dakota into the Union from the date of such proclamation; and the Territorial government of Dakota, is to continue in existence as to the portion of the Territory not embraced in South Dakota until Congress shall take action in regard to the admission of North Dakota; but I will say to gentlemen that the admission of the t~o portions of the present Territory will practically be simultaneous, because at the next regular meeting of Congress North Dakota will have voted upon a con­stitution and will be rea.dv to come into the Union.

Mr. REED. Now, ~1r: Speaker, the gentleman has seen fit to pr~­sent his substitute which covers a great many different Territmiesand an immense tract of country. It also covers a great many facts and a great many propositions of law. A great deal of confusion has resulted there{rom.

But I am informed that his amendment in its scope is an interfer­ence with the ~<YTeement that was plainly made here on the floor of the House, and I would like to ask the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. :MACDONALD] whether my view is not correct, or whether I have been imposed on in regard to it.

Mr. 1tf.A.CDON ALD. The agreement having been made between the gentleman from illinois [Mr. SrRINGER] and tbegentlemnn from New York [Mr. BAKER] I did not pay very close attention to it. It was understood that my amendment should be offered and acted on.

Mr. REED. Does not this amendment now offered cover portions of the ground embraced within the provisions of your substitute?

Mr. ])f.A.CDON ALD. I do not so construe it. I construe it in a cer­tain sense that it d~, as it retains his provision to submit the consti­tn tion-for the resubmission of t~e constitution of Sioux Falls to a vote of the people. .

Mr. BA...K.ER, of New York. Your proposition is complete m pro­viding for the admission into the Union of the State of South Dakota.

Mr. UACDONALD. Yes, sir. 1\Ir. REED. It is an interference with that complete propcsition1 and it is not fair for the gentleman from illinois now to b~g forwara.

this substitute, which is clearly in violation of the understanding on the part of the House.

Mr. SPRlNGER. I took this proposition to the gentleman from Minnesota early this morning and be read it. There has not been a surprise in the matter to anybody. -

Mr. REED. But I think tho gentleman from Illinois under the cir­cumstances will himself see he should not press it.

Mr. :MACDONALD. If my amendment is offered and voted on there is nothing to prevent him from offering his substitute.

Mr. SPRINGER. I wish to call the attention of the House to this fact, that the proposition introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota. as an amendment to the substitute ofrered by me with the consent of the Committee on Territories-that is, the Democratic portion of it-em­braces, I am informed, many of the features of two or three bills, and it is twice as long as the substitute I have offered. I confess for my­self that I have not had time to read it and it would take two hours to rend it carefully. I submit to the House in all candor I submit to the gentleman from :Minnesota, whether he will ask tbnt ~e shall vote on a. proposition so lengthy, so cumbersome as the substitutewhich he hasoffered and which comes only from himselfwithoutanyothermem­ber or an,Y committee knowing anything at all about it--

1\ir. BAKER, of New York I know it well. It is all right. Mr. SPRINGER. I desire in good faith to have the propositions

which are legitimately here voted on, but I do protest, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Minnesota. ought not to insist the House shall

1889. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 915 vote on his proposition when it has never been considered by any committee, and thereby crowding out these well-matured proposi­tions.

1\fr. REED. I wish to recall the gentleman from illinois ba~k to the frame of mind in which he was a short time ago when he sa.1d he would leave the whole business to me. [Laughter.] I hope he has not repented.

1\fr. SPRINGER. The gentleman is claiming generosity for every­body under the sun except the friends of this bilL

The SPEAKEH. If the gentleman from Illinois will desist, the Cha.ir will endeavor to secure order upon the floor.

Mr. SPRINGER Certainly. Mr. MACDONALD . . !tlr. Speaker- . The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois is entitled to the floor,

he h aving yielded at the request of the Chair. J\Ir. MACDONALD. I understood the· gentleman from Illinois to

ask me a question, and I wished to answer. Mr. SPlUNGER. I wish to assure gentlemen over there of my

desire to meet everything that can be demanded that is reasonable. Now I will ask, before this amendment that I have offered is voted upo-d, that the House will take a vote upon the proposition of the gen­tleman from Minnesota.

J\Ir. BAKER, of New York. That is all right. Now let us vote. J\fr. SY!IES. And that is in accordance with your agreement. J\lr. SPRINGER. Oh, no; not in accordance with my agreement.

J\Iy friend from New York has offered an amendment since--The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Minnesota will send his

proposition to the desk . .. The Chair will stat~ as he understands the arrange~ent now, t~at

the House shall vote upon the proposition of the gentleman fro_m Mm­nesota before voting upon such amendments as may be subiD.ltted to .the one offered b.v the gentleman from Illinois, and if the propositi?n of the gentleman from Minnesota is not agreed to, that the House mll proceed to amend the other. Is that the understanding?

Mr. BURROWS and others. It is. [Cries of "All right ! "] J\1r. DOUGHEHTY. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If I un­

derstood the Chair correctly, he used the words '' the House shall vote upon the proposition.'' I wish to know by what authority the Chair makes that decision?

The SPEAKER. The Chair stated that such was the agreement. J\fr. DOUGHERTY. When was it made? The SPEAKER. Gentlemen havejust this moment come to the un-

derstanding. Is there objection to it? 1\.{r. SPRINGER. It has been agreed to already. J\ir. DOUGHERTY. I object. Mr. SYMES. It is too late to object. Mr. BAKER ofNew York. I make the point of order that the

agreement bad been made and was not objected to some time ago, be­tween the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from 1\.faine.

The SPEAKER. But the gentleman from illinois and the gen­tleman from Maine can not make agreements that will bind the House.

Mr. BURROWS. But it was understood and agreed to by the House. T he ~PEA.KER. Unless a proposition is stated from the Chair and

assented to by the House, the Chair does not think it is more than a private agreement.

It is now stated that the agreement was made some time ago, per­haps durin{r the absence of the present occupant of the chair.

Mr. SPUINGER. For the purpose of bringing the House to some · understanding in reference to this bill, I will for the present withdraw

the amendment. Now I want to ask unanimous consent that the proposition of the

gentleman from Minn~ota may be considered as having ~e~ read, nnd then I will move to adJourn so that gentlemen can read 1t m the REc­ORD. Otherw:ise, I will bave to insist on sitting here Ulltil it bas been read.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from lllinois asks unanimous con­sent to dispense with the reading of the propo~ed ~ubstitute, and asks that it be printed in the RECORD. Is there obJectwn?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I object. . Mr. SPRINGE H. Then let it be read; and I desue to state that as

soon as it is read I will move to adjourn, and no business shall be done after the reading, if I can avoid it, so that gentlemen who do not de­sire to remain cnn leave the Hall, and I will stay with the gentleman from Florida. to take care of the floor. [Laughter.] .

The SPEAKER. The proposition of the gentleman from Mmne.c:;ota has already been printed once in the RECORD, bnt it will be rea.d.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter; and we are not all going to si.t here to hear it read, as it will consume some hours, we are told. It does not seem t{) me to be good legislation to ~ave it read in the absence of the members, and therefore I move to adJOUrn.

The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 55 min­utes p. m.) the House adjourned.

P.RIV ATE BILLS I!.""TRODUCED AND REFERRED.

Under the rule private bills of the following titles were introduced and referred as indicated below:

By Mr. A. R. A...~DERSON: A b~l (H. R. 12273) for. the relief of Newton C. Ridenour-to the Committee on InvahdPens10ns.

By l'flr. BOUTELLE: A bill (II. R. 12274) granting a pension to Mary E. Brainerd-to the Committee,on Invalid Pensions.

By J\1r. BYNUM: A bill (~. R. 12275) t.o incr~e the pension to John W. Smith-to the Comnnttee on Invalid Penswns.

By J\.Ir. HEARD: A bill (H. R. 12276) gran,ting a pension to Will­iam Parker-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. J. J. O'NEILL: A bill {H: H. 12277) wanting .a pension to Clam Leiah Freeborn-to the Committee on Invalid P~nstons.

By 1\.ir~S. Y. Wffi'l'E: A bill (II. R. 12278) authorizing the pa~­m(mt of the pension of Edward_ S. Smith, accrued at the dn.te of h.IS death, to his mother, Catharine Smith-to the, Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. YODER:. A bill (H. R. 1~279) g~nting a pension to Joseph Stoeser-to the Committee on Invahd PensiOns.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions and papers were ·laid on the Clerk~s desk, under the ru1e, and referred as follows:

By Mr. FISHER: Petition of A. W. Comstock and 13 others, a.s~­ing for increase of duty on lumber or forest products-to the Commit· tee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. FULLER: Petition of 133 citizens and of 131 citizens of De. corah Iowa, for a constitutional amendment probibiting the manu­fac~e, importation, etc., of all alcoholic liquors-to the Committee on the Judiciary. ·

By Mr. HARMER: Petition of American nurserymen, in favor of restoring the former duty on fruit trees, plants, etc.-to the Commit· tee on 'Vays and J\Ieans.

By Mr. HUDD: Petition of chiefs, headmen, and members of the Menominee Indians of Wisconsin, for an act allowing them to sell the dead and down pine timber on their reservation-to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

By 1\Ir. J. J. O'NEILL: Petition of Typographical Union No.6, of New York City, in favor of the Chace copyright bill-to the Committee on Patents. .

By Ur. PUGSLEY: Petition of H. K. Roads and 54 <?thers, ci.ti~ of Highland Connty, Ohio, to gran~ a high~r rate of penS1on to Wilham Estle-to the Committee on Invalid J>ellSlons.

Bv .Mr. ,V, L. WILSON: Petition of James A-.Iason, of Joseph Hoff­man· and of E. 1\.I. Pitzer, administrator, of Berkeley County, West Virginia, for reference .of their claims to the Cotirt of .Claims-to the Committee on War Claims.

SENATE. FRIDAY, Janua1·y 18, 1889.

The Senate meb at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. _ The Secretary read the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday. Mr. VEST. J\1r. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator rise to a correction

of the Journal? 1\Ir. VEST. No, sir; I rise to move a call of the ~ate. The PRESIDENT pro tem]XJre. If there be no motion to c:orrect or

amend the Jonrnal, it will stand appcoved as read. Tbe Senator fro.m Missouri suggests the absence of a quorum. The roll of the Senate Will be called.

The Secretary called the roll, and after some delay the following Senators had answered to their names: AJtlrich, Farwell, Hoar, Allison, Frye, Ingalls, Berry, George, Manderson, Blair, Gibson, Mitchl.'lll, Chandler, Gorman, Morrill, Colquitt, Gray, Payne, Cullom, Hnle. Platt, Davis, Harris, Reagan, Dawes, Hawley, Sawyer, Edmunds, lliscock, Sherman,

Stewart, Stockbridge, Teller, Vance, Vest, Voorhees, Walthall, Wilson of lows., Wilson of Md..

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum being present, further proceedings under the call will be dispensed with, if there be no ob­jection.

W. R. WHEATON AND C. IT. CHAMBERLAIN-VETO MESSAGE.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid ~efore the Se113:te the following message from the President of the Uruted States; wh1ch was read: To the Sen ale:

I return. without appro""o.l genate bill No. 36-16, entitled "An act for the relief of William R Wheaton and ~&rles ll. Ohamberlain, of Ca¥fornia.." . .

These parties were, respectively, for a. numbe.r of ~ears pl'lor to,llf79, the r~ ter and receiver of the land office at San FranClSCo, m the State o! Oallforn .....