192 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



In the House on June 8th, Mr. Garfield, of 

 Ohio, said : " I ask the House to allow me to 

 submit the proposition to non-concur in all 

 the amendments of the Senate to the sundry 

 civil appropriation bill, and to accede to the 

 request of the Senate for a committee of con- 

 ference." 



Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, said: "I hope the 

 suggestion of the chairman of the Committee 

 on Appropriations (Mr. Garfield) will be ac- 

 cepted. By accepting it, the minority will 

 lose none of their privileges, for they will 

 have the same right to make dilatory motions 

 after the report of the committee of conference 

 comes before the House that they now have." 



Mr. Beck, of Kentucky, said: "This side of 

 the House will, I have no doubt, vote unani- 

 mously for the bill as it came from the Senate 

 with the exception of the bayonet clause. If 

 the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Garfield) will 

 offer a substitute containing every proposition 

 of the Senate except that, we will assent to it." 



Mr. Garfield said : " If the ' bayonet clause,' 

 as the gentleman terms it, were off, and all 

 the other amendments of the Senate retained, 

 I should be compelled to vote against the bill, 

 because there are appropriations to the amount 

 of more than a million and a half of dollars 

 which have been put on by the Senate, to 

 which, as chairman of the Committee on Ap- 

 propriations, I can never consent." 



Mr. Morgan, of Ohio, said : " The question 

 resolves itself to this; shall election by the 

 bayonet be substituted for election by the bal- 

 lot ? The amendment of the Senate is a blow 

 aimed against the freedom of elections. I 

 hope that the House will prove true to the 

 Constitution, and, as a shield, interpose itself 

 between the bayonets of the President and the 

 liberties of the people." 



Mr. Earns worth, of Illinois, said : " I desire 

 to make a point for the benefit of gentlemen 

 on both sides of the House. It seems to me 

 that if we can consider this bill in Committee 

 of the Whole, taking up these various amend- 

 ments, acting upon them, and sending to a 

 committee of conference those to which the 

 House may disagree, gentlemen will have af- 

 terward the same opportunity that they now 

 have to defeat this particular amendment by 

 dilatory motions. I do not like the proposi- 

 tion of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 

 Beck), that we shall accept all the other amend- 

 ments as they have come from the Senate, for, 

 as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Garfield) has 

 said with regard to himself, there are many of 

 those amendments which I cannot vote for. 



"I think that gentlemen by the course they 

 are pursuing are placing themselves in a bad 

 position. It is saying in advance to other 

 members on this floor, 'You shall not have an 

 opportunity either to Discuss or vote upon 

 these amendments; but we will kill the bill 

 anyhow.' " 



Mr. Morgan: "Yes; rather let the bill be 

 killed than that liberty should perish." 



Mr. Farnsworth : " What is to be gained by 

 killing the bill?" 



Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, said : " We 

 have offered to consent to the consideration of 

 the bill, excepting .that amendment." 



Mr. Farnsworth \ "Still, what is gained by 

 killing the bill?" 



Mr. Randall: " We do not want to kill it." 



Mr. Campbell : " I wish to make a parliamen- 

 tary inquiry. If a committee of conference 

 should report in favor of this objectionable 

 Senate amendment, would not the minority of 

 the House then have the same right with re- 

 gard to dilatory motions as they have now ? " 



The Speaker : " The dilatory motions which 

 are now running are running against a majority 

 motion, which is that the House proceed to 

 business on the Speaker's table. That motion 

 is prevented from being submitted to the House 

 by dilatory motions. The same dilatory mo- 

 tions in the same order would, -of course, be 

 admissible after the conference report had 

 been presented." 



Mr. Garfield, of Ohio : " I ask gentlemen to 

 allow me to take the sense of the House on my 

 proposition." 



The question was taken, and (two-thirds not 

 voting in favor thereof) it was decided in the 

 negative yeas 80, nays 61, not voting 99. 



Mr. Banks, of Massachusetts, said: "I move 

 to suspend the rules, and take from the 

 Speaker's table House bill No. 2705, and that 

 the House concur in the seventh, eighth, ninth, 

 and tenth amendments of the Senate, and non- 

 concur in all the remaining amendments, and 

 that a committee of conference be asked on 

 those amendments in which the House non- 

 concurs." 



The question was taken ; and there were 

 yeas 72, nays 72, not voting 96. 



So (two-thirds not voting in the affirmative) 

 the rules were not suspended. 



Mr. Garfield, of Ohio: "I have sent a 

 resolution to the desk which I ask to be read." 



The Clerk read as follows: 



Resolved, That the House non-concur in the 

 amendments of the Senate to the House bill No. 2*T05, 

 being the sundry civil appropriation bill, and agree 

 to a conference thereon ; and that, upon the appoint- 

 ment of such committee, the House do take a recess 

 until eight o'clock on Monday morning. 



The question being put, the resolution as 

 amended was adopted. 



The Chair announces the appointment of 

 Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, Mr. Palmer, of Iowa, and 

 Mr. Niblack, of Indiana, as the conferees on the 

 part of the House on the disagreeing votes of 

 the two Houses on the amendments of the 

 Senate to the bill H. R. No. 2705. 



On June 10th, Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, said : 

 "I rise to make a privileged report." 



Mr. Holman, of Indiana: "Does the Chair 

 hold that it is not in order to move an adjourn- 

 ment at this time ? " 



The Speaker: "The Chair holds that, ac- 

 cording to the usage of the House, a conference 



