People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 October 1893 — THE SILVER DEBATE. [ARTICLE]

THE SILVER DEBATE.

Synopala of the Dtocuaalon In the United States Senate. On the 17th, immediately after the journal •was read Mr. Dolph (rep, Ore.) rose to correct It on the ground that It was Inaccurate in failing to recite the presence of Messrs. Allen (pop. S. D.) and Kyle (pop. Neb.) on sundry roil calls, they haying been present in the senate and tailed to vote. Mr. Hill (dem., N. Y.) said he' had never shared in the criticism that in the absence of rales the speaker of the house had not the right to tell the truth and to make the journal refuse to tell a lie: that the speaker had not the right to exercise his own senses, and when a member sat right in front of him and aid not vote to have the journal show the fact of his presence. The senate, Mr. Hill said, was clinging to some traditions of past ages and there was no sense in it: there was no reason for it. and never had been. There was no harm in what was proposed to be done. The rights of no one would be invaded. The duty of senators was greater than that of merely remaining in their seats; it was their duty to take part in the transaction of business He believed that the presiding officer of the senate had a perfect right under the rules, upon a rollcall either upon his own suggestion or that of any senator, to first ask a senator who is in his seat to vote. If the senator refused to vote then the presiding officer had the right to direct the clerk to enter upon the journal that the senator was present and declined to vote. Mr. Morgan (dem., Ala.) said he was not surprised that the senator from New York (Mr. Hill) had championed the rulings of the speaker of the house because he was the unfortunate instrument, when he presided over the senate of New York, in the introduction of that heresy not only into the democratic party and its traditions, but also into the constitutional rights of legislative bodies He said he did not wonder that a politician born and raised in New York, where arbitrary force was the moving agency in all political machinery, both democratic and republican, had at last come to believe that there was nothing else to be done in politics but simply to get a majority of the votes and then use the power which that gave. Mr. Morgan went on to speak of the “alliance and coalition" between certain democratic senators and ‘certain republican senators as certain to disrupt the democratic party, and he asked whether his democratic colleagues were willing to strike that fatal blow. The coalition in the senate was created in defense of the national banks and for the purpose of destroying silver money.

Mr. Gray (dem., Del.) said for himself the charge was untrue. Mr. Washburn (rep, Minn.) asked Mr. Morgan what he meant by his declaration of a coalition Mr. Morgan replied that he meant an agreement between the democrats and republicans who favored the pending bill that it should'not be amended in any particular whatever. Mr. Washburn desired to state that there was no coalition of any description An exciting controversy followed between the two gentlemen, in the course of which Mr. Washburn said he was not to be stamped upon and insulted for his position Mr. Morgan responded deflantlv that he was responsible for every word he said, either in the senate chamber or outside. Did Mr. Wash burn understand that? asked Mr. Morgan To this Mr. Washburn responded: “Perfectly.” Mr. Morgan then went on with his argument. In the course of it he alluded to Mr. Sherman as one of the leaders of the coalition and Messrs. Lodge and Hill he called “the juveniles from Massachusetts and New York.” On the question of closure Mr. Morgan defied senators to establish such a rule. He would not be alarmed into subordination to the scheme of anyone by anything of the kind, nor would he surrender his constitutional rights in response to howling, rampant demands of concession to (he national banks. “If I must die here," said Mr. Morgan in closing, “I will die like an honorable man at my post." Mr. Hill (dem., N. Y.) said it was true that there were politicians in New York. He supposed there were no politicians in Alabama. They were all statesmen from that country. Mr. Morgan had spoken of his lifelong devotion to the "I supposed," said Mr Hill, “that for a brief period my friend was supporting another constitution, but I may be mistaken.” As to Mr. Morgan's talk about dying at his post, Mr. Hill had heard like statements by men who were going to “die in the last ditch,” but, said Mr. Hill, “there are many of them left.”

Mr. Hill said he did not know to what Mr. Morgan referred by the corrupt politics and corrupt elections of New York, “but let me tell him that from all I have heard of the election methods of Alabama and other sections of the south I think those of New York will stand easy comparison." Mr. Hill also said to his Alabama critic that, “if we may judge from the report in the contested election case of Cobb vs. Wilson, the political methods of the senator himself are not above suspicion.” Mr. Sherman (rep., O.) said the rules of the senate were made to expedite public business in an orderly, proper manner, and their object was to enable the senate to legislate. While this was the primary object of all rules, it was equally important to give the minority full and free opportunity of debate. But when the rules were used by the minority to obstruct legislation those rules should at once be altered. Whenever a minority used means of obstruction unduly it created a revolution. The obstructive methods which had been pursued in the last two months had gone far beyond anything he had ever witnessed in his senatorial experience. In fact, obstructive measures had been resorted to which had never been invoked since the senate was first organized. It was then a dignified body of twenty-six members and it went to the extreme verge of liberality in debate. The practice of stopping a senator in the midst of his speech to suggest t h e absence of a quorum was an innovation and was a kind of obstruction that had never been resorted to. When the republicans were in the majority they had never shrank from the responsibility which was now upon the democratic party. He said: “We ask our brothers on the other side, for whose abil ity and standing we have the highest respect, to meet together and consult with each other. If they do not like the president's plan give us some other, and in God’s name let us settle this important question for the people of our country. Then we will take it into our consideration. If we can agree with you we will. We will not follow your example. If we do not agree with you we will give you a manly ‘no.’ You must agree, or else you must abdicate, and this side will take the responsibility of doing something.” Mr. Morgan asked whether the senator (Mr. Sherman) would vote for the unconditional repeal of the entire Sherman act “No,” replied Mr. Sherman, emphatically, “and no other man who understands the subject would do it, in my judgment.” Mr. Morgan said he intended to offer an amendment to that effect and get a vote upon it

Mr. Sherman stated that he would vote against it with the greatest pleasure, and then, in conclusion, said: ‘‘Break down this barrier now maintained by the United States senate, break up this violent . nd insolent obstruction to the will ot the majority: give the senate free power and play and in ten days from this time the skies will brighten, business will resume its ordinary course and ‘all the clouds that lowered on our house be in the deep bosom of the ocean buried. ’ ” Mr. Mills (dem.. Tex.) said Mr. Sherman had •hot to the mark when he said that the responsibility rested upon the democratic party. Mr. Butler (dem., S. C.) inquired whether the senator from Texas would participate in and be bound by a caucus of democratic senators Before Mr. Mills could answer the question, Mr. HUI asked Mr. Butler if be would go into a caucus of democratic senators and representatives and abide by the result. Mr Butler said he would, and In turn asked Mr. Hill whether he would go into a caucus of democratic senators and be bound by the result Mr. HUI preferred to go into a caucus where the entire body which had power to legislate TO represented, and of that body the senate was ouly a part. Oe the Wth Mr. Morgan (dem, Ala) took the Sow t&e motion of Mr. Dolph (rep, orr. ■ ',e »se»4 the journal so as to show the

presence of Mr. Alien (pop., Neb.) when the roll was called it 1:0 o'clock Monday evening, that senator having failed to answer when his name was called. In the course of his remarks he said that while the decision cited by Mr. Hill (dem., N. Y.) relative to the right of the house to make rules to ascertain the presence of a quorum might be perverted into a support of Mr. Hill's position, as a judicial decision it could not be placed in that category except by the artfulness of an astute politician. A fair-minded lawyer could not do it There were men in the world whose consciences were so easy that they could follow the supreme court in all its decisions, who could bend their consciences to any purpose that political necessity required at any time,* but such men bad no just conception of the right and the rights of the representatives of the people and of the states.

Referring to Mr. Hill's allusion to his (Mr. Morgan's) connection with the confederacy Mr. Morgan said the eleven states which went out of the union did so, not to dissent from the constitution, but to preserve it. He had more respect for those who had the pluck to shoulder a gun and go to the front than for those who continually referred to that period, but remained at home. It was only those who hired substitutes and pleading the baby act remained at home who were in the habit of rising in the senate and out and referring to the fact that he (Mr. Morgan) had participated in the secession of the south. He was not ashamed of the fact. Mr. Morgan, referring to the action of the secretary of the treasury, said he did not believe congress could confer the discretion upon that officer to coin or not to coin at his will. The secretary in this respect had but partially executed a mandatory law. Mr. Morgan argued that the Sherman act should be repealed out and out At the conclusion of Mr. Morgan's speech a motion by Mr. Voorhees to lay on the table the motion of Mr. Doi oh to amend the journal was agreed to —45 to 3. Mr. Teller (rep, Cot) then moved to amend the journal so that it would show his presence on a certain roll-call when he did not respond to his name, and on this motion he addressed the senate He quoted from a statement of Mr. Carlisle in regard to insisting upon the passage of the repeal bill and said: "What right has the secretary of the treasury to interfere with us in this matter? I resent it myself as a breach of privilege. I have heard a good deal about the dignity of the senate. The misconduct art one senator or a dozen senators will never degrade the senate. The senate will be degraded, however, whenever it abandons its prerogative of independent legislative action given it by the constitution. Whenever the senate shall take its orders from cabinet officers or an executive, then there shall be degradation of the senatedegradation that the people of the country shall take notice of and understand. When we decline to be stampeded by boards of .trade, chambers of commerce, etc., we will command the respect of the American people But when we surrender our convictions, whether it be on the advice of the president or on account of public clamor, the degradation will begin and the usefulness of the senate will be at an end.” He quoted from President Cleveland's letter to Gov. Northen, of Georgia, and insisted that it was an attempt to influence the action of the senate on this measure.

Mr. Daniel (dem., W. Va.) regarded those who called themselves the majority on the pending question more responsible for the delays which had occurred in coming to a vote than those whom they described as a minority. He wished to say to Mr. Mills, ot Texas, that he, for one, was ready Instantly to submit the question to a majority of democrats who had been sent to the senate charged with responsibility. Was Mr. Mills ready to do this and abide the result? Mr. Mills did not reply to this question, but further along in the debate said there was no doubt a paramount and permanent power in both houses to get the rules necessary to enable them to dispatch public business "I do not blame the minority," he said, "I blame the majority for sitting still like children and permitting the government to be spar alyzed. The government is in a state ot paralysis. You cannot pass an appropriation bill, or a bill reducing taxation, nor help yonr commerce, because we are told the senate has left its rules and abdi cated its power, and this great branch of the government, intrusted with power to legislate for the people, is a dead body until the minority permits it to act” At 5:15 p. m. Mr. Voorhees moved a recess until 10 o’clock Thursday morning, which was agreed to.

On the 19th Mr. Stewart (rep, Nev.) took the floor on the motion to amend the journal and argued that in the midst of an exciting discussion was not the time to change the rules of the senate. He said the appeal to the vice president to make himself infamous throughout all ages was most outrageous. He was an American and would not lay his hand upon the constitution and laws ot the country. The rules of the senate were made for occasions like the present, to protect the minority, and they would protect the minority. Mr. Dubois (rep., Idaho) regarded the present as an unfortunate occasion to attempt to change the rules. In reply to a question by Mr. Hill Mr. Dubois said that any bill which the people of this country desired passed, and on which they had voted, would be passed by the senate. He said a majority favored a compromise. In respect to the criticism of himself for not voting Mr. Dubois said It was his pleasure and delight to sit in the senate, but if his expulsion from the senate would prevent the passage of the repeal bill he would not hesitate for a moment.

Mr. Palmer (dem.. Ill.) regarded Mr. Teller s motion that his (Teller’s) name be entered as present on a roll-call, when he did not answer, as a personal request Mr. Palmer went on sarcastically to remark that he had understood the senate was a courteous body and that a personal request of a senator was always acceded to on the lofty ground of courtesy. Mr. Call (dem., Fla.) opposed any change in the rules and was followed by Mr. Butler (dem., S. C.) in an impassioned argument against the propositions of the senator from New York (Mr. Hill) and the senator from Texas (Mr. Mills). If their doctrine were the correct one why not make a bonfire of the rules of the senate. He declared that the proposition "to railroad through the senate a motion to change the rules” to enable, as was claimed, the majority to transact business, would never be done with his consent In answer to a question by Mr Hill as to how a vote could be reached on a bill, Mr. Butler replied that when the majority had a strong, determined, sincere anxiety to pass a bill It wpuld make some concession in order to get it through, and. if that was not done, the bill ought not to pass. A running debate ensued between Messrs Butler, Hill. Mills and Palmer us to the right of the majority to change the rules at its pleasure so as to secure a vote on the measure favored by the majority, Mr. Butler contending that “the minority is clothed by the constitution and the rules made in pursuance of it with power to prevent the passage of obnoxious measures, and when the majority has expressed itself in a constitutional way, in accordance with the rules, then I submit it has the power and right to pass measures, and not till then..” Mr. Palmer (dem., HL) said he understood the interpretation of the senator from South Carolina to be that unless the minority consents the majority cannot vote. The minority had the right, in good faith, to exercise the full est debate, but he denied that it had the right to debate for the purpose of exhausting time. Mr. Butler said ho one had done that, and wanted to know who was to determine whether he was obstructing er not. Mr. Palmer replied “first, the senator himself, and secondly, the majority of the senate.”

After further sallies between the senators engaged in the controversy, Mr. Butler closed with an appeal for a compromise Mr. Teller withdrew his motion to amend the journal, and Mr. Peffer (pop., Kan.) resumed his speech against the pending repeal bill, and at 5:05 a recess was taken until 10 o’clock on the 2oth. On the 23th Mr. Voorhees (dem., Ind.) offered a resolution to amend the rules, saying that it was practically the proposition heretofore presented by Hill (dem., N. Y.). It provides that whenever a bill or resolution is pending as unfinished business and has been debated thirty days it sna be in or er or any senator at tny time to make a motion to fix the time for taking the vote.-. This motion is not to bo amendable or debatable, and is to bo put immediately, and if

agreed to by a majority of all the members of the senate the vote on the bill or resolution is to be bad at the time fixed in the motion, without further debate or amendment, exeept by unanimous consent And no motion of any kind is to be entertained during the pendency of the motion to fix a time or at the time fixed until the bill or resolution is finally voted upon. Mr. Peffer (pop, Kan.) offered an amendment to the pending repeal measure It proposes free coinage of gold and silver under the provisions of the act Jof 1837 that revives that act. Senator Peffer stated the points in which this amendment differed from that heretofore offered by him proposing free coinage, and which had been voted down some time ago. He then went on with the speech commenced bv him on the 13th, and continued in installments on Saturday, Monday and Thursday. Speaking of the course urged upon the vice president, he said: "Let no Caesar come into this body, and then there will be no need of a Brutus.” He said further: “If we defeat the holy or unholy alliance of administration with Wall street this struggle will become memorable in history, for the senate of the United States will have shown Itself to be the last refuge of constitutional liberty." After he had spoken for two hours, but without nearing the end of his discourse, Mr. Peffer at 5 pm. yielded to a motion to take a recess until the morning of the 21st, which was agreed to. On the 21st Mr. Peffer (pop, Kan.) continued and concluded his speech against the pending repeal measure, after which Mr. Jones (rep., Nev.) delivered the third Installment of his speech begun by him the previous week. He argued that even under the operation of the Sherman act the supply of money was less than the wants of the country required, and declared that the repeal of that law would be one of the worst grimes that could be committed against society. Mr. Jones yielded the floor with the understanding that he could continue it at a subsequent period, and Mr. Harris (dem., Tenn.) explained an interview credited to him in a New York journal in which he was made to say that the vice president would be killed in his seat if he dared to rule in a given way on a given question. He said that he had made no such utterance and that no conclusion from what he did say could be drawn more absurd and untrue. A recess was taken until 10 o’clock Monday morning. On the 23d Mr. Stewart (rep., Nev.) gave notice of an amendment which he intended to offer to the repeal bill proposing a conference to be held at Washington within nine months between delegates of the United States, Mexico, Central and South America, Hayti and San Domingo, for the adoption of a common silver coin to be legal tender in all commercial transactions between the citizens of the countries represented in the conference. Mr. Jones (rep , Nev.) resumed his speech in opposition to the repeal measure, contending that the standard of a country could be neither gold, silver nor a material thing, but that whatever the standard might be it war, quantitative. and the value of each unit depended upon the number of units, and that there could be but a single standard in a country, and that cne of quality. He said the people of the United States did not propose to be left out of the consideration as to what should be the material of their money. The United States was not yet a dependency of Great Britain and the president was not a governor general. Mr. Jones yielded the floor to Mr. Teller (rep., Col.), who said that, before answering the question which had been asked him as to whether he thought the government of the United States could, with the coinage of silver, maintain the parity between gold and silver, he desired to lay down one general proposition which seemed to him to be necessary to the conclusion he had reached. While money was not merchandise or a commodity in the sense that the term “commodity” was used, its value was determined by the law of supply and demand. He then said that the government of the United States could maintain the parity of the two metals because he did not believe more silver woula come to the country than its business would absorb In other words, the demand would be equal to the supply. If the whole world would return to the bimetallist condition existing prior to 1873, they would return practically to the prices of that period, except as to those things as to which discoveries had lessened the cost of production. In reply to a question by Mr. Palmer (dem., Ill.) Mr. Teller said the free coinage of silver by the United States alone might not produce such favorable condition, but he contended that if the United States proceeded to a system that recognized silver as money on equal terms with gold, our example would be followed by other countries, and then the monetary system of the world would return to the system that prevailed prior to the demonetization of silver by Germany, thte United States, the Latin union, etc. Mr. Teller yielded the floor, and Mr. Stewart (rep., Nev.) spoke in advocacy of his proposed amendment for a pan-American conference. At 5 o’clock Mr. Stewart yielded to a motion for a recess until 10:30 on the morning of the 24 th.