OCR Text |
Show KiiHtls, of Alaliania, Wonts the Country to Understand That He Did Vote. The Approval of the Journal in the House Occupies Half an Hour. HOAR ON STANFORD'S CREDENTIAL The Supreme Court Cuts the Central Pacific Out of About $200,000. After the Apportionment Bill the Eight-Hour Eight-Hour and Copyright Bills Will Come Up. DOINCS IN ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. A Brief Mammary of the Kveat. of the Day at the National Cap.tal. Washington, Jan. 27. Tho senate met at noon anil the journal of Thursday, Thurs-day, covering the proceedings of Thursday, Thurs-day, Friday, Saturday and Monday was approved. Eustis, rising lo a personal explanation explana-tion read from the Washington Post the following sentence: "Mr. E'istiB was also tiroiiKht trotn his home altnougU be did Dot arrive until after tbo vuto bad bofu taken." He said tho statement was wholly inaccurate. in-accurate. He had been in tho chamber an hour before the first vote was taken; was present when tho vote was taken and did vote. He deemed it proper to make tho explanation because of the importance of tho votes yesterday. The credentials of Stanford and Irby, senators elect from California and South Carolina for the term beginning March 4, 1801, were presented and read and placed on rile. Those of Stanford were criticized by Hoar as unsatisfactory in form, the governor undertaking to "commission Stanford instead of simply certifying to his election." Harris suggested that there was abundant abun-dant time before tho expiration of the present term to have them put in proper form. HOl'SE. The approval of the Journal occupied half an hour. Springer of Illinois rising to a question ques-tion of privilege, offered a resolution reciting that the speaker's conduct yesterday yes-terday in deciding the motion to be dilatory, was unlawful. McKinley of Ohio made a point of order that the resolution was not a privileged one, the speaker having exercised ex-ercised bis right under the rules to decide de-cide the motion to be dilatory. The speaker did not think the action of the chair in deciding the motion to be out of order on the ground that it was dilatory could be made a question of privilege. If it could be, then the purpose of the rule of preventing dilatory dila-tory motions was nugatory. He sustained the point of order and Springer appealed and McKinley moved to table the appeal; motion agreed to yeas 13S, nays 10.'). |