St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-03-28

unWlS6 IN every respect, ne QaQ already re-
sisted, even its discussion, for the reason
given, and for many others. He was more
anxious to reach vote than to discuss the
question.
Mr.. Blackburn, in making the closing ar
gument in support of the bill, deprecated any
discussion founded in prejudice on the one
hand or sympathy on the other. He did not
think the speeches in opposition had been
entirely fair. The gentlemen had sought to
invade the sacred precincts of the committee
room and give to the house their crude ideas,
couched in suspicion, as to how the bill ever
came before the house. Pictures have beeu
drawn of the minority picking it up in their
arms and bringing it into the house in the
face of the opposition majority. If the gen.
tleman from Arkansas, Dunn, was familiar
with the rules, he need not be
reminded that gentlemen should not in
wade the committee room. The record
showed that the bill came here fairly. The
chairman of the committee O. ways and
means was the one, on whom, ii any one,
criticism would fall He had reported the
bill, saying he was instructed to do so. He
had said it was not a unanimous report,
though there was no minority report, but
that there was letter of instructions the
committee had given him, and he hoped no
one would be prejudiced by these feelings
which an unwarranted suspicion had prompt
ed. PassinSthen to more direct advocacy of
the BILL he argued in common justice and
fairness, congress should grant the relief
asked for. The government would not
lose single penny, and its financial
condition was such, it did not need the mon
ey involved, and he submitted to business
men, to practical law makers, that no OBJ
ha 1OH0 If
the petition of those people 1t had been
said the passage of the bill would result in
the repeal of the internal revenue system.
The gentleman from New York, Hewitt, no
doubt spoke from his honest convictions,
but he spoke for himself alone, and no other
man who spoke in support of the measure had
views similar to that. The fear that the tax
would be repealed had led certain gentlemen
to approve the bill. What was the power
they were afraid Of? The congress of the
United States. The tax would never
be RENTED unless it were done by
the men who sat here. He could not see
why the bill should be rejected, except at the
instance of prejudice and fanaticism.
Would the government force the maker Of
whisky to export his goods? Who would be
benefited The larger holders, who had cap
ital to meet the expenses of transportation,
white the poor and small holder would be-
come the victim of forced sale. Was there
fairness or logic in that proposition? He was
no advocate of the repeal of the internal
revenue system. There had never been an
anathema or curse against that system which
had been too bitter for him to repeat, but it
was here, and it was a choice between the
evils, whether he would repeal that
system or vote to revise the tariff.
$50 - ,,,INt1 IL, I1n
was not an advocate of that policy, which
would flood the American market with cheap
whisky, in order that the country might be
treated to whisky at five cents drink and
salt and sugar fifty cents pound. The gen
tleman from Pennsylvania, Randall, had
said the course of whisky legislation had been
in the interest of monopoly, and that he OPP
posed it because it was a monopoly. He,
Blackburn, had since thanked God, that with
the aid of search warrant, there was at
least discovered one monopoly OF which
the gentleman was not the champion.
He was delighted to find there
was one thing which secured the gentleman's
opposition to monopoly. Possibly it was ex-
planned on the ground that it was not located
in the gentleman's section. Monopoly in
deed! If this bill were rejected, the only
measure of protection which the distillers
would secure, would be that protection which
would be found in seeking aid from foreign
governments, which their own refused to
acceed to them. He did not believe it went
far enough; he did not think that any period
of limitation should be fixed at all. The
representatives of the whisky interests had
come to congress, setting forth an honest
case, and asking, on fair and honest bust
ness principle, to get relief. They might be
driven away, but he thanked God
they would go as they CAME,
clean handed, the searching suspicious of the
gentleman in opposition, to the contrary,
Notwithstanding He knew that in the last
congress Kelly, Randall, Herbert, Blount and
Dunn had not been opponents of the bill.
Mr.. Blount-''The gentleman mistakes as
to me-"
Mr.. Blackburn-''Did you vote against the
unlimited extension bills
Mr.. Blount-''I have not examined the
record
Mr.. Blackburn-"And have, and that is
the difference"
Mr.. Dunn-"My views have never
changed
Mr.. Blackburn said he did not object to
gentlemen changing their views on great
national policy. He knew they had done
IL from Gne DeSC Oh mOuVeS, DuI ne
submitted that the line should be drawn
somewhere, and the gentlemen should not
set themselves up to shape and fashion the
laws and sentiments of congress, who shifted
theirN convictions on questions of national
policy with the same apparent facility, if not
frequency, that they were supposed to change
their linen.
Blackburn's speech was listened to with
q he 10
warmly appauded by his party of associates.
The general debate having ended Mr..
Blount moved to strike out the enacting
clause of the bill, which was agreed to by 131
to 81. The committee then rose and reported
its action to the house, when it was con-
frmed. Yeas 1856; nays SO; as follows.