The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-03-27

lhsfe vas no nlhef saie anafd fDf The ifeed
people than The bslof We mentioned
these isois without affaiHnlnR a1f
psfly ~ body q metz A. 70 The dgly OF
peat what he snli ths ftnHf day, ihst he
1ldn't think the United Htaiisnushf ~ |
trust "a the southern s,siss ~ important /
question crossing Oni NJ the polloy ~ ad |
Go education, TIE force ~ prejudice /
AID educaii0u was too ftfnns, even
vith the moot intelligent menu that
ne don't think 10 slss /, uoniar upon the
o1niem plated aud ihs expenditure leading
20 ID. This, hoseyer Wa not from
any feeling Oi unklndness to-
ward tho people OF the 5outh, but
from tLe cOnyic ion that owing
10 pItjudicss al race and influences 81
slavery, which had dafkened tbs minds and
would probably continue 10 darken them
Tor some liTle 10 come, they would no,
mpariiAlly distribute the money, lie
thought tue work Of framing the necessary
safeguard was one In which vi.
| the Aonht rs should partiolpAte. There vas
no doubt the work OF distributing the
money should b. LEFT TO the states, bus the
general government should say how II
shonld be expended, Mr.. Sherman con-
.inusd He was willing to 20 as Tar ~ any
man In the attempt TO remove
| the evil OF i.literscy, either from the north
or The south. The safety OF the nation de-
mands It's removal, ana without going into
| tns past or casting reproAches he was will
ling rs far M he was personally concernsd,
TO vote largo SUN every year
uuder well guarded restriction
20 remove the Clark clouds OF ignoranos
heen every mart OF tho land, but he
didn't want the money turned nom its
proper use into adding TO the atlalnments
OF those Already sufficiently educated.
| Ne Hoar defended the bill rom several
dtttiled criticisms made by Mr.. sherman
ard added tnst 10 would not slways do 70
tak1 council from our rs.entmenis.
After an executive session, the senate ac-
jouned.
HOUSE,.
WAsnISoToY, March % -TPress lon
motion of Brltord the senate bill passed
al horzlng the slate of dorado 20 take
land, IN lien NJ O md ~ sectons found 20 be
| mineral lands aud 10 secura 20 that state
tue benefit OF the act donating pnblio lands
tu several states aud territories which may
provide colleges for the benefit OF asriCGl'
! ture. go,
Browne Of Indiana introduced bill
skiing II q felony for person falsely and
| frau1au,ly to ssumo to be an officer OF tue
| United States or any department there' a..
| Passed.
The house then went into committee OF
the whole, Dorsheim-r in the chair, on the
| bouded extension bill.
Potter briefly gave the reasons which inn
pslled him 80 support the III, azure. The
Dill, he said. was for the relief OF mEnufGc
tuTers, in granting which RELIEF congress
would benefit every substantial interest.
IL vas question whether congress would
precipitste = disturbance on the country
when there was PLAIN, open way to avoid
IL.
Kelley thought the demand OF the table
ghiskey syndicate for relief from taxation
temporarily WAS an imprudent one. The
internal system worked great hard.
ship on small farmers, iruit-growers and
cigar makers, and was maintained alone
for TIRES syndicates which had acquired
the three branches OF tho industry. The
manufacturers OF table whisky were the
chief OF these svndicates which found this
tax sure guarantee Of the monopoly OF the
| American market. The large maBufac-
tnrars comparatively few in number,
who had crowded out the small cigar
makers, came next with an assured mono
p0iy. The other OF lhese syndicates vas
the manufacturers Of m.lt liquor, and for
these syndicates the government main
tsiped the internal tax. lie denied the tsX
was kept up for the benefit of the govern
ment, The gentleman from New York
| (PoIt,r) was IN favor oi postponiug for two
| years the payment If taIss. He (kelley)
was in favor Of wiping out the. whole in.
fernal sye.em" He did not wish to make
wnisky free. On The contrary, he would
regulate the use Of all intoxics-
tions. The United States government
could not DO that; it could only
tax and tax blindly. The states could reg
ulats and supervise and restrict and pro-
hibit. In support OF this assertion that the
government did not need revenue derived
from internal revenue, ne declared that
without q dollar derived hon that source
the government TINS year would receive
enough money To meet every legitimate
demand 1t would be healthy day for
the government when the system, which
never had bsen popular, which had been
resisted whom first established, which had
outlivsd it's usefulness and become dis.
grace TO the country and age, was repealed.
Long had changed hisviews on the pend.
| ing measure since first considering it. At
| first it had appeared to him its tendency
was to correct the discrimination which
existed against whisky, but the arguments
Of ths supporters OF the bill had proven too
much fhe query arose in his mind how
il ttere WAS such al unjust burden on one
commodity, it happened such an enormity
| had escaped the attention of former con-
CROSSES, and he bad made further eXsmina'
lion. That examiustion HAD led him TO
the conclusion that whisky was not suffer-
ing under any discrimination, but the
enact Of tDis Duh Noulu pe W credte one III
its f.vor. fhe three years of extension
granted in 1878 has increased the evil OF
over production. The refusal in 'S2 bad
lessened il. Which sx.mple was this bouse
gong to folioep He believed the gentle
men from Kentucky we're speaking with
the most thoro lgn CONVICTIONS, but II this
bill was passed ana the time extended when
the limit was reached instead or 10000 600
gallons on hand, instead OF 500 5000 600 un-
paid the amount would be increased % or
so per cent. Then the question would be,
not when the tax would be paid but whether
it would BIO paid at all, and the question,
therefore, became one not OF relief alone
but OF great public policy and far-reaching
effact
Follett supported the bill.
Fsran and Jordan supported the bill.
Hurd said 1t was idle to claim the pend
ing question was one OF l1aning money. 1t
was q question OF the remission of penalty
and in the consideration OF such question
the house should be governed by precisely
the same principles which governed the ex-
ecutive in granting pardon. 1t should SON.
slider whether it was fair to the government,
last TO the individual and expedient to the
community. II waa fair TO the government
to remit the penalty because IL did not need
money. 1t was just to the individual,
because the proof before the COMMITTEES on
ways and means disclosed that unless re-
llef were granted Lhese men WOuiu ue Dhuk-
rupted. They we're not seeking relief from
over-production hut from penalty which
the law had imposed upon them. When
the object that penalty been designed to
secure had been accomplished, it was polite
for the community that the penalty be re-
united. 10 would establish no precedent.
1t sas q case entirely sui generis, but even
II it did SET precedent the. government
would not lose anything by doing grac-
ous net to class OF citizens |
when no harm could come of it. No gov
ernment wac 40 strong az that which was |