The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-02-07

rights.
Aaderson spoke In support Of the meas
uf-. A terrible disEafe wrs threntgnin'
ufeof tho greatest Industries ui the cIuu.
% and eurxfeHs had the power or lut
afouui Oi uri.rctiug general pun'n fiFl'H
aud property tp Ilamp a. out, and 80. the
proposition 10 du sp Was met hf coo "'l
uli argument. ttatl alyHrDIsliY nld liatr
rights. Nhlo TO rhois hllmAl i.duH'u
wss Ia dagger n being nrrlnirird, ~ w.
commended ihai uuufr,sl bad mo- power 40
si'p over the slatn lIns ana eradicate UH
airrAgc. No fucn uul elton WH.
mnde, however, when int M.1f.Haini
river loyss bill came up. GonIimen
were willing tina. whole herds ga asuol''
turll states Buuuit ua puriuilcl 10 90 10
TIE demntliOn bmiihHIerns before thry
would yost any ppgrr IN tho general gov
Cfuurut 10 pfcY,nt lt.
Naldrow, while igyoilug tho g,aeral pur'
port Of the bill, 0ppllsd certain provision
In it, sud ravo notice that he would al .ho
proper tins move 20 fecOmmit 10 Tor
amendment and revision.
Peters and Lsiraucs supported tue Lil
and dwell upon tbs Immediate necessity ul
taking steps Tor thu eradication oI Piturc-
pueumpris.
Cameron ,xprr,srd hsa5 = concurrence In
Tho purpose vi tns itgitlation snd iaiied 10
had .pv constitutional Stumbling blocker
III 'nC WY W Fullik ~ ~ a. - 49,
struction OF tho constitution .hOuld always
be ,ivOn when great public good Is to br
ACCOMPLISHED and great pubic eyii
ayertsd.
RoSo!l conienGcd tina. The pr,pos-
el legislation wes absolutely nee
osssry to protect the cattle
until II wss not possible for the statesdo No
VA bout federal mid.
Prrkiu. 1n,ended that congrrsa hsd the
perfect right aud power TO Lex slate upon
he suhject.
BelioTd asid he would not vots Tor IN .
bill unes, n wac fundamentally re-
constructed but ne was not going
10 vote against II under the II. nsy
pralert OF state rights. He believed thit
The duty OF this great nation was to proitcl
the heath OF its people. He objected 70 the
bin because IL authorized some scientific
orenk, appointed by the cImm l5sioner 81
agriculture, TO take charge Of the whole
suhjest aud iu1e'isats the con-
dillon OF cattle shipped from ore
state to another. That was
too great power 10 put IN the hsnds OF
any ono ngen, Of this nsuon. Ho hope /
tue bill would bo r6cpmmi ted.
Hepburn made a constitutional argument
in support OF the view that the Federal
government could, in tie exercise OF Us
mower 10 regulate commerce, legisla,e in
the manner proposed by the pill.
Cox, OF New York, spoke against the
bill, which, no asserted, entrepched upon
the rights OF states aud tended To break
down tho old and we'll organized division
OF state aud Federal power.
Gibson, passing over the CONSTITUTIONAL
question with reference 10 the time
when the republican party. Rugged
the doctrine OF state rights 10
i.s bosom a. enabling It to ateal the pres!'
dency, criticised the bill upon its mrrits'
He did rot mean to reflect upon
the committee on agriculture, ont ina
committee must have boon ovsrreschsd. Tor
the bill wasa fraud on It's face and intended
TO psrpetiate great wrong upon
the people. IL proposed TO create
force OF officers who should take
the pl.ce OF collectors OF inter
nal revenue and search every man
farm, and he was utterly as,onished
that the committee put such unlimi'eo
DO gers in the hands of subordinate ollicers.
aud open to such wide extent the doors Oh
tina treasury. ,.
Pending further action the committee
rose and the house adjourned.