The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-02-15

thought the Hol,Se owed it to itself to in
sist that its requts st should not be trifled
with. he therefore offered resolution re-
questlng the Secretary of War to transmit
to the House at all early day the infOrma-
ton asked for.
Mr.. Townshend, Of Illinois, said that il the
gentleman from Ohio had made inquiry at
the War Department he would have found
that his remarks aud resolutions were un-
called for. The Secretary of War had been
preparing an answer to the first resolution
with as much diligence as possible; and he
(Townshend) was informed that the answer
would be sent to the House in a very few
days. The Secretary of war had no dis.
position either to delay the answer or to
conceal the fact pertaining to the publica-
tion OF the rebellion records.
Mr.. Grosvenor replied that he had no
private channel of information from the
War Department, and in view of the fact
that the House had addressed an inquiry
to the Secretary, he had not deemed it
proper for him to make personal applica-
ton TO know why the Secretary had not
performed his duty. He withdrew the res
olution.
LOTTERY ADVERTISING.
The House then proceeded to the consid-
Grafton OF business pertaining to the Dis
trict of Columbia. The first bill called M
terry tickets in the District of Columbia,
1t was opposed by Mr.. Rogers, of Arkansas
upon constitutional grounds. The bill
would prevent any paper, no matter where
published, from coming into the District,
and would infringe the liberty of the press.
Mr.. Browne, of Indiana, said that &C
cordiDg 10 his Interpretation of the bill,
its provisions applied IS much to papers
published in Maryland or New York, cir
nr1Io IN hn INfoNr 81 II n1lr L.
rs to papers published in the District of
Columbia, but with that Interpretation he
Endorsed the bill fully and without reser-
walton.
Mr.. Grain, of Texes, took issue with the
argument that every scheme of chance was
necessarily crime. He did not believe
that lottery which was authorized by the
organized law Of State of the Union be-
longed to the category of crime He did
not believe that every bazaar given for the
benefit of the G. A. R., that every fair CIV
en- for the benefit of a church was neces-
saTily crime, because, forsooth, moralists
OF certain school of morality held to the
contrary.
Mr.. Cummings, of New York, said tina.
the bill was clear in its provisions. 1t ap-
piled undoubtedly to papers published
outside, but circulating in the District of
Columbia. II Congress had a right to pre-
vertisement columns of a newspaper 1t had
q night to exercise censorship over the
editorial and news columns. Congress was
then to exercise editorial supervision over
the entire press. Who was to be the edi-
tor in chief? The distinguished gentleman
at the other end of the avenue? Who was
to be the city editor? Was it to be the
Speaker of the House? Who were to be
the reporters? The chairmen Of commit
tees? Where was the editorial supervision
to end? The House was playing with Ere;
it had better blow out the match and avoid
a copflsgratioD.
Mr.. Guenther. of Wisconsin, regretted
the growing tendency in this country to-
wards the methods of monarchial Europe.
be was opposed to a censorship of the
press, because 1t was unamerican, unre-
publican, and in this case uncalled for.
The bill was referred to the Committee
on Judiciary. Yeas, III; nays, lis.