The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1888-03-06

WASHINGTON, March Especial. If
such thing We're possible, Premier Mills's
alleged tariff bill is a thousand times more UNI
popular today than it was ON yesterday, when
the child was born. The great man from
Texas has strutted the halls of the capitol to-
day like boatswain on quarter deck, ready to
call out to his gallant seamen to ride the
waves OF the approaching storm. He has gone
from place 10 place i'll search of compliments
for his cable effort" but from no quarter did
he receive even the faintest whisper of approx.
al, save from the members of his own commit
tee, who, as he says, have been whipped into
line" The clouds of darkness
have swooped down upon the
bald and grizzled head of the Texas command
er, so called. To THE CoNsTITU-
TIoN correspondent Representatives Clements
Carlton, Crisp, Norwood, Grimes and Barnes
each said they had not as yet read the bill at
all, but would do SO as soon as they could get
a copy of it. Mr.. Stewart, while not suited as
he would like to be- will support the bill be-
cause he believes it the best that can be done
at the present. time. He has estimated the re-
duction to be over S55, 100000 annually, and
looks upon that portion Of the bill placing salt
and cotton ties and bagging upon the free list
as especially fortunate TO the cotton growing
states.
n A CONFEDERATE SCHOOLS RENT. e
Mr.. Lee, of Virginia, offered an amendment
approprating $4,000 for the relief OF the Pro-
testant Episcopal Theological Seminary and
High school of Virginia.
Mr.i Brewer of Michigan, thought that the
amendment which provides for the payment of
rent would prove very dangerous precedent,
If it were enacted into law. 1t would be fol-
lowed by thousands of claims asking for COM
pensation for occupations of schools and
churches i'll the south. Mr.. Lee advocated
the amendment as an act of justice, and
thought that the time had come when the ami
mosities of war should have passed away. sThe
institution was an old one, and had its alumni
in every part OF the union, and throughout the
yhF,ln hol in fln fola
No confederate soldier had ever passed over
its grounds, and majority of its faculty had
remained under the jurisdiction Of the United
States.
side they prayed for, to which Mr., Lee replied
that they prayed for all sinners.
Mr.. GroSyenor, of Ohio, placed his opposition
| to the amendment on the broad ground that
the government had never touched such a
| claim as this and never ought to. The property
| was within q seeded state. If it was an
| organization for public purposes, it could not
| be exempted from the action of Virginia when
| she went out of the union. If it was private
| corporation, it was affected by the political
| sentiment of its owners. 1t was a strong sug-
gestion against the justice of the claim that in
| stead of being pressed upon its merits, it was
sought to be incorporated in the bill to which
there was no objection.
| Mr. Cutcheon, of Michigan, regarded the
| amendment as a far-reaching measure and one
| which, if enacted into law, would be followed
| by flood of similar claims involving hundreds
| of millions of dollars. If this claim was paid,
| claims would come i'll as rent for compensa-
| ton for me ,cupation of every camp ground
| which the union soldiers used after crossing
| the Potomac river. There would be nothing to
| prevent the owner of the battle field of ManaS-
| sas bringing in q claim for occupation of the
| field by the United States army during the
| battle.
| Mr.. Spooner, of Rhode Island supported
| the amendment. There was, to his mind,
vast distinction between this claim and claims
| for payment for the occupation of property
within the confederate lines. This seminary
! was situated in that part of Virginia which
| was within the union lines from the beginning
| to the end of the war. The territory within
/ which it was situated had during the entire
| war been represented in this house.
| Mr.. Allen, of Michigan, thought that COM
| mon fairness required that the government
| should pay for the use and occupation of this
property from the close of the war up sto the
| time it was vacated by the army. But he was
opposed to paying for its use prior to that time.
| IL was within the union lines, it was true but
it was only kept there by federal bayonets.
! Mr. Long, of Massachusetts, inquired
| whether the same was not true of property in
| Washington.
Mr. Allen replied that it was not. If the
| federal troops had laid down their guns for
| twenty minutes this property would have been
! occupied by confederate soldiers. The semi
nary was upon the picket line and was in the
| od1HC pOolClOll do IL SbtllllIdlJ III 0GOI8ld'
| Mr.. Holman, of Indiana, offered an amend
ment providing that nothing in this appropria-
ton should be construed as recognizing the liza
| bility of the United States to pay for the use
and occupation of property by the United
States army, at the seat of war during the late
war.
Mr.. Holman's amendment was rejected and
MI. Lees amendment was adopted 1902 to "a.
The bill was then agreed to and reported to
the house.