Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-04-11
The Deadlock.

Mr.. KELLEY, Of PENNSYLVANIA, is re-
ported to have said that he couldn't SEE
how the friends OF the bill 10 reduce the
tariff could possibly complain II the op
ponents Of that bill who greatly out
numbered the opponents Of the dircct-tax
bill, should adopt the tactics of the latter
in order 10 accomplish their purpose.
Nor do we. Mr.. OArEs, OF Alabama,
gave. in the statement Of his which we
printed yesterday, some good reasons
for being opposed to the directtax bill
but he cannot give any reason which
would justify flibustering after the
manner which so large a majority OF the
members Of the House of Represena-
tiyes condemn.
Mr.. OATES censures the Committee on
Rules for presenting to the House reso-
lutions assigning days for the considera-
ton of bills reported from committees
in which it required that Senate Bill l39
direct tax should be considered and
disposed of before any other measure
reported 10y the Judiciary Committee
should receive consideration. He says
that that action OF the committee was
unprecedented. But to call the names
OF the members Of the committee Is to
give assurance that there was no inten-
ton on their part to do wrong, and to
suggest that Mr.. OATES may be mistaken.
The Committee on Rules consists Of
Messrs. CARLISLE, RANDALL. MILLS,
REED, and Cannon but Messrs. CAR
Isle and M1LLs did not vote for report
ing the new rule.
Mr.. CHANDLER having come no doubt
70 the conclusion that the direct tax
ought to be refunded to the States which
have paid it or else the States that have
not paid it ought to he made to pay it.
introduced into the Senate on Monday
bin "for tie completion OF the direct
tax Of 1861 If this bill becomes q law
Virginia, instead Of receiving over five
hundred thousand dollars from the Ma
tional Treasury, will have to pay into that
Treasury over two hundred thousand
dollars. We do not expect Mr.. GRAN
9tTR's bill to become law. We men
ton il, however, as a practical illustra-
ton of the state Of the case as between
the tihbusters and the friends Of the di-
rect-tax BILL
We notice that on Wednesday last,
when the fiibustering began, ali the
members Of the Virginia delegation who
were present voted b agree TO COM
promise proposed by Mr.. TAYLOR, of
Ohio-namely, Messrs. T. II. b.
BROWNE, BowDEN, WISE, J.. r. Brown,
HOPKINS, O'FERRALL, LEE, Bowen, and
YOsT-nine in all.
We repeat that the arguments Of the
opponents Of the direct-tax bill are some
Of them good, not TO say unanswerable.
But they do not 50 impress the minds of
q majority Of the members OF the House
OF Representatives, nor even the minds
OF majority of the Democratic members.
Much less do they justify the charge
brought against the friends of the mea-
sure that they are trying to deplete
the Treasury and thus do away
with the necessity for the reduction
of the tariff. The bill sppropriates less
than twenty millions of dollars. AS that
sum would satisfy all claims there could
be no repetition Of the direct-tax legis-
lation, whereas the surplus in the Urea
sury is so large that twenty millions
expended would leave it still huge pile
Besides, the amount Of the surplus is
constantly increasing.