Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1890-03-28
FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH %, 1890.
THE LOSS OF THE BLAIR BILL.


For it is not only defeated, but-though
its author introduced similar bill two days
later-is to all appearances, lost. This, be-
cause in 1884 only eleven votes were cast
against it: in 1886 the same number; in
1888 twenty-nine, and in 1890 thirty-seven.
This increasing opposition gives little hope
that its successor will get even as many
votes as the defeated bill got last week. 1t
may be said to have passed out OF party
politics. for of those who wanted to kill it
either byvotes Oh pairs, % were Democratic
Senators and 20 were Republicans. 1t was
made plain by the vote that neither party
as a party. can pass the bill-the Re-
publican party cannot command enough
Republican Senators in it's favor, nor can
the Democrats command enough Demo-
cratic Senators. 1t is loss that in common
with nine-tenths of the voters of Virginia
we deplore. and about the only redeemiDg
feature of the defeat is that the two Virgil
MIA Senators represented these voters, both
by their speeches and their votes. The loss
is to be deplored because the appropria-
ton by the general government to the cause
of education in the late slave States was a
measure of constitutionality of equity, and
of supreme Importance to the safety OF the
Nation in giving it intelligent Wielders OF
the ballot. 1t was measure that in eleva-
ting and prolonging the life of the Nation
was immensely superior in its claims to
the river and harbor, and many other appro-
priations that Congress makes and accepts
as undisputed both because of precedent and
merit 1t was an assistance that every ex-
slave State needed. The facts in its favor
seem to have been so powerful, that even up
to the beginning of the roll-call Its success
was thought assured, and even now it's de-
feat is attributed by some to the fact that
Just as the vote was about to begin, Senator
Hawley read a prospective congressional
balance sheet to show that if the Blair bill
was passed there would be deficit of some
Seventy-Three Millions in the Treasury
besides making the reduction OF tariff taxa
ton impossible. He read table of appro-
priations to be made for the next fiscal
year, showing an aggregate of expenditure
of 1923, 0O0, 900, against an estimated reve-
hue of $450,00O,O0O, making deficit of
$73, 100000.
We give below the vote on the bill, re-
marking that Mr.. Blair's name is found on
the negative side, he having voted that way
in order to move reconsideration. He did
move it afterwards, and the motion has
not yet been voted on:
Republicans-Messrs Allen, ALI
son, Chandler, Cullom, Dawes, Dolph Ed
munds, Evarts, Higgins, Hoar, Mcmillan,
Henderson, Mitchell, Moody, Morrill,, Petit
grew, Platt, Squire, Stanford, Stewart, Stock
bridge, Teller, Wilson of Iowa. Democrats
Messrs. Barbour, Colquitt, Daniel, George,
Hampton, Hearst, Pasco, Pugh-31.
Nays-Republicans-M Aldrich, Blair.
Hiscock, Ingalls,, Jones of Nevada, Pierce,
Plumb, Sawyer, Sherman, Spooner, Walcott.
DemOcrats-Messrs. Bate, Berry, Blackburn
Blodget, Coclzrell, Coke, Faulkner, German,
Gray, Harris, Jones of Arkansas, Kenna,
Morgan, Payne, Reagan Turpie, Vest, Voor-
hees. Walthall, Wilson, of Maryland-37.
The following pairs were announced !:
Messrs. Butler, Vance, Paddock, Casey,
Gibbons, Brown and Call, (who were for
the bill,) with Messrs. Quay, Mcpherson,
Eustis, Ransom, Washburn, Beck and
Cameron, (who were against it,.