Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-07-20


priasins slss. 1000 for tho purchase Of the
tJlobe printing Offices on Pcnnsylvania
avenue in order to provide accommoda-
tiohs for the Government printing ONCE
Agreed to.
THE BILL Passed.
The bill was then reported to the senate.
and all the amendments agreed 10 IN com-
mittee of the Whole were agreed ~ IN bulk
yev rnatter-which were reserved tor
special votes. The discussion OF the irri-
CATION question was again started and
when IL closed the amendments were agreed
TO. The bill was then passed, 8,
The tariff bill was taken mp as unfinished
business and Mr.. Aldrich gave notice that
he would move to take 1t up at2 O'Clock on
Monday. $50,
The Senate then at $40 adjourned till
Monday noon.
House OF Representatives
Tho House resumed consideration OF tho
original package bill. Mr.. Thompson, OF
Ohio, said il was contended that the Oil
would violate the Constitution and was an
attempt TO delegate TO the states power
conferred upOn Congress. He did not so
understand il. Ile regarded it as a simple
regulation of commerce and an exercise OF
tho power Of Congress to regulate COM
merce among the Statesmen q delegation
of that power. IL did not interfere with
interstate commerce. Imported into a
State. when 1t was offered for sale 1t
should become subject to tho laws OF that
State.
PROHIBITION NOT II 1Hr INTEREST or NO
RALITY.
Mr.. Lehlback, of New Jersey, said that
the adoption Of prohibition in some states
he'd brought about the Suprcme-Court de
cision now under review. All the people
of the United States were, or should be,
opposed TO tho evils OF intemperance.
They wore thoroughly confident that the
adoption of prohibitory md locsl-option
laws was not in tho interest Of the good
morals of citizens and not in the interest
of true temperance. In the Prohibition
States since the original package stores had
been opened q moral dopravIty had been
shown which could not be found n any
place where open saloons fiourished. but
where decent conduct and sobriety existed.
Intemperance had never been ruled out by
legislation. From his own personal obser-
walton he was satisfied that intemperance
WAS on the decline. This was largely due
TO the use of that mild beverage
beer There was one sure way IN which
the people Of Kansas and Iowa could get
rid Of original package stores. and that was
not 10 patronize them. Let the people do
that if the sentiment of the community
was against these stores, and II would not
be q week before the shutters would be put
up and the front door closed.
Mr.. Lanham, of Texas, while condemn
ing the evils of intemperance. expressed
his opposition 10 the bill, basing that OPP
position on constitutional grounds.
DELEGATION or POWER NOT AUTHORIZED.
MIR. Rogers, of Arkansas. opposed the
Senate bill because be believed that it was
a delegation of power which Congress bad
no right TO make. The same objection lay
to the House substitute. but this measure
was much more dangerous than that
formulated by the Senate. II the state OF
Maine could prohibit the sale of liquors II
could prohibit the sale Of cotton-seed OIL.
If Iowa could legislate against whiskey it
could legislate against tobacco. Retaila-
tory legislation would follow. and the
whole country would be thrown into an
archy by reason of this retaliation.
PREFEBEECE ToE PERSONAL LIBERTY.
Mr.. HAYES, Of Iowa. opposed the legisla-
ton. proierring little personal liberty to
a good deal of sentiment as TO States
rights. He contended that the prohibit
tory law Of Iowa was not enforced, and he
denied from observations made on re-
cent visit to his State) that there were any
original package saloons in Iowa. At
least he had not seen or heard of one be-
ing there until he returned to Washing
ton.
4 STATES RIGHTS REPUBLICAN,.
Mr.. Stewart, of Vermont. declared that
the drift of the Supreme Court had been
constantly in the direction of centraliza-
ton. He was a Republican, but he was a
States rights man. and as such he was IN
favor of fho handing LEGISLATION.
Mr.. Coswell. Of Wisconsin, favored the
House substitute, aud maintained that
Congress lost its jurisdiction over goods
themoment they were delivered and placed
on sale.
TIE SUPREME COURT DECISION PRoPER.
Mr.. Oates contended that legally the de-
csiOn Of the Supreme Court was entirely
proper and logical. He advocated the
passage of the House substitute. contend
ing that il did not involve a violation or
the Constitution, but gave clause of the
Constitution operation and effect.
Mr.. Mccormick, Of Pennsylvania, sup
ported the House substitute, critcising
the Senate bill as hating, piece-meal legis-
lation. Let the legislation of Congress be
rs broad and far-reaching as the Supreme
Court decision itself. He was not III favor
of singing out one article of commerce and
legislating with regard to 1t.
THE FILL CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROPER.
Mr.. Perkins, of Kansas, believed in the
constitutionality and proDriety of the pro-
posed legislation. That 1t was appropriate
and necessary ought to be appar ent TO all.
In his Judgment no decision rendered in the
history of the Supreme Court had been so
unfortunate 10 tho people Of the country
as what was known as the original-pack-
age decision. he Dred-Scott decision had
not been so unfortunate for the people as
this recent decision, particularly If Con-
gress was left powerless.
HALF-PISr ORIGINAL PACKAGE"
He created some amusement by pro-
ducing and reading the label on an "origi-
nal package" as sold in stores which have
recently been established in Kansas (the
package" contained half-pint bottle).
He thought that under the circumstances
of the case, and in order to secure speedy
legislation, the Senate bill should be passed
81. N.