The Indianapolis journal., 1890-07-19

Rouse shall consider the bankruptcy bill,
ordered ON after ahs raaSns
of the journal.
Mr.. Brecklnridge of Kentucky raised the
question of considera tion. and the House
deci0ed-yeas, 1i5 yeas, 55-to consider the
resolution. One hundred and twenty-four
members were announced as paired on this
vote.
After debate. at the sngg estion of Mr..
Adams of Illinois, the resoiu tion was mod
insa his,. :. SO as to provide that APPROPRIATION
Grafton of the two bills, and the resolution
was then adopted.
The original package" bill was then
taken up. T.. Ii. Taylor, in advocating the
measure, said that never had such blow
been given to State sovereignty and State
rights as had been given by the ascertain
nlent that under the Constitution of the
United States the citizen of a foreign State
might take into another State any property
that was q subject of commerce and there
sell it without liability to taxation or the
burden of taxation. He did not advocate
the bill in the interest of any prohi ibitiOn
party or any prohibition sentiment, but be-
cause the best interests of the whole peo-
pie demanded it's passage. While he in
nnitely preferred the House substitute, he
reared that its adoption would endanger
the legislation, and consequently he ad-
vised the adoption of the Senate bill.
Mr.. Culbertson of Texas said the effect of
the Senate bill would be to transfer q power
vested exclusively in Congress to the
States, and the States themselves would
execute a power which they had parted
with when the Constitution was adopted.
There was no power in Congress to sub
stitute an agent to do it's constitutional
duties. The Senate bill rested on the false
and faliacious theory that the States might
rely on Congress for grant OF power to
regulate the traffic in intoxicating liquors
If the substitute should become a law. it
would be as we'll to strike from the Consti
tuition the clause giving Congress the right
TO make commercial regulations. Com
mercial chaos would ensue; if the State of
10 wa could prohibit the importation of in
toxicating liquors 1T could exclude tobacco,
and it could 60 further than guarding the
health and morals Rf it's citizens; it could
protect Its own products against those OF
other States. 1t would be better to amend
the Constitution rather than to mangle it
by these makeshifts.
Mr.. Adams of Illinois said that the un-
licensed original package shop was the
pause of all the present agitation. Every
body was agreed that the unlicensed shop
should be abolished. He believed that the
consideration of the context of the decision
of the Supreme Court would show that the
Ehief-justice did not intend to express the
sion to a State to prohibit. the sale of
liquors. He had simply intended to avoid
saying that Congress could not do so. A
case was going up to the Supreme Court
from the prohibition States of Iowa and Kan
sas, and he thought it important that some
case should 60 up from a high-license State:
He did not believe that the remedy for the
original package saloon could be found in
either of the proposed measures. He ar
gued in favor of substitute, defining an
original package of intoxicating liquors in
bottles, as a case containing not less than
dozen bottles, and not in bottles. as cask
containing not less than five gallons.
Mr.. Reed of Iowa. whose decision as
.xxlrx lad thaA Aon Of ho
Supreme Court, spoke in favor Of the pro-
posed legislation. He could not indulge in
the hope expressed by the gentleman from
Illinois that on a rehearing of the question
different result would be arrived at. Any
lawyer who studied the dissenting opinion
of the court would see that every possible
phase of the question had been discussed
fully and thoroughly before the decision
was announced. He was informed that
rehearing had been applied for and denied.
If any relief was to be given the people
from the wrong and evil to society grow
ing out of the decision of the Supreme Court
: itlay in the direction pointed out by the
| pending bills. They delegated no power to
| the State. They merely exercised the power
delegated to Congress to regulate COM
merce among the States.
Mr.. +. Il. Taylor denied that the pro-
posed legislation delegated any power to
the States. He opposed the Adams substi-
tute on the ground that it would turn
every local-option township and county in
| the United States into a liquor-selllng
township and county by act Congress.
| This could not meet the appreciation of the
members of the House.
Mr.. Henderson of Iowa said no decision
| rendered by the Supreme Court since that
| court had decided that a human soul was
| proper article of merchandise had so ex-
| cited the feelings of the country as the
original package decision. No good citizen
| would fail to submit to the de cision of the
court. But he Mr.. Hend rsonl wOul Id not
| sit down with folded hands and wait until
| the Supreme Court made some other
| decision. While he was willing to recog-
| nize the decision as the law, he w as
| unwilling to sit still one moment
| and submit to the operation of that de-
| cision if there was a lawful remedy. and he
| believed that there was. Let gentlemen
| not forget that the Supreme Court in
| throwing this legal thunderbolt into the
Republic did not fail to send with it a cure.
| 1t cried out to Congress: while We believe
| this to be our duty we believe it is your
| duty to remedy the evil. The people of the
| country. without regard to party or politics
the people who bended the knee and un-
| covered their heads in the presence of God
| and their fellOw-men-appealed to Congress
for its action and for. one he would not
| hesitate to act
| Pending further debate the House took a
| recess, the evening session to be for the
consideration of private pension bills.
" Nothing was done at the evening session,
/ Mr.. Enloe raising the point of no quorum.