The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-07-20
CONGRESS AND KING RUM
THE HOUSE BUSY WITH THE ORIG
INAL PACKAGE BILL

REPRESENTATIVE Thompson OF ONO he
cards the Measure as Simple Regu-
1s+ion of Commerce-He Thinks
however, That Laws Won't stop
0-,ntr,no-The Measures Constitu-
tionality Attacked.
WASHINGTON, July 19.-The House TINS
morning resumed consideration OF tne
original package bill.
Mr.. Thompson of Ohio said it was con-
.anded that the bill would violate the con-
stitution and was an attempt to delegate TO
the states power conferred upon congress.
He regarded it as simple regulation OF COIL
nerce and exercise OF the power OF con
gress to regulate commerce aiming 'io
states. not a delegation of that power. IL
did not interfere with interstate commerce.
Imports when offered for sale should De-
come subject to the laws OF the state. Inc
adoption of prohibition in some states mad
brought about the supreme court decision
now under review. All persons OF the
limited States were and should be opposed
tn the evils of IN temperance. Ihey were
Thoroughly confident that prohibltory ana
local option laws were not In the INTEREST OF
the morals of the citizens and not IN tne ln-
terest of true temperance. In the pronipl-
rackage stores had been opened
a moral depravity had been
shown which could not be found in
places where saloons fourished, but where
decent conduct existed. intemperance nao
never been ruled out by legislation From
his own observation he was satisfied that
the evil was on the decline. This was largely
due to the use of the mild beverage beer.
There was one wav in which the people of
Kansas and Iowa could get rid OF the orig
inal package saloons, and that was not to
natronlze them, Let the people do that and
it would not be a week before the shutters
would be put up and the front door closed.
A CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.
Mr.. Lauham OF Texas, while condemning
the evils of intemperance, expressed his
opposition TO the bill, basing that on con-
stitutional grounds.
Mr.. Rogers of Arkansas opposed the Sen
ate bill because he be .ieved that 1t was a
delegation of power which cong ess had no
right to make. The same objection lay TO
the House bill, but this measure was much
more dangerous than that of the Senate.
The state of Name could prohibit sales Of
liquors. If Iowa could .legislate against
whisky it could legislate against tobacco.
That legislation would follow, and the
whole country would be thrown into an
archy by reason Of this retaliation.
Mr.. Hayes OF Iowa opposed legislation,
preferring little personal liberty to agoo d
deal of sentimental states rights He con-
tended that the pronibitorY law of Iowa
was not enforced; aud he denied, from OBJ
ssrvations made on a recent visit u his
state, that there were any original package
saloons in Iowa. At least he had not seen
one nor had he heard of one being there
until he returned to Washington
Mr.. Stewart of Vermont declared that the
drift of the supreme court had been con-
stantly in the direction of Capitalization.
He was a republican, but he was a states
rights man on the pending legislation.
WHEN JURISDICTION ENDS.
Mr.. Caswell of Wisconsin favored the
House substitute, and maintained that con-
gress lost its jurisdiction over goods the
moment they were delivered and placed on
sale.
Mr.. Oates contended that, legally, the de-
cislOn of the supreme court was entirely
proper and logical He advocated the pass
age of the House substitute, contending that
1t did not involve violation of the constitu-
tion, but gave clause Of the constitution
operation.
Mr.. Mccormick Of Pennsylvania sup
ported the House substitute, criticising the
Senate bill as halting, piecemeal legislation.
Let the legislation of congress be as broad
and far-reaching as the supreme court de-
clsion itself. He was not in ia vor of singing
out one article of commerce and leglslating
in regard to it alone.
PERKINS BELIEVES IN 1T.
Mr.. Perkins of Kansas believed in the
constitutionality and propriety of the pro-
posed legislation. That it was appropriate
and necessary, he said, ought to be apparent
10 all In his Judgment no decision rendered
In the history OF the supreme court had
been so unfortunate to the peoplesof the
country as what was known as
the original package decision. The Dred
Scott decision mad not been so
unfortunate for the people as this recent
decision, particularly if congress was
left powerless in the premises He created
some amusement by producing and reading
iaoe! on package" as sold in stores
which have recently been opened IN Kansas.
Inc package contained half bottle. He
thought that under the circumstances of the
case and In order to secure speedy legisla.
out delay. p-''oA "-'-''
Mr. Kelley of Kansas expressed the
opinion that the supreme court in snqoest-
ing 10 congress remedy for the war which
Its oecislon had Inflicted had done the only
goou thing connecteT with the decision. The
pau Oh salvation was orthodox. and he
favored It.
MT Mr. Mason OF Illinois expressed his oppo-
tha ivnoIi S 70 the House substitute, and favored
Sno SENATE [3 Dill, and Mr.. Cutcheon hoped the
Senate bill would become a law hafore NJ Une
day night Pending debate the House took
a a. recess @ tlll 5 O'clock, the evening session to
Az Cne evening session Mr. Allen of Micbi-
gan presided as speaker pro tenn. The
no nouse was addressed by Messrs. ]. b. Tay.
S@u+h sSr 9t ohio Ohio Strubel Of Iowa. Pickler OF
YIN RtuSn,I Dakota McRae, Dolliver, LaFollette
Ken, Dunnell, Thomas, Hill Cbesdje nmar lrl-
OF Indiana and Comstock, O'0A
journed. ' az io''o O'CLOCK ad-