Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-29

package bill yesterday. but failed to reach
dignifed body was in no condition to decide
q temperance question. The constitutional
points of the measure were argued atlength.
WASHINGTON, May 2S.-In the Senate
to-day the bill subjecting imported liquors
to the laws of the several States was again
taken up, and Mr.. Morgan made an argu-
ment against its constitutionality. Mr..
Faulkner expressed himself as in favor of
doing something, of passing some bill that
would relieve the situation which now con-
fronted Congress.
The question had been discussed as if it
only affected Iowa and other prohibitory
States, but it affected all those States in
which the systems of high licenses and local
option prevailed. If he understood cor
rectly the decision of the Supreme Court, it
involved the question whether or not q
State could collect a revenue from the
license system, or could permit its citizens
traffic in intoxicating liquors.
AN ADVOCATE OF LICENSE.
He believed Gas the people Of his State
did) that the high license system was the
true method of dealing with the question.
He had given notice of an amendment
(somewhat similar to the substitute since
reported by the Judiciary Committee) pro-
viding that as soon as the article of spirits
was delivered to the consignee at the place
OF destination all its characteristics as an
article of commerce should cease, and it
should become subject to the State laws.
The substitute as reported differed from
his amendment in some respects, and in
those respects be criticised it. He objected,
for instance, to the use of the word "pro-
hibinon" in the substitute; and he sug-
gested that the object could be attained by
the use of the word Regulation"
THE IOWA IDEA.
Mr.. Wilson, of Iowa, did not agree with
Mr.. Faulkner, and argued in favor of the
substitute. Mr.. Pugh argued in favor Of
the bill. The defeat of the bill would leave
the States in a most serious predicament
He believed that the States had the power
(without any legislation by Congress) to
control the sale and use of intoxica nts
within their limits. The exercise of that
invaluable right had been suspended by the
decision of the Supreme Court, but its ex-
istence had not been affected.
MIR. Call expressed his entire sympathy
with the idea that the States had absolute
control of the question of the traffic in in
toxicating liquors and was willing to vote
for almost any bill which would attain that
end. Mr.. Call yielded the floor to Mr.. AL
lison, who presented the conference report
on the army appropriation bill.
Mr. Ingalls, inquired what had been done
in regard to the Senate amendment prohi-
biting the sale of alcoholic liquors, beer or
wine at canteens.
A MODIFIED PROVISION.
Mr.. Allison said that the provision had
been modified so as TO read: THAT no aIco-
hOlic liquors, beer or wine shall be sold or
supplied to enlisted men in any canteen
or post traders store in any State or Terri
tory in which the sale of alcoholic LIQUORS,
beer or wine is prohibited by law"
Mr.. Paddock-That ''gives away" the
whole proposition.
Mr.. Blair-I suppose that the Senator
from Iowa means to be understood that the
Senate conierees found it necessary to Weld
to h House conferees.
AIr. Allison-I do so wish to be under
stood.
Mr.. Blair-And, of course, no one will
fail to understand that this is an entire sur
render OF the pro position.
Mr.. lngalls-It IS a surrender of the CON-
troll OF the army of the United States to the
different States in which troops may happen |
TO be located.
A CONCESSION TO THE HOUSE.
Mr.. Allison-I Go not wish to 90 into the |
question now, as l promised nv colleague |
(if the report occupied any time) to with |
draw 1t so as not to interfere with nv col |
leagues bill. will say, however, that the |
House conierees were unanimous in their |
persistency that the proviso inserted by the |
Senate should not remain in the bill. The |
phraseology adopted by the conference COM
mlttee is the same that was proposed. sup |
ported and maintained in the Honse py |
those who desired to restrain the LIQUOR |
traffic in the army.
Mr.. Ingalls-The statement is not in or.
der.
Mr.. Allison-Then withdraw il. When
the Senator from New Hampshire and the
Senator from Kansas say that the committee
the whole question, must be
to disagree with them Os
course, this provision only applies to States
and Territories where the prohibitory low
prevails-as it does in South Dakota and in
some other States where troops are qarri-
soned.
Mr.. Paddock think it is within the
bounds to state that nineteen-twentieth of the
troops are outside of States and Territories
where the prohibitory law is in force.
NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE.
Mr.. Allison-Our attention was called to
the fact that there are great many troops
stationed In the District OF Columbia, where
Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, and
where there are said 10 be between 500 and
l 600 saloons. The conferees on the part of
the Senate did the best they could in the
matter, and if it is a surrender, then it is q
surrender.
Mr.. Blair-It strikes me that the language
adopted is substantial surrender OF the
Senate provision and that the army canteen
will remain in substantially full force, and
4 so, 1t should be understood by the coun-
.ry.
Dir. Allison-And if not, L hope it will
rot be SO understood.
Mr.. Ingalls-The more this matter is
studied, the more obnoxious it appears to
nc. Either the control of the army ESQ far
IS the sale of Intoxicating LIQUORS is con-
,erned) ought to be in the United States.
" it ought not to be. Some soldiers ought
rot to be allowed to have access to the fov-
ng bowl and the festive canteeu, and other
oldIers denied it. The army ought to be
ubjected to one system of control. Congress
ught either to say that all soldiers Shall
ave an
OPPORTUNITY OF GETTING DRUNK,
r. that none shall have the onnor+r,;.,