The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-02-27

that the will of the majority. when EXPRESSED
was the will OF God. But that will must be rea
sOnabe-lt must be rghtful. Ii must by eoual
laws protect the rights of the minority. That
was what the Democrats were contending for
Hopkins of Illinois opposed the bill because he
against the policy OF The Government, and al
ways should be, TO take money from tile Treas
ury and pay 10 class OF persons engaged in
private calling. This legislation was modelled
on The French law and that Law had proven
failure. He objected to adopting such system
In order 10 aid the wooden ships of Maine. The
great mass OF the American people would not be
benehted one iota, and yet the bill would lake
$50, ZOO, 900 Of the peoples money.
Morrow of California, in supporting the meas
ure, emphatcally denied the declaration fire.
quently made that the bill was being pressed by
an active lobby If there was such lobby he
never heard OF II. The legislation was requested
by the representatives OF The leading commercial
organizations OF the Pacific Coast. He did not
lock upon the measure as partisin one, but as
one that should be considered on its merits.
Cummings OF New York advocated the bill as
teuding 10 build up lie merchant marine and
extend American CONNIE &C. The bill would
achieve results that could not be achieved by the
passage OF the free snip substitute. Free trade
and sailors rights was good democratic doctrine.
The shipping Interests had always been allied to
Tree trade. The maritime prosperity of England
might be cited as an example. but even with free
trade hundreds aud hundreds of millions had
teeh ufdwn from England IN order TO increase
her carrying trade. This only illustrated the
sklful policy OF Great Britain to secure and
maintain the carrying Trade of every other ma
ton. 1t Is by the use OF such means that En-
gland maintained her sup emacy on the seas.
she knew how essential IL was for her greatness
thal she should maintain that supremacy, and
Sue uld not carp al the methods or higgle 1T The
EXPENSE. This was not protective measure
nor was IL gratutous subsidy like the sugar
SUBSIDY. Ii was measure TO build up our de-
cayed shipping industry. The passage OF the
measure would open The markets OF the world TO
the products OF the farmers OF the West and
Northwest. il would stimulate The building of
ships 10 an extraordinary extent; would give
profitable occupation 10 sailors andproyide EN-
nloymtnt FOR 600 or 100 900 American ma
chhsis and artisans.
Fitch Of New York opposed the bill, denying
that II would prove OF any benefit 10 the laborng
man. The stock of The Pacific Mail Steamship
COMPANY was yesterday quoted at 3S; this after
noon IL was quoted at 4O3s. The stockholders
Of this company were honest laboring men,
whom Congress was going 10 heip. [Laughter.l
After further discussion the general debate
closed, The committee rose and the House took
recess.
At the evening session The Committee Of the
Whole took up The General Deficiency Bill.
SayeTs OF Texas moved TO stiIke out the para
graph approprlatng tile necessary amount for
The payment TO Pacific roads Tor services per-
formed Tor The Government.
Gram opposed the amendment.
DalZell supported II, speaking OF the Central
Pacific especially as lrauduently insolvent
company.
McKenna OF California opposed the amend
ment. The Union Pacific had been paid for pre-
csely tie same kind of service. Both roads
were bankrupt. There was nothing 10 justify
refusal TO ratfy judgment of the supreme
Court. A debt due could not be set OIL against
one not due
After long debate the motion TO strike out
was agreed to-147 10 63.
The committee rose, the Deficiency Bill was
passed and The House adjourned.