Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1892-12-21
ANTI-OPTI0N TALK
A Mildly Significant Vote in the
Senate.
ATTEMPT TO DIsPLAoB THE BILL

Meets Defeat by n Large Majority-Pa1-
mer of Illinois Argues That Uncle Sam
Has Nothing 20 DO With the Matter
Ex-Secretary Blaine Sleeps Soundiy and
Is Neither Better Nor Worse-Failure
of the Homestead Committee to Agree
-CulIom's Proposed Interstate law
Amendments.
WAHSINGToN, Dec. 2l.-There was a test
vote yesterday in the senate on the anti
Cption bill. Blackburn moved to take up
bridge bill and Washburn atked if that
would not displace his pet measure The
chair said it would and Blackburn insisted
on his motion. Washbun then demanded
the ayes and nays and the vote resulted as
follows: Ayes, 13; nays, Al. The vote in
detail was: Yeas-Aldrich, Blackburn,
Blodgett, Brice, Gibson, Gray, Harris.
Hunton, Mills, Sanders, Stewart, Vest and
Vilas-13
Nays-Allen, Bate, Berry, Call, Casey,
Chandler, Coke, Culiom, Davis. Dawes
| Dolph, Dubois, Frye, Galltneer, George
Hale, Hapsbrough, Hiscock, Hoar, Jones
| OF Arkansas, Mcmillan, Manderson, Mitch
ell, Morgan, Morrill,, Pasco, PETER, Per
yer, Sherman, Stockbridge, Teller, Turpie
Vance, Washburn, Wilson and W o!cott-41
Took Up the Anti-Option BIZ.
The anti-option bill was then taken up
and Palmer of Illinois addressed the SEN
| ate, explaining and defending his ojections
| to the bill He said that when he was
canyassing the state of Illinois as a candi-
date for the senate he was frequently asked
whether he would vote for such a bill, mad
he had said "No." The clauses against
purchases Of options were, he said, less
satisfactory to his mind than the statute
of Illinois on that subject. Dealings in on
| tions were prohibited by the laws of Hi
nois and We're punished by adequate fines
| and penalties. He had, therefore said to
| those who asked him that there being n
careful, wcll-consi6c-ci statute ia force in
| Illinois nothing more could be done in that
line by mere legislation. PalIner's argu-
ment, in brief, was Il states rights arcu-
ment-this matter was none of the general
| governments affair; it was reserved to
| the states
| \ False PrctcDse Declared
| He declared that the term revenue bill
applied to the measure was missioner.
and would be called false outside the sen
ate, because there was no purpose 20 raise
revenue under the bill
Would it lake any difference
if this. bill, instead Of protesting to be a
revenue bill. profcssed to he "a hill 10 pro
hibit this business by an absolutely prohib-
itory tax:
Palmer-I believe that the senator will
not affirm that congress has the power, by
express declaration, to prohibit options and
! futures in the states. i affirm that congress
has DO such power. II it has the power it
can exercise II by 4 plain, direct provision
Of law
Mitchell Can il do it by invoking the
taxing power
| Palmer-Has congress the original power
to prohibit dealings in options and futures
in the states:
| The ouestioner Questioned.
| MITCHELL do not think this bill presents
| that question.
| Palmer-Thca take it that the senator
does not believe that congress has that
power. And now | ask him whether con
| areSs can, by fraudulent or indirect means,
accomplish thnt which it cannot do
| directlyf Where power exists congress
can select the means of exercising it where
1 it does not exist no means can be resorted
TO effect the desired purpose. No man will
say that this bill, if it become a law, will
ever bring one dollar into the treasury. 1t
| is a mere bill of pains and penalties
Peffer-HaS congress the constitutional
power to regulate the business of dealing
| in options in the several states
| Palmer-Not at all ! deny the power OF
congress either to regulate or prohibit it.
4 That is q matter of purely state concern
Palmer yieled, without concluding his
| speech, to a motion for adjournment