Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-27

different counties. Mr. Saunders suggested hat IN
| IL present shape the bii might he pofeat fof
cyl; that u would promote m.hs,o,s prSssca.
| general and sweeping terms many people innf.
cont OF harm might be caught in the Heraes u
the law that enterpfsss IA The county crs ;sn,
| md themselves smenable 20 ths PROVISIONS OF
this law and all o. sneir contracts rendered
! void: that many OF the large stores now
/ In operation might DO considered az trust.,
| and, although their operations resulted
| Ia furnishing the public large stock
with cheaper and therefore more desirable
wares. they might be closed up. In conclusion
Mr. Saunders reminded tho House that undcr
our system Il gogemment there were many ev Ia
when we were poweresa TO reach, and tnat we
might az we'll recognize the facts, and thsl before
n vote was taken on the hill there were num-
Der % amendments that should be consderod
looking torelicyng the measure OF iis oplectiona-
BILE features.
NE. KENT IT'S FRrExD.
Mr.. Kent asked yr Saunders number OF
questions and roycltedly expressed his wieh 10
pee the bill passed. II Il did no; prove eiic tive
u would at least pave the way Tor educating
other States In the limo Of reform.
Mr. Beverley Is. aubford spoke In opposition
20 the bill. lie said Thousands Of people 20" re-
ceisng employment In largo establishments
would DO driven ont OF the State. " / want the
bill 20 go 10 n committee 10 consider the lega'
questions. IL s class legislation In that II strikes
at q corporation, while men not members Oh a
corporation would not be liable for the same Of
fence. We are not striking ct the vicious prin-
1ples We desire 10 correct. but simply AT cofpe-
raiions."
In the course o. his remarks Mr. Nunford
stated that having heard on Monday tDai there
was a statute In New York similar 20 this ana
SAID TO have been prepared 10y 1enetal ko ,s5l
bill and asked II this statement was correct. lie
had just received the following telegram IN re-
ply: ain reply ] cay, when counsel against
the sugar trust. drew biil-suDstaDtiallJ tho
bill sent ulp--gnf AZ UreYed. nor ~ tIeff
any statute OF it's character or tendency In force
here
MIR. Munford said he owed his majority largely
10 the workingnen q Richmond. He thought
more. tho speaker said. Of the 1900 girl opera
tiyes az Allen & Ginter than OF any other OF his
constituents. Mr.. Munfcrj's argument WAS
whether for mere seniiment the Staie snould
drive this great establishment out OF the city,
throw these people out OF employment, ond de-
priye the Commonwealth Of the revenues.
Mr.. Chambers stated that be thought the pin
and substance " the arguments against the OH
were that IL would remove great establishment
from Richmond. The bill was reported iayOr@-
big by the committee OF which he was chair
man. He was surprised 70 see che members adj
vOcating a trust. "Are We 20 abandon our own
energies and pick up the crumbs which faii
from the rich mans table! II We are row nj
the threshold Of reform, let us step over u ana
set the good example which VIII, believe De
followed by other States
WOULD iIso DESTROY TRADE. e.
Mr.. Gibson next took the goor and stated that
when ne went 10 speak on the bill Monday the
House adjourned. 4" l gay there Is nothing In
this bin 70 destroy trust that wouldn't destroy
nli trade OF any character, provided u was car.
red on by an incorporated company continued
Mr.. Gibson. at u a bill 10 destroy trade, 10
multiply criminal prosecutions and put money
In the pockets Of us corrupt lawyers Laughter
IL Is D. benefit farmers by driving buyers our Of
tho state, destroying competition IN buyet5
What is the sense in denOuncng Allen q GInter?
What crime have they committed?
lyon motion OF dr. Nray, the House adjourned
before the question was called.