Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-11
ANTI-GAMBLING BILL.
THE MEASURE OF Mr.. MusHeAcH oP-
POSED BY ALEXANDRIA PEOPLE.
The Monopoly Question Discussed aud
Several Hours Spent in Talking Over
the Oyster Question.

tions, and book-making. Mr. Saunders,
the chairman, presided, and among those
who spoke in opposition to the bill were
ex-Commonwealths- hs-Attorney Burke. Mr..
Patterson, owner of the Gentlemen's
Driving Park; ex.Mayor Downham. Mr..
Frank Hume. who opposed General w. II.
L. Lee for Congress IN the Eighth District,
and Mr.. s. j. Brent, corporation counsel OF
Alexandria
Mr.. Burke, who appeared at the request
of number of horse breeders and own
ers, delivered a lengthy speech against the
measure, which he said would vitally
affect one of the most important indus
tries in Vlrginia-viz., the raising OF
blooded horses. Its passage would kill
this industry. He stated that he had been
son City, which is across the long bridge
| from Washington, and in this State. While
he admitted that book-making and pool
selling goes on in this city. and that he
| had heard of some dlsorderly conduct
| there. he did not think that the existing
| evils were as bad as they were some time
ago. Sometimes as many as 1900 people
would 90 there from Washington and
| Baltimore for the purpose of buying pools
! This might be stopped by an enforcement
| OF the present laws. The objection to Mr..
Mushbach's bill was that it prevented
betting ut agricultural fairs.
WANT THE FAIRS EXCLUDED.
Mr.. Patterson, who is the proprietor Of
| the Driving Park, stated that he had leased
the PARK from the Gentlemens DRIVING Club, or
which Mr.. Mushbacn Is president. Many OF the
! best members OF this organizatinn opposed the
| bill.
Mr.. Burke submitted petition signed by the
citizens OF Alexandria, who ask that the bill be
passed only With its original provisions as 10
fairs, etc
E1-Mayor L. 4. Downham thought the bill
would produce disastrous results. lie loosely
said he would dislike very much 10 be prevented
from betting hats on elections and that had he
not been allowed this prerogatiye formerly he
might have appeared before the committee
Dareheaded.
Senator Mushbach advocated the measure In a
forcible speech aud gave a lucid and interesting
description Of Jackson City and the disorder
prevailing there. He said that there were even
Instances where ladies had been insulted by
drunken gamesters going TO the place ON trans
The speaker expressed himself as willing 10
have tho bill passed with the original provision
eKemptng race-coufses, tracks OF driving asso-
Citations, agricultural fairgrounds, etc, while
fairs were In progress. There was not news
paper Ia New York, he said, which had not coin-
mented fayorably vi On bis BIZ.
The committee without taking action on the
subject adjourned TO meet again this afternoon
at o'clock, but the gambling bill VIII not DO
Tho Anti-Monopoly BIZ.
The House Committee on Banks, Currency,
and Commerce lAir. Benjamin Chambers,
chairman) met yesterday afternoon TO con-
slider the bill OF Mr.. Saunders ITO pro.
hibt the formation and operation OF
pools, trusts, combinations, aid conspiracles
In the State Of Virginia, and 10 provide
punishment OF persons connected with the
same,' ana the substitute offered therefor by
SIR. j. i. Mason The title OF which Is Ito pre-
st,. for nd finp af which
have for their object the restriction and restraint
OF trade or injury thereto IA this State and TO
prohibit the operations Of such In the state"
MIR. Saunders. who advocated the bill, said no
did not desire to SEQ Allen a. 6inter broken up
nj the expense Of the Virginia farmers. He
hoped that people not intended TO be hurt by the
bill would not DE injured, but the language ne
cessarily had 10 be broad to reach all cases.
Corporations doing legitimate business would
have redress through the courts. lie said he did
not claim anything original In the bin, and did
not desire 10 affect the innocent. The bill was
nothing ike 30 severe as the North Carolina and
Iowa statutes
Mr. Mason said that the language quoted in
the bill was in some respects too broad.
FAR REACHING AND INJURIOUS.
Mr.. Is. B. Munford said that every ono appre-
ciated the fact that a bill more far-reaching and
possibly more injurious could not DO passed.
lie had asked several lawyers what they thought
of Mr.. SauIfiers's measure, and from all the In
formation no could gain IL was about a. far
reaching as 1t could be. Mr.. Nunf0rd said he
did not know of any organized trust III Virginia
that wonld be affected by the passage OF the bill.
Mr.. Chambers asked the speaker whether. ac-
cording 10 MIR. saunders's bill, present trusts
would be affected or whether 1t would only apply
TO future corporations. Mr.. Munford replied
that he had not considered this question. lie
added that Mr.. saundere's bill was prepared TO
reach all classes OF citizeus-oRe to commend
the most careful consideration. lie would not
assault 1t for the present, but they were going
W
vance very cautiously. "It might hurt people
that we don't intend to iniure," said the speaker,
" and this Is the case with Mr. Masons bill, too.
Mr. Saunders said 20 Mr.. Munford: Your
idea Is that we Oughtnt 10 pass any antitrust
bill?"
"i can't say that | think We ought. II occurs
20 me that such q law should be National one,
replied Mr.. Munford.
WOULD ISJURE THE TOBACCO TRADE.
MIR. J. n. Boyd, a prominent loaf-tobacco
dealer OF this city, was introduced by Mr.. Mum
ford. lie said that in his opinion the passage OF
the bill would Kill the leaf-tobacco trade Of Vr-
ginia, and expressed tho belief that the f0rne-
tlon Of the American Tobacco Company had IN
creased the price OF "clttefs." Ho added, that
no one in North Carolina dared enforced the law
there. Tie speaker said there were no such
things as trusts in Virginia now "As leaf men,
we ask you please let US alone.'
Mr.. Davis spoke in opposition to the bill. lie
thought that possibly the American Tobacco
Company, II angered by the I'LL, might Withdraw
from Virginia. This would create an utter de-
nioralizaiion In the market. The committee,
after hearing the views OF several other gentle
men. upon motion adjourned 10 meet again at
the Exchange Hotel Monday night at O'Clock.
Discussion of the Oyster Question.
ioint meeting u the Senate Committee on
Fish and Game and the House Committee on
Chesapeake and its Tributaries was held last
night In the Senate chamber, TO consider the
much-discussed oyster question. Senator Little
presided, and the attendance was quite large,
the room being weu nled.
on motion OF Nr. Tabb, the cnairmen OF the
two committees were requested 10 have suitable
resolutions passed IN their respective houses In
forming the Maryland Legislature that the Con-
eral Assembly would be ready 10 confer with the
committee OF tho former State al any conVe-
nlent time.
The oyster bill introduced In the upper branch
by Senator Washington and Ia the House by
Mr. Chambers was then taken up, and MI
Chambers explained the provisions OF tho DILL
an outline OF which has been puDushed In the
DISPATCH
Tho pith and substance OF the bill, said Mr.
Chambers, lay in the question: How much money
must DO given from each acre OF planting
ground? IL Is put down in the Dill as VI per
acre per annum, and the measure grants
tenure OF twenty years. subject 70 such rights as
any other person may have previously acquired
II IL said that 10000 acres OF planting ground
are now rented. This might turn out 70 Dc
100, 900 acres, Tor former surveys have not been
entirely accurate. The now law will require
careful survey Mr.. Champers saii thst any
tongman could get a receipt in full for the entire
season for a. The culling law was one OF the
best features OF the bill IL was tkkeu from tEo
Maryland law.
Mr.. Chambers insisted that sl per acre was
as much as could be paid as rent, and he ex-
pressed the belief that in ten years under this
law the industry would yield 100000.
Mr.. Mallet. IN response TO question as 70
whether nOn-resldents should be allowed 10 rent
ground, said that he would vote against this.
and Senator Stubs explained why he introduced
In the upper branch the bill prepared by the
Protective Union.
DIRECTIONS OF SoRF0Lx PEOPLE.
Mr.. Mallet, tho next speaker, said there were
two points In Mr.. Chambers's bill which he want
cd attention called 20. The measure required
that the oysters be- caught from the 18th Of Sep
tember 70 the 10Th OF April lie asked that this
be changed from tho 10Th 70 the 1st OF Sepse;n-
Der. This would prevent the Maryland trade
from having two weeks advantage over Virginia
dealers.
The provision allowing oysters less than two
and a half inches long 70 be taken from any
natural rocks or bed or shoal for planting pur-
poses was also Objectionable TO the Norfolk poo
pie.
Mr.. Mallet offered an amendment to protect
from tho provisions Of this act the harbor OF Nor
folk or Portsmouth from any Interference with
reference 10 riparian rights