The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1892-08-05

Extravaganza has been the order of the
day. Absenteeism has never been so
pronounced. Lack of purpose was never
so clear. Lack of common business pru-
dence was never more glaring. Drunken
men have reeled in the aisles, disgrace
to the republic. Drunken speakers have
debated grave issues upon the floor, and
in the midst of maudlin ramblings have
been heard to ask, Mr.. Speaker, where
was l at?' Useless employees crowd
every corridor. Useless expenditures
pervade every department"
This is one of the clauses in the indict-
ment of the Bourbon party by the repre-
sentativesl of the Peoples party in the
South. Mr.. Watson had his attention
called to this, in what some might think
an audacious way, acknowledged that 1t
was his work, and more than that said
it was true and that he. was prepared to
prove it. Accordingly a committee of
Investigation was appointed to sit in
judgment upon Democratic character.
This committee consists of Mr.. Boatner
of Louisiana, Mr.. Wolverton of Pennsyl-
vania, Mr.. Buchanan of Virginia, Demo-
Gratis, and Mr.. circuit of Vermont, Re-
publican, and Mr.. Simpson of Kansas of
the Peoples party.
Mr.. Watson says that he can prove it.
He will have no difficulty in proving one
of the charges in the Indictment, namely,
that there are useless employees in and
about the House, by filing with the
Committee ON Investigation the recent
speech of Mr.. Holman, Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriation, in which
that direct charge was made. Whether
or not he will be able to prove that there
were drunken men who shouted about
the House, "Mr. Speaker, where was 1
at?' may be a more doubtful question.
But if he shall prove it, the phraseology
will clearly trace the drunkenness to the
country south of the Potomac River, for,
grotesque as the grammar of some of the
Northern Democrats, the peculiar phrase
in question is indigenous south of Mason
and DiXon's line. Whether or not Mr..
Watson can prove drunkenness on the
part of the Democratic members is not
certain. But it is certain that he would
have no difficulty in proving that the
Democratic House, by its authority, has
maintained during the entire Congress
bar room where, in full sight of every
body, poor whiskey can be obtained at
high prices. Around that open bar
every day the employees of the House,
Congressman and people from the out
bluG, up III
shop and purchase liquor in open de-
fiance of the rules of the House and of
the declarations of some of the most
eminent of leaders. This is not done in
a corner or behind any screen. 1t is
done openly and defantly. Such is the
demand for whiskey that it is poured
out In advance in portions that seem
suitable by the Tammany man who keeps
the bar, so that the demands upon the
bar-keeper at any one time shall not be
too great for him to Immediately exc
cute.
This has not occurred without the free
knowledge of the Speaker. Anyone who
ever visits the restaurant who has eyes,
or, if blind, who has the sense of smell,
can Immediately detect the selling of
liquor. Speaker Crisp months ago had
official notice Of this violation of the
rules and of the ordinary decorum of the
House, but Notwithstanding the notice
given to him by one of the most emil
nent men of New England, no reform
has been effected. Mr.. Watson may not
be able to prove the effect of this unlaw-
full rum selling in the Capitol with
Democratic sanction, but he will not
have the slightest difficulty in proving
that the management of the House has
given authority to a pet of Tammany
Hall to keep an open rum shop in de-
fiance of the license laws of the District
of Columbia as well as of the rules of
the House of Representatives.
This incident in the House will be
more wide sweeping than the Democrats
anticipated. 1t is said by the Alliance
men that it will lose many Congressman
for the Democrats in the Southern
States.