Morning journal and courier., 1893-01-06
Senate.

testify before the interstate commerce
commissioners was taken up and passed.
The anti-option bill was then taken up
and Mr.. Villas, dem, of Wisconsin, ad-
dressed the senate in opposition to it. he
had not, he said, reached the deter
minstion to vote against the bill without
reviewing the arguments fairly. he had
not an interest direct or indirect, not
wish or a tie to lead him to oppose it,
other than his interest as a citizen and his
duty as a senator. He opposed the bill be-
cause it was unconstitutional, and to
that objection he directed mainly
his remarks. It was not merely that
the bill was unconstitutional In
transcending the proper limits of
congressional power, but 1t directly in
vaded the sovereignty and peculiar gov
ernmental functions of the states. It was
step, fragrant advance, to centraliza-
ton. It involved, in his opinion, the
characteristics of the most odious pater-
nalism. No one claimed 1t to be revenue
measure. And 1t might be summed up
absolutely as beyond question that the OBJ
ject and purpose of the measure were not
to raise revenue, to apply tho federal
power as with hydraulic pressure, to the
determination of the now universal method
of making sales of the enumerated acticles.
the legitimate transactions which were
based upon and supported by the laws of
every state in the union.
Mr. Washburn, rep, of Minnesota,
asked Mr.. Villas whether contracts would
be enforced by any court when the facts
were absolutely brought out that neither
party to them expected delivery of the
article.
Mr.. Villas Clearly not; and nothing that
have to gay in this debate will have the
least reference to any such contracts, except
to distinguish them entirely and set them
apart from those with which this bill is
Mr.. Washburn-Then So per cent. of such
transactions would not be enforced by the
courts, because 95 per cent. of the TRANSACT
tons on produce exchanges and cotton ex-
changes are precisely of that character and
are 80 recognized the world over.
Mr.. Vilss-If the senator wishes to limit
his bill to gambling transactions, and If the
senate will agree with him, it would be
very easy to draw an amendment to 1t that
purpose.
Mr.. Washburne-I hope the senate will
offer such an amendment because that Is
what am aiming at.
Mr.. vilas-It may be that shall advsn-
tage myself of that invitation. I should
like to ask the senator whether he would
accept an amendment which shall limit
the effect of this bill to such contracts as
both parties intend shall not be followed
by delivery of the article.
Mr.. Washburne with some hesitation)--
No. do not think would, because I do
not think it would be effective. think 1t
would be evaded.
Mr.. Vilas-If that cannot be done, then
| the senator must admit with reference to
the subjects which this bill seeks to cover
| that there Ia line of division on tho one
side of which are gambling contracts and
on the other legitimate future contracts
| which the contracts which the courts will
| enforce. The senator mods In admission of
! the proposition. I address my argument
| particularly to the lawful contracts, and 1
| think may safely declare that congress
| has no right to enter the domain of state
to prohibit it's citizens the privilege of
making contracts expressed and designed
to be entirely performed within the state
and sar ctioned by the laws of the state.
Mr.. Villas proceeds with his constitu-
tional argument against the bill, speaking
with such esrnestness as to command the
| closest attention from senators on both
sides. He declared, in conclusion, that
from the moment the bill was proposed
there had been no hour when he could
bring himself to believe that in the final
judgment of the senate its constitutional
power would be abused in matter &c
perilous and menacing. He submitted
with confidence that such a violation OF
the constitution was simply impossible q
the hands of the senate. As he CLOSED
there was some slight applause, and he re
ceived congratulations from many senators
Adjourned.