New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-03-04
THE LOUD BILL KILLED.
TABLED IN THE HOUSE BY VOTE OF
1872 TO 10.
A SURPRISE AID PAINFUL DISAPPOINTMENT i"
ITS ADvocArEs-wHY THE MEAS


IT'S ADvocArEs-wHY THE MEAS
URE FAILED.
washington. March s-The House OF Repre-
sentatives to-day buried the Loud Dill un"e'
an adverse majority Of 49, the vote stahn'hR 10 "
1is on the motion OF Mr.. Richardson. OF tennessee.
10 law the bill on the table II was not party
vote but all the Democrats except hfteen "ere
recorded in favor OF the motion. as also were ABOUT
nftv Republicans among the latter being Chair-
man Dingley Of the Ways and Means COMMITTEE
and Mr. Bingham. OF Pennsylvania. formerly cha"
man OF the Postofice Committee
The result WIS a disagreeable surprise az wei
nc nainful disappoIntment to the trainers and
advocates OF the measure and yet strong innica-
lions were visible at least two hours betore the
vote was taken that IT would probably be defeaten.
Two difficulties appeared TO be In the way ana
10 he constantly growing greater one WAS the
apparent inability OF many. members TO ascertain
10 their own satisfaction the actual scope ano
effect Of the measure II enacted. and the other
was the evident purpose OF the Posofice Com-
mittee to defeat II practicable every amendment
offered except those the committee itself had pro-
posed. Many members who were In entire SYM
pathy with the ostensible objects and general In
tent OF the measure were strongly opposed to GER
tain features OF it. which they regarded as TOO
drastic and Liberal well wholly unnecessary,
and yet those were the features which Chairman
Loud and his colleagues OF the committee seemeo
10 be most anxious and determined TO preserve
After the House adjourned several members VINO
had voted bic the bill said in conversation that
they were ready and anxious TO support mod
crate measure which would eradicate the abuses
which have grown and thrived under existing laws
and regulations but that they could not persuade
themselves to support tho bill reported from the
Postoffice Committee.
The amendment reported by the committee In re-
gard TO the sending Of sample copies OF newspapers
etc. at pound rates gained few votes Tor the
bill. but probably cost greater number. IL was
offered In the hope OF dlsarming the opposition or
members In whose districts considerable NUMBERS
OF weekly newspapers are published. each having
n regular circulation Of only n few hundred copies
but It did not produce the result hoped Tor
The debate on amendments which preceded the
vote was at times lively, bu. much OF It was ir-
relevant.
John Elderkin. who has been here FOR the las,
few days. representing the New-York publishers
opposed to the passage OF the Loud Postal pi' was
this evening by 2 representative OF the Ir,-
son for the defeat OF the bill Mr.. Elderkin said:
"A variety OF causes contributed to the defeat OF
Mr. Loud's bill. In the first place, Its defeat was a
foregone conclusion when the House OF Representa-
tives set apart three days Tor us discussion %
fered I'm the course OF the debate that many mem
beers changed sides and voted against II. Again gan
arrayed a powerful body OF Representatives
against It. Finally. 1t was fully apparent after the
the advertising privileges Of the press of the coun-
try. and to place the business of publishing on
members who heard the admirable speeches OF
John J. Lentz Of Ohio. Yesterday and Henry II;
doubt Of the entire sincerity OF Mr. Loud but his
management on the floor was not calculated TO WIN
s o tho Xiii a. did Tho Republican Rep
resenative OF some OF the Western States