The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-22
Resented BY Mr.. LENfZ
A Sharp ColIoquy in the House Over
the Loud Postal Bill.
Mr. McPhcrsOn Charges the Ohionn
with Bcing the Attorney for the
Lobbyist The Allegation De-
nOunccd as u FaIsehOod-Mr. Rich
nrdson Calls the Iowan TO Order.

The debate on the Loud Postal bill in
charge that Representative Lentz of Ohio
was attorney for the lobbyists against
the bill. 1t was made by Representative
Mcpherson of Iowa in a speech imme
distely following one by Mr.. Lentz, who
made the strongest argument against the
bill that the debate has yet produced.
In the course of his remarks he referred
to an art magazine and at the conclusion
of his speech distributed copies to mem
bers about him and directed pages to
distribute them about the floor. Mr.. Hill
of Connecticut objected to this as an in
fraction of the rules, but Mr.. Mcpherson,
who had the floor at the time, said he
hoped the lobbying might go on in plain
view of the House and referred to Mr..
Lentz as attorney for the lobbyists.
Mr.. Richardson of Tennessee, leader Of
the minority. in the absence Of Mr.. LentZ,
called Mr.. Mcpherson to order, and the
latter withdrew the remark. His manner,
however, did not satisfy Mr.. Richardson,
who spoke OF it as humorous, where
upon Mr.. Mcpherson said he would change
from humorous to> serious.
Later Mr.. Lentz. having been informed
of Mr.. McPherson's charge, denounced it
as an unmitigated falsehood and retorted
that the man who said he was attorney
for lobby was himself the agent of ex-
press companies. For this he was called
to order by Mr.. Payne of New York, and
the incident then closed.
Under the order made by the Speaker
the debate will proceed under the five
minute rule today and a vote will be
taken at O'Clock.
The first speaker yesterday was Mr..
Bromwell of Ohio, who advocated the bill.
He said that the manufactured protests
against the bill conveyed the impression
that the publications affected by it would
be treated like obscene publications and
denied the use of the mails altogether.
1t was only proposed that they should be
required to pay 2 higher rate Of postage
than the second-class rate. This should
be done for business reasons and Mr..
Bromwell quoted from the report of Post
masted General Smith to show that but
for the deficiency caused by the handling
Of seeona-class matter the Department
would have surplus of many millions.
Mr.. Griggs of Georgia spoke in adyo-
cacy of the passage of the bill. He said
that two thirds of the votes against the
bill would be cast because of lack of
of the provisions OF the
bill. 1t was. said Mr.. Riggs. the most
and maligned measure
ever before the House and he said he
yentured nothing in the declaration that
two thirds of those voting against it
would do so because they would not take
the time to investigate and answer objec-
tions by constituents. who were them
selves ignorant of its contents. The bill
was in the interests OF the people and he
asserted that if the Democrats would give
him their attention he would convince
them that it was their duty to support it.
Opposed by MIR. Lcntz.
Mr. Lentz. opposing the bill, said thar
great mistake would be made if the law
governing the transportation of second
lass matter be changed. He argued, from
he figures of the Postmaster Generals re-
port that the greater the amount OF see
,nd-class matter. the smaller was ine de-
icit II the bill we're pssTed. he said. It
would not reduce the expenditures OF TIE
Department enc cent. The ssgond-class
natter, Mr.. Lentz said. was responsible for
i30 900. .0oG OF the receipts from tirst fhi-,,
md fourth classes. II was he Instructor
II the people aud greddced to the Govern
nent IN Ieye1ue $40 for every dollar paid
or its transportation These figures. he
explained. were taken from the books O, =
magazine published 10 Chicago.
Mr.. Lent made AZ earnest plea for the
continued dissemination of good literature
s at present. and prophesied. in conclud
ng. that il the second-class privilege were
,urtailed. as proposed in the bill, the de-
icit in postal revenues would be greater
han now.
The bill was advocated by Mr.. McPher
on of Iowa, who expressed his regret that
he attendance upon the session was so
mall Opposition to the bill. he said. had
,een organized and maintained by a lobby
which had operated with persistence and
tion that had not been equaled
" any lobby in fifty years.
While Mr. Mcpherson was talking Mr..
Hill of Connecticut called attention 10 the
act that employees of the House We're dis
advertising matter protesting
sgainst the passage of the bill. He char
Icterized it as a violation of the privileges
II the floor.
Mr.. Richardson said the publications in
question had been distributed by the gen
leman from Ohio (Nr. Lentz). The pub
ication in question was an art monthly, on
is title page bearing the words. "applica-
ion made for entry at the Boston pOstoffiee
s second class matter
A printed slip was pasted on the cover.
eading: This is the kind OF periodical
hat will be shut out Of the second-class
nail By the passage of the Loud bill. be
ause it Is not original matter, but is re-
rint. The publication of such matter must
n consequence be stopped"
Mr. Loud explained that the privilege of
econd- class rates had never been granted
o that publication.
The Speaker pro tempore. Mr. Clark OF
Sew Hampshire said: 1T makes no differ
nee who distributes the matter. If it be
rue as stated, it is violation of the
ules."
Mr.. Mcpherson asked that the lobbying
light go on; that it might be made plain !
o the House and TO the whole country and |
hat the books presented by the attorney |
or the lobbyists might be circulated.
Mr. Richardson call the gentleman to |
rider. / submit that it is not proper 10 /
tigmatize the gentleman from Ohio (Alr. |
.entzl as attorney for lobbyists.
Mr.. Dalzell of Pennsylgania-Why. he |
istributed their literature; what more do |
OIL want?
Mr.. Richardson ask for ruling on my /
oint Of order.
The Speaker pro tempore-The gentle |
lan from Ohio will proceed in order.
Mr. Mcpherson continued with a synopsis !
( the provisions of the bill. asserting that !
hey contained nothing that any member. I.
fter an investigation, would not support |
The ohioan's Sharp Reply.
Mr.. Lentz replied 10 the assertion by |
ir Mcpherson that he was the attorney |
or lobbyists. lie recitcd the circum-
tances surrounding this distribution of /
he magazine. they had been handed to
i'm by a young man in the corridor
lhom he Nj not know and would not know /
ow. He did not know the publishers, and