Democratic Sentinel, Volume 17, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 February 1893 — BALLOT ON ANTI-OPTION. [ARTICLE]

BALLOT ON ANTI-OPTION.

The Vote ia Detail on the Washburn Measure. The vote in detail on the Washburn anti-option bill which passed the Senate Tuesday is here given, Bepublicans in roman, Democrats in italic, Populists in small capitals: TEAS. Allison Blackburn Call Carey Chandler Cockrell Cullom Davis Dubois Faulkner Felton Frye Oallinaer Gordon Hale Hansbrough Hawley Higgins mutton Irby ' Kyle McMillan Manderaon Mitchell Morgan Morrijl Pefpbb / Perkins Pettigrew Proctor Shexman Shoup Squire Stockbridge Teller Turpie Voorhees Walthall Washburn Wilson— AO. NAYS. Ben-y Blodgett Butler Caffery Cameron Cole Daniel Dawes Dixon > Gibson Gorman Gray Harris Hill Hissock Hoar Jones (Ark.) McPherson Mills Palmer Platt Pugh Ransom Sawyer Stewart Vest Vilas White Wolcott—29. Pairs wore, announced between Messrs. Carlisle and Paddock, Aldrich and Quay, Bate and Allen, Jones (Nev.) and Saunders, Pasco and Casey, Vance and Warren.

The bill is one passed by the House of Representatives on June 9, 1892, with various Senate amendments thereto. Senator Wolcott, of Colorado, according to a Washington correspondent, opposed the anti-option bill as not sanctioned by the constitution, as vicious in principle, calculated to work injury to the people in whose interest it professed to bo framed. The anti-trust law of a few years ago ought to be a lesson to Senators. That law had been long enough in force to show that it in no wise affected prices. He did not care to discuss the anomaly presented by such a situation. Senator Gray, of Delaware, argued, on constitutional grounds, against the bill. In his opinion the measure would overturn the American form of government and throw down every barrier between absolute power and the liberty of the citizen—the liberty of contract on which civilization, in a large measure, depended. Senator H.gginsof Delaware made an argument in favor of the bill. He argued that the system of “future dealings” as practiced in the exchanges was a continental and world-wide interference with the law of supply and demand, and that under it the producers of the country were made the sport of those who chose to gamble in their products. Senator Harris of Tennessee made a statement of the reasons which controlled his vote. He regarded the measure as palpable and admitted fraud on the constitution. It would destroy home rule, local self-government, and the last vestige of the reserved rights of the States. Senator Vest spoke of the action of the House of Representatives of the Missouri Legislatute instructing the United States Senator from that State to vote for the bill and said (hat he preferred his own self-respect to personal or political applause. There was sunshine in other places besides Washington City; and the air of the prairies was purer than that of the Senate chamber. He should therefore vote against the bill.