Jasper County Democrat, Volume 6, Number 52, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 April 1904 — CANTEENS IN HOMES [ARTICLE]

CANTEENS IN HOMES

Will Be Prohibited if Action in the House Is Finally Carried Out. BOMS CHARGES BY STATESMEN Against the Management of Some State Soldiers’ Homes Lead to the Move. Washington, April 1. When consideration of the sundry civil appropriation bill was resumed by the bouse and the provision relating to state or territorial homes for disabled soldiers and sailors was reached Bell (Dem.) of California assailed’ the policy In force at these institutions regarding the disposition of the inmates. He strongly urged the holding of their pensions by the home officials In trnst. Referring to the home In his own state he said Its officials had degrade the state to the position of ing a saloon and grogshlp. Under the rule now existing, he declared, the officials compel the soldier to surrender his pension and then pay It back to him in canteen checks. Home Corrals All the Cash. He asserted that the result of this system is a complete monopoly of nearly every dollar that goes into that home in the form of pensions. Instead, he said, of being an instrument and means of temperance the home offers inducements for the old soldier to march up the adjutant’s desk and get his canteen check. He offered an amendment to the bill in terms along the lines of the law applying to the Soldiers’ '’Home In this city. New Charge" A gainst State Home*. Hemenway, in charge of the bill, opposed the amendment because it was new legislation on an appropriation bill. In the course of the discussion which followed Hemenway declared that state homes not only secure from the government SIOO a year for the care of each soldier but withhold a part of the soldiers’ pension, thereby speculating on the generosity of the government. ATTACK ON THE HOME CANTEEN Result* In Prohibiting It if the Home Wants Government Money. Bell interrupted to Inquire If the state was not speculating on the pensions of th.' old soldiers when the money was spent in canteen checks. “I am ashamed of any state that would do that,” remarked Hemenway. “And I am ashamed to say my state does it,” Bell declared; “and I am here to stop It.” Hemenway replied that he would be ashamed to represent a state that robbed old soldiers. No such conditions, he said, existed in Indiana or in any of the states where such homes are maintained. Bell protested that he was proud of his state, but ashamed of the board of governors of the home. He vigorously protested against the canteen at the California state home and urged the adoption of his amendment, which provided that no part of the appropriation shall apply to any state or territorial home into which the wives and daughters of soldiers are admitted and maintained: nor shall any part of it be apportlonedi to any state or territorial home that maintains a bar or canteen where intoxicating liquors are sold. Sherly (Dem.) of Kentucky offered an amendment to theamemdment striking out its anti-canteen feature. He was, he said, as deeply grieved over the condition of affairs In the California home as was Bell, but he emphatically declared against “that species of paternalism which undertakes to legislate the morals of people.” He was, he said, opposed to any anti-canteen law. His amendment was lost, and Bell’s amendment was agreed to—<69 to 31. FRAUDULENT LAND GRABBING Alleged as s Result of the Administration •- of the Laws. Washington, April 1. While the senate was considering the bill for the repeal of the desert land, timber and stone and homestead commutation laws Gibson of Montana declared that there had been great frauds in the administration of the land laws in the west, while Clark of Wyoming insisted that there was a lobby here working for the repeal of the laws. Patterson agreed with Gibson and expressed the opinion that eight out of ten acres of land In Colorado and Wyoming had been secured through fraudulent means, to which Clark replied. “I know nothing about conditions in Colorado, but what the senator says of Wyoming Is unqualifiedly untrue,” The debate on the postoffice appropriation was largely devoted to allegations by the Democrats that congress was under the domination of the White House, and denials of the aseertion by the Republicans. REGULAR DELIVERY WAGONS What the Government Carriages Are to Appear Hereafter. Washington, April 1. While the house was considering the sundry civil bill Mann made a point of order, which was sustained, against the last paragraph in the bill, providing that government carriages used for public purposes shall have painted thereon the name of the department to which they belong. Hemenway evaded the point

by offering a substitute, and this was agreed to. The use of public carriage* for private purposes Baker characterized as “graft.” He wanted the letters put on carriages to be two and a half Inches In length. During the consideration of the provision for the geodetic survey Robtoson of Indiana made a violent attack on that bureau, in which he openly charged malfeasance In the conduct of this offlae. He declared) that the allowance for commutation of subsistence to officers of this service had been abused simply as a means of increasing salaries. Hemenwify declared that Robinson’s information came from a man who had a claim for jilkxwance in the department which would cost the govern, ment $200,000.