Rensselaer Republican, Volume 17, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 September 1884 — THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC. [ARTICLE]

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

Democratic Opposition to Any Inquiry Regarding Its Extent and Influence. (■Washington special.] Secretary McPherson, of the Congressional Committee, has prepared the following synopsis of the history of the two parties on the alcoholic liquor traffic, which may help to correct many errors of statement in the exiatang Campaign; w S. U. R. Hayes,Esq., Big Rapids, Mich.: Dear Sib : I have, your inquiry of the 30th inst. The question of legislation on the alcoholic liquor traffic has come up in various forms tn Congress within the last ten years, but it was not until the Forty-seventh Congress that the creation of a Commission to- examine into the subject in all its bearings came to the surface. In that Congress, in the winter of 1881-’2, it came to the front. Mr. Conger offered in the Senate the 17th of J nuary. 1882, a bill for the appointment of a commission of seven persons, tojact not longer than two years, to investigate the alcoholic liquor traffic, its relations to revenue and taxation, its general economic, criminal, moral, and scientific aspects, in connection with pauperism, crime, social vice, public health, and the general welfare of the people; and also .to inquire and take testimony as to the practical results of license and prohibitory legislation /or the prevention of intemperance in toe several States of the Union. The expenses, not exceeding SIO,OOO, were to be paid out of the Treasury, but the Commissioners were to seryc without salary. The report of the commission was to be transmitted to Congress by the President'within eighteen mon hs after the passage of this act. The matter came up for action the Bth of March, when Mr. Bayard, of Delaw re, made an unfriendly motion to refer the bill to’the Committee on Finance. That motion was defeated—yeas, 19; nays, 23. The affirmative vote was solidly Democratic, ex-

cept one. The negative vote was solidl v Republican, except one. Mr. Bayard then moved to extend their jurisdiction over the subject of opium and other substitutes for alcohol c stimulants, and to inquire whether prohibition of the use of alcoholic beverages has been accompanied by an increase in the consumption of opium and other intoxicating drugs. This was voted down—yeas, 24 ; nays, 25. The affirmative vote was solidly Democratic, except XJy. Cameron of Wisconsin, Republican, and Judge Davis or Illinois, Independent. The negative vote of 25 was solidly Republican. The bill then passed —veas, 34; nays, 14. Bute of the 34 yeas were Democratic. 4 All of tbe 14 nays were Democrats save 1. While the bill lay on the Speaker's table in the House Mr. Dingley, of Maine, made repeated efforts to take it up for reterence or action, but that Required consent and was always met bv Democratic objection, which defeated consideration. But in February, 1882, before the passage through the Senate of the Senate bill, Mr. Joyce, of Vermont, a Republican, had offered a bill very much to the same effect as the Senate bill, andffhoved a suspension of the rules and the passage of it. This was disagreed to—veas 112, nays 28. Of the 112 yeas but five were Democrats. The negative vote was Democratic with two exceptions. So that the record of the Democratic party in Congress is against even an InquirV into the queston of the effect of the traffic, while the Republican record has been in favor of inquiry. In the present Congress, the Forty-eighth,the only action taken upon this in the House, when the 19th of December, 1883. Mr. Reed, of Maine, moved to add to the number of select committees a Committee on the Alcoholic-Liquor Traffic, which was agreed to—yeas 142, nays 86. The negative vote was exclusively Democratic save four. Very respectfully, Edward McPherson, Secretary.