Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 February 1883 — THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

THE TARIFF.

[Associated Press Report ] Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, took the floor. He said there was scarcely an article known to the consumption of the American people which was not included within the taxation schedule of the bill, either by name or within the extraordinary classification. The whole purpose of the tariff system seemed to have been perverted from its original object until experts have been employed for the purpose, not of finding how the revenue could be raised, but how revenue could be prevented in the interest of monopolists. Referring to the Tariff Commission, Mr. Tucker said a number of its members were gentlemen interested in perpetuating this system, by which the consumer was taxed for the benefit of the monopolist. The commission was a tribunal, the very advocates at whose bar were Judges who sat on the bench. Their bill had gone to the Committee on Wots and Means, and two .of the members had appeared before the committee, and one of them very signally went back on the report of the commission, and the committee, subscribing to his views, increased the duty on woolen goods. All the committee had done was to increase duties, with very few exceptions, over the commission bIU. Yes, except on sugar and tin platen Mr. Haskell—And wire rods and bar iron and sundries. ■ Mr. Tucker—Particularly sundries. Mr. Haskesl—Very large redactions were made by the committee from the commission bill - '

Mr. Tucker criticised the Committee on Wavs and Means for coming* into the House with a bill unprepared to satisfy the inquiries of members and the demands of the country to know what would be the effect of the measure. Mr. Kelley asked whether the gentleman ever saw a tariff bill tbe effect oi which upon the country could be foretold by auv man. Mr. Tucker thought the oommitte# had shown itself inadequate to the task devolved upon it when it was unable to make even a shrewd estimate of the effect of its MIL Mr. Kelley inquired whether the gentleman on behalf or the minority "of the committee could not give a shrewd estimate. Mr. TucKer replied before the bill was reported from the committee the minority members asked for delay in order to secure reliable information from the Treasury Department. That delay had not been aocorded them,-and he confessed he had not means at his disposal for making estimates, but he could show the estimate of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was utterly delusive.

Mr. Kelley asserted the bill had not been reported to the House until the committee bad received all the information which the Treasury Department could give. Mr. Tuc&er called attention to the fact that the committee had not submitted an estimate in its report, and intimated it had not done so because it regarded the estimate as unreliable The minority of the committee did not propose any radical reform in the tariff system. They recognized the fact that under the protective system industries had grown up and capital had been Invested in such forms it would *not only be wrong, but bad statesmanship, for any one to attempt to break them down by changing suddenly tbe protective system into a revenue-tariff system. All they had attempted to do, all they would attempt to do, was to diminish the enormous profits of the manufacturing industries of the country, which they derived from the tribute levied on the consuming class. The burden of the consumer was double in its character. He bore the burden of the tax levied on imports, but that was a burden which he bore cheerfully, as it went to support his Government; iut he also bore a burden which resulted from a system of prohibitory duties, which, by preventing importation, enhanced the price of the borne articles. When the amount of diminution ot tax proposed by the bill was measured, these two burdens must be taken into consideration, aud it must be found not only how much the revenue was diminished, but also how much tribute to the manufacturer was diminished. Take the duty on cotton tiea They come in now at the ' duty of 85 per cent.; but the pending bill proposed a duty equivalent to 82 per cent Under the present duty a revenue was collected by the Government. Under the proposed duty there would lie no revenue, ana the effect would be gentlemen would sav they had relieved the South from taxation by the hook of the treasury, while by the crook of protection the burden of cotton ties would be doubled in tbe interest of monopolists Passing into a discussion of the relations existing between labor and tariff, he asserted the declaration that protection had any effect on the price of labor was a fallacy. Solar fron?Tt high tariff being the cause of high .wages, it was high wapres that was the cause of protection. Mr. Tucker .then proceeded to discuss briefly some of the more important changes of the bill, especially criticising the sugar schedule. The reduction of duty on refining sugars was at least 4J per cenL, but the duty on all sugars that went into consumption was positively prohibitory. Such legislation was not only unjust, but viciously unjust, os it laid tbe whole agricultural Interests under contribution to a few manufacturers of the country. At the conclusion of tbe speech Mr. Tucker received the hearty applause of bis party associates.

Mr. Kas<-on, of lowa, regretted that the House had determined to nave any general debate. He would have preferred to proceed to the direct consideration of the details of the biU, because every day’s delay was producing harpt in the country and demoralization of business. He defended the Tariff Commission against the criticisms of the gentleman from Virginia (Tucker), which reminded him of the man who wanted no lawyer on the bench, because it would not l*e possible for him to be impartial iu decisions of points of law. There were articles in tbe bill, iu his opinion, on which duty was undulv imposed. Duty was placed on some articles on the basis of protection of more infirm enterprises. instead of the basis of the maintenance of tlte average interest throughout the United States. If there be one poor lead mine and other rich ones, he did not think Congress ought to base its schedule on those rates which would protect the poor enterprises and raise enormously the profits of greater sources of wealth. The gentleman from Virginia (Tucker) had styled the creation of competitive establishments as monopolies, when the very creation of those establishments was ~ the destruction of foreign monopoly. He Vas willing to treat the world with charity. He was willing to send ship cargoes of food to the poor abroad, but when he stood to legislate, he would legislate for the United States of America, and not for the interest of foreign lands. The only practical question for Congress was as to the proper rate of duty to impose on articles which the United States produced in connection with foreign countries, in order to offset the disadvantages of the location of our industries, the cost of raw material, and the cost of labor. When that had been done, call it protection, or call it tariff for revenue only, an act of statesmanship and patriotism had been performed. The pending bill made a conceded reduction of revenue to the amount of #20,000,00ft He should be glad to have #50,000,008 taken from the revenue. If it were pot for the old maxim “Nil desperandum” he would despair of the passage of any tariff revision bill, and when the gentleman from Virginia contented himself with a running fire of criticism on the bill Instead of urging consideration of the measure, he did hot discharge that duty which he was so well able to perform. He (Kasson) was for protection because he was for the maintenance of two things, the independence of his country from foreign control, and giving bread and shelter and clothing to the poorer men of the United States who depended upon their labor for their daily bread He could not aooomplish these objects if he allowed, by bis action, the workshops of Europe to send to this country its manufacture. He could not do so if we adopted a pure revenue standard, because when our manufactures were forced either to perish or reduce the price of labor the bread was taken from the mouths of working men. A million homes in the United States were as anxious for such solution of the pending legislation as if their occupants lived in palaces instead of -hovels. Congress could not afford to say it would pass no bill unless every item was agreeable to every member. There never would be a revision of the tariff without some mutual concessions.