Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 February 1883 — THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

THE TARIFF.

Mr. Dunn offered an amendment providing that there shall be allowed on all implements and machinery manufactured for use in agricultural labor and production, made to whole or to part of material imported on which duties have been paid, a drawback equal in amount to the duty paid on such material This was an opportunity for the gentlemen on the other side who claimed to be the friends of the farmer to show they were to earnest to their protestations of interest in the cause of agriculture Mr. Seed opposed the amendment, which he declared had been offered, not because the gentleman supposed it would prevail but because he thought the country would pay attention to these attempts to make a record The country was too sensible to do anything of the kind. Mr. Townshend, of Illinois, challenged the Sroduction from the history of tariff legislaon of a bill which was more oppressive in its operation than the bill reported by the present Ways and Means Committee. No important measure had ever been brought before an American Congress wnere such unfair and tyrannical means had been resorted to in .its, management The bill did not originate in Congress. It was sired by a lobby of hired agents of the monopolists, and was brought forth in secret conclave. Mr. McKinley—No Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee will say what you have said. Mr. Townshend went on to Bay thatL the three gentleman—Messrs. Kelley, Haskell ancl McKinley—who were in charge of the bill had not yet descended to the work of detraction and viUiflcation. That work had been assigned to another (referring to Mr. Reed), whose voice, manners and characteristics peculiarly qualified him for that work. Every other member on the other side spoke only apparently by license. Was there ever such shameful proceedings inaugurated in an American Congress on such an important measure? Mr. Haskell said he had stood here for nearly three weeks and had listened to denunciations coming from the other side leveled at the Ways and Means Committee long enough without reply. The gentleman from Illinois stood here and charged that this bill was the creation of a corrupt and scandalous lobby. Every word of his declaration was a flat falsehood. Did he comprehend exactly the full length and breadth and width of that statement? Every word of this bill had been considered in the Ways and Means Committee, and hever from the day the committee had taken charge of it until the day they reported it was there a manufacturer or a lobbyist to come before them. Mr. Townshend—According to your Republican papers the lobbyists crowded the com-mittee-room. Mr. Haskell—Not a man was before that committee when it was in session. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carlisle) is as honorable a man as the representative from Illinois, and Mr. Randolph Tucker, of Virginia, is no scoundrel and the tool of no lobbyist When men like Messrs, Morrison, Randall, Carlisle, Kasson and Kelley are charged on this floor with acting as the ‘ agents of lobbyists, the man who charges it utters, I believe, a deliberate falsehood. He knows better. I will go on and brand such statements as that publicly. I put my honor and character before this whole world ifhd country. I invite the closest scrutiny of my public acts and private acts. No hound, no dirty gutter-snipe, ever sunk so low yet as to charge me with dishonor in discharging my duty on this committee or any other. I wIU not stand here to assert my Integrity. It is known where lam known. But when my committee is attacked in the name of my colleagues on that committee, Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues, I want to brand here now such declarations as that with the appellation which belongs to them. Mr. Townshend said he did not desire to bandy epithets with the gentleman from Kansas. He did not propose to go to the cesspools to throw filth at the gentleman. He had not in his remarks intended any personal application to either of the three gentlemen to whom he had referred. He simply intended to inform the country of the fact, which he had derived from the statements of Republican organs, that the committee had been surrounded and crowded by hired agents of the tariff monopolists and it was the influence they had exerted (he would not say corruption) on members of the committee that had brought forth this bill. He had not any personal animosity toward the gentleman from Kansas. He had been surprised at the ability and information which the gentleman had displayed in the management of this bill, for he was the only one on the other side who had shown any acquaintance with it He was surprised because he had never known the gentleman to show any ability or knowledge worth considering of any subject he had ever discussed. He (Mr. Townshend) did not know whether the gentleman intended to hurl at him the epithet of being guilty of uttering a falsehood or not “I want to know,” he continued, turning toward Mr. Haskell, “whether the gentleman charges me personally with falsehood. ” Mr. Haskell—Answer me a question and I will answer yours. I Want you to answer me whether or not you said that this bill was not made under the rules of this House, but waa the creation of a corrupt lobby. Did you say that? Mr. Townsend—l said then, and say again, that this bill was sired by hired agents of monopoly. I did not say, nor intend to say at the time, that the gentleman himself was the tool of the monopolists. I simply intended to assert, what I repeat here, that this bill was made up by, was inspired by, was sired by, hired agents of the monopolists, and your committee has accepted it and the Republican caucus embracedl wish to know, before I say what I may desire to say, whether the gentleman desires to charge me with personal falsehood?

Mr. Haskell—What I said was that the statement made was a false statement, and that I repeat. “What I want to know,” persisted Mr. Townsend, amid derisive laughter on the Republican side, “is whether the gentleman draws a distinction between a statement and the personal honor of the gentleman who makes the statement Before Mr. Haskell could reply, Mr. Henderson endeavored to bring about peace by appealing to the committee to proceed with the business and not turn the hall into a bear-garden. But Mr. Townshend persisted in his demand for an' explanation. “The statement which I have made,” he said, “has been a matter of public notoriety. Leading Republican papers have made it If the gentleman simply desires to brand tbo sta ements which have been spread throughout this land, I have no personal issue with him; but if he here shelters himself behind the privileges of debate on this floor for the purpose of insulting me in public, I want to know it” Mr. Kasson—l want to say in the common interest of the House that a distinction has always been drawn between a personal charge and a charge of misstatements of facts alleged. The gentleman must remember that his charge was practically one of corruption. Every member of the committee knows that charge to be salsa Mr. Townshend—Let the gentleman from Kansas make that statement and I will be content , Mr. Kasson—He has already made that statement Mr. Townshend—l again ask the gentleman from Kansas whether the gentleman from lowa has properly stated his feelings on this question. Mr. Haskell deigned no reply, and Mr. Townshend’s persistence was . cut off by a motion limiting the debate to one-half minute. Mr. Dunn’s amendment was relected.