Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 27, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 July 1888 — DISCUSSING THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

DISCUSSING THE TARIFF.

The Wool. Paragraphs Give Rise to a Lively Debate in the House. Messrs. Outhwaite of Ohio, La Follette of Wisconsin, and Others Air Their Views. [Washington telegram.] The wool paragraphs of the Mills tariff bill wore discussed by the House Saturday in committee of the whole. Mr. Outliwaiteof Ohio ridiculed the assertion that the effect of the tariff bad been to incroase the number of sboep In this country. He thought that the natural fecunditv of the flocks had something to do With the increase. There had been an increase in the number of cows. , Possibly some protectionist would claim hat this was because cheese and buttnr bail been protected. The number of horses hail increased; possibly on account of the tariff on curled hair. Swine had increased in numbers. The tariff on bristles might account for this. But mules, upon which there was no protective tariff, had also increased. How did the gentlemen account for that ? Mr. Grosvenor of Ohio suggested that the increase was attributable to the demaud for inuies in Indiana. Mr. Outliwaile proceeded to urge that the high tariff had no inllucnco upon the juice of wool, which was regulated by the law of sujiply and demand. He quoted s atistics to show that •under a high tnriff the price of wool had steadily declined. He did not Ciaim that the djtcUue was attributable to the tariff but to the increased supply of wool. He quoted a remark made to him by a shecfjt-grower in Ohio, to the effect that ho would surrender all the benefit which he derived from his clij> on account of a jirotectivo ttiriff for the jiriviloge of buying one j»air of untaxed jiants. He contended that the woolen manufacturers had nothing to soar from the woolen schedule. The bill presented a fair proposition—a jirojiosiUon to make a reduction on woolen goods equal to the riduction which would result from putting wool on the lroe list. Mr. La Folette, of Wisconsin, criticised Mr. Carlisle s speech upon the bill, osjiecially t hat portion in which the Sjieaker endenvo o l to show the prosperity of the country during the low tariff decade from 1&50 to 1860. To do this, said Mr. La Folette,' Mr. Carlisle had rocourso to the percentage argument. The trick of. the percentage argument was that a manufacture might he so small that any increase would make a percm.age showing. The gentleman in selecting the ar.icles upon which to show the percentage of increase had taken care [o jcl'M those jrticle's which, with one wefe ilot touched, or only slightlv, by the act of 1846. Ihe gentleman had said that the tariff of 1846 had been so beneficial that, in 1857 every representative from New England who voted at all hud voted for a bill making an almost uniform reduction of 20 per cent, and that among them was Justice S. Morrill. He challenged the gentleman to mention a single reduction on any important article of manufacture which was made in the bill of 1857 as it first passed the House, when Mr. Morrill and the other New England representatives voted for it. The statement of the gentleman was either inexcusable blundering or the meanest sort of political pettifogging. Nothing escaped his net; he claimed everything for the low tariff. Ho had both ends of the “teeter” in the air at tho same time. He trifled with the facts when he said that this country recovered from the depression of 1857 in a few months. At the conclusion of his speech Mr. La Foliate was heartily congratulated by his Republican colleagues. Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, referred to the recent speech of Mr. Kelley, giving an account of the interview between himself and Mr. Carnegie in the committee-room. Mr. Scott pronounced the statement made by Mr. Kelley to be a tissue of misrepresentation from beginning to end and made gut of whole cloth. Mr. GrosVenor told how he. with other Ohio members, had called upon the Ways and Means Committee, when the Morrison bill was pending, “before the star-ehamber process of incubatiug tariff bills was invented.” General Warner, a Democratic member from Ohio, had protested stoutly against any reluction of the wool tariff, and no dissenting voice was heard. That was two years ago. The Democrats from Ohio are now taking a dish of crow in silence—all except h s colleague from the central district, who now coolly asserted that he always liked crow. Mr. Grosvenor referred to the decrease of the wool industry in Ohio, and the great falling-off in the price of the wool crop, and said it was all due to the menace of the Mills bill. Would any san) man strike down this great industry for the sake of reducing the revenue by a few million dollars ? Mi Ford of Michigan said that it wab tor the country to choose between cheap whisky and cheap clothing. The wool tariff was burdensome. There was scarcely a breeze when the Iron and copper schedules were passed upon. But now, backed by a subsidized press, the Republicans tumbled over one another to get to the front and bounce the wool schedule. He djdn’t believe that the effect of the bill would be to decrease the price of American wool. Put all of the protective tariff you please on wool and you could not i>roduce all of the needed varieties of wool. But it taxed the manufacturer and thereby hurt tho farmer’s best customer. The manufacturers of the country asked the farmers to worn and stint and pinch while they took their ease. This was the feast that the farmers of the country were invited to partake of by the Republican party, but he predicted that they would reject it in November. [Applause on Democratic side.]