Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 17, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 May 1892 — THE RULING SPIRIT. [ARTICLE]

THE RULING SPIRIT.

MONOPOLISTIC MANUFACTURERS FRAMED THE BILL. McKlnleyUm Exposed by Congressman W. L Wilson or West Virginia—The People Bear the Burden Not Only of Taxation but Tribute. A Logical Argument. Judging the tree by Its fruits, the solid common sense of the people has condemned the McKinley tariff act, and has distrusted the business principles of Its makers. That this distrust is not without foundation is evtdont after reading the following from tho speech of Congressman Wilson, April 7, in the House of Representatives: “Mn. Speaker— We have had In this debate a series of extravagant eulogies on the tariff law of 1890. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dlngley] pronounces it to be ‘consistent, comprehensive and oomplete, with all the different parts properly and justly related.’ The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Dalzell] eulogizes it as ‘oomplete, comprehensive ami logical.’ Other gentlemen have used stronger words of praise. “Now, sir, I want to call tho attention of the House to the manner in whloh a ‘consistent, logical and complete' protective tariff Is built up.

“The gentleman from Maine doubtless thinks he Is one of the chief architects of the prosent law. My friend from Michigan |Mr. Burrows] and my friend from New York [Mr. Payne] each for himself indulges tho samo pleasant Illusion. They were all members of the oommltteo whloh reported the law to this House.

“Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there Is abundant and unimpeachable evidence to destroy all iheso claims. “I turn to tho very schedule of the law now under consideration and I find that Mr. McKinley, In presenting to this House tho conference report, Sept. 27, 1890, said of it: ‘This schedule has the hearty approval of the National WoolGrowers’ Association, and of tho several State associations throughout the country.’ “In tho next sentence ho says, 'And, Mr. Speaker, that Is entirely ti-ue also of tho tobacco schedule,’ although he omits to say who had approved this latter. As to tho great and comprehensive metal sehedule, constituting bo large a part of tho tariff and contributing so much of Its political and pecuniary strength, I road In tho report made by Mr. James M. Swank, Secretary of the Amerloan Iron and Steel Association, made to the President of that association, that Muring the long period In whloh this measure (the McKinley bill) reoelved the consideration of Congross, the views of this association concerning tho proper framing of the metal schedule of tno new tariff wore frequently solicited and were promptly given;’ and as he adds that ‘tho schedule as adopted Is the most harmonious and completely protective of all tho metal schedules' In our tariff legislation, we are not left In doubt that tho views so ‘promptly’ given were ‘promptly’ acoepted. So much for the origin of three important schedules. Lot us pursue this investigation a little further. Turning to page 290 of the hearings before the Committee of Ways and Means of the last Congress, I find that Mr. William Whitman, President of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, said he ‘had framed two clauses’ prescribing the taxes on women’s and children’s dross goods, and these clauses turn up as Mr. Whitman framed them as sections 374 and 375 of the MoKinley act, with a blank In the provisos filled, doubtless aocordlng to the same gentleman’s suggestion. “At page 281 of the hearings, Mr, Isaao N. Heidolberger, in behalf of the Wholesale Clothier Manufacturers, submitted a memorandum of their demands, and that memorandum, so far as It related to woolen clothing, is substantially embodied In paragraph 390 of the aet. “The makers of firearms appeared at page 1265 with tho sections they wished ‘incorporated and mado a part of the tariff schedules of duties,’ and those seotions appear in their own words as paragraphs 169 and 170 of tho act, with a single trifling change. “Again at page 92 of the hearings, may be found the demands of the tin-plate makers—that were going to be—proffered by the trusted counselor, my friend from Michigan (Mr. Burrows), and although thousands and tens of thousands of consumers and laborers protested against these demands, Mr. Cronemeyer’s wishes are exactly embodied In paragraph 143 of the MoKinley bill.

“At page 79 of those hearings, Mr. Charleß 8. Landers, representing the makers of table cutlery, presented the corrections and amendments which they wished to the Senate clause, and at paragraph 167 of the act his memorandum appears in the very words in which he wrote it. “On page 66 of the hearings, Mr. W. T. Rockwell makes known the demands of the makers of pocket cutlery, and these demands literally reappear in paragraph 166 of the bill. Now, 1 understand for the first time in my life, how a ‘consistent, logical, complete’ protective tariff is framed, ‘with the different parts properly and justly related.’ Our friends upon the other side merely leave the blanks on the committee table and look at the celling or stroll around the Capitol while the parties who desire to tax the people come and All in the blanks according to the suggestions of their own greed or selfishness. “And that is the method of constructing a ‘comprehensive and logical bill.’ How much trouble my friend from Indiana (Mr. Holman) could avoid if, instead of toiling over his appropriation bills, he would only put the blanks on his committee tablo and invite the government officers to come and write in the salaries they desire to receive. Yet it is just as right, just as safe and proper, just as defensible to make up an appropriation bill by allowing parties to write in their own salaries as it is to make up a tariff bill by allowing parties to write in their own bounties. ”