Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 January 1894 — TARIFF BILL DEBATE. [ARTICLE]

TARIFF BILL DEBATE.

PARTY LEADERS DISCUSS THE WtLSQjN MEASURE. ’ ■■ ■; "f n Democrat*, Republicans and Popallsta All Take a Hand in the War of Words Which ]( to Shape the Nation'* Tariff Policy. Synapsis of the Speeches. At the close of Mr. Wilson's speech on the tariff Wll, Mr. Barrets'of Michigan made an address on behalf of the Republican minority. He said thV measure under consideration involved the complete leversal of the economic policy, ’i he act of 1893 was deslgueuf no; only with a view of securing revenue 1 for the support of the Government but for the further ftatpose of giving encouragement to the creation of new enterprises and protection to American industries n,nd American worxmen, against unequal and injurious foreign competition. In Its i ractical workings It accomplished both these results. Thedecllne in the public revenues Is not attributable to any defect In the act of 1890, hut rather to the general derangement and prostration of business throughout the country. The ascendency of a political party pledged to the destruction of our protective policy has not only crippled and suspended the operation of our domestic manufacturers, but the Importer of foreign fabrics naturally curtails his importations in the hope of secures lh ? lr into our markets u£„n tnl most favorable ccaJKioaa I confidently assert that if the election of 1892 htad resulted lq the retention of'he Republican parly in power, acC;i.. # anlod as it would have been with the assurance of a continuance of the American policy of protection, the effect upon the public ret enue. as well as the general prosperity of the country, would have been entirely the reverse of what is now seen.” Mr. Black (Dem.) of Illinois referred to Mr. Burrows' picture of dire disaster in t his country and said tlie suffering depicted by him existed after thirty years of laws written by tils own party. Not a law lias been placed on tho stutule books by the Democratic party since 18(iu. The Democratic party’s responsibility for tne laws came only with tins Congress “Kefi re we took charge,” said he, “the present condition of affairs had begun. 1) that condition is due to existing law you cannot say wo did it. So far as the law is responsible for the | resent conditions it is the law of the high protective tariff.”

Mr. Hopkins (Rep., 1,1.) said that the bill that hud been rep, rted by tbe Ways and Means committee was certainly au anoniuly of (.digression al legislation. It neither comes up to the standard of tho bold and defiant declarations of their party platform nor meets the expectations ot tho moro conservative element of their party. As a tevenue measure it is a conlessed failure. Mr, Johnson (Dem.. Ohio) denounced the attitudoof liis paity In tne prolonged delay of action upon the tariff question after coming into power. If Mr. Cleveland had shown the sagacity and courage the situation demanded, the Ink would not have been dry on the commissions of Ids secretaries ere t o igress would have b-en called into executive session to tclieve the country of its burdens of taxation. Af.er much delay,'hov evc-r, tho committee had given a Democratic report and a Republican bill. Ho would vote for the bill if lie could get nothing better, but he did ni t like It !Hr., ( Johnson sail that tho bid. if enacted into a law, would Injure but one trust the sugar trust Mr. Cockran (I>em„ N. Y.) said the objection that the bill would not afford sufficient revenue Is one born of absolute ignorance of the lawaot revenue reductions. A low lariff will not only increase the revenues of the government lie mid. but it will lticreaso the opportunities of American labor. For ovory dollar that goos into the treasury, hundreds of dollars are collected by the processes of consumption and trado throughout iho country; so that the amount contributed for the support of the government is but a feature, a mite of this system of taxation, the real extent 6f which no man can toll

Mr. Reed (Rep., Me.) undertook to re-" fnte Mr. Cockran’s statements. He safd tho Democrats Would SabriHce iheir market at home for a more extended one abroad, while the Republicans believed In enlarging tho market in a different direction. They did not mean to go to the ends of the earth and struggle with the cheaper .labor of the old world. What they meant to do was to elevate the market of this country by giving higher wages to labor and thereby constituilng a market as broad as American production. . Mr. Breckinridge (Dem., Ky.) said (hat insome particulars the Wll on bill did not meet his approval, in that It did not go fur enough. Hd would like to havo seen tinplate put on the freo list even If a heavier tax would have to bo levied on whisky. He would like to see the bounty on sugar removed, hut ho wanted the sugar men of the South and the sorghum moil of. the northeast placated, in order that they might bo brought Into the Democratic told, for It was only by union that tho reform could he corsummnted. He favored the ad valorem feature of the pending hill While It did not meet with his unqualified approval he was ready to vole with his party on the experiment of an Income tax. Mr. Dlngley (Reu, Me.), said instead of being a measure, as termed, to provide revenue. It was In facj a hill to abolish revenue. He argued In favor of protective duties, and said protection simply says to the foreign manufacturer: “You must pay our Government as a duty the difference between our wages and your wanes In the production or manufacture aud distribution of any article v hich you have withheld from ycur labor and which wo have paid ours ” He said the Democratic majority was deaf to tho protest of tho people In the recent elec'lons. Mr. Dalze'.l (Rep. Pa.) said that In the few months that the dominant party has held ihe reins of government it has proved itself conspicuously Incompetent to deal with a single Important question presentdd by the responsibilities of civil administration. In this deplorable condition of things, clouds and darkness all around us, what do those who rule our destinies propose by way of relief? A tariff bill that, if enacted, I predict posterity will pr, nounce the mdst infamous legislative crime of our history. Instead of relief It brings aggravation.

Mr. Warner (Item., N. Y..) spoko in defense of the bill. While he urged its prompt passage, he said it had grave defects. For one thing it did not go far enough. He thought in some places It boro unevenly, and he protested particularly against the retention of the sugar bounty, and he protested still more strongly against the tax of one-quarter of a cent a pound by which it was proposed to protect the sugar trust And he protested against the reciprocity which was now proposed to be revived for the benefit of the Standard OH Company. He urged the passage of the bill, not as a compromise but a 9 an attack upou the outworks of protection. Mr. Everett (Dem., Mass.), said ho was going to vote for this bill because he had believed for years that such a measure as this was demanded by patrloiic considerations. He thought, however, that the Wilson bill did not go far enough.: Mr. Payne (Rep., N. Y.) said the pending hid was a sectional measure in that It- extended protection to southern while cutting the duties on northern agricultural products. Mr. Simpson (Pop., Kan.) Intended to vote for the bill, but there were many provisions in it that did not meet with his approval; Inasmuch, however, as it was a robber tariff at least 20 per cent, lower than the McKinley bill, he should have to Support It The cause of the, existing troubles he fount) in the intolerable burden put on the agricultural classes by the system of indirect taxation. .He illustr'ated his .remarks on the deplorable* ond it lon of the agricultural classes by displaying n dilapidated overcoat which lie got from a Hosqid-Jhje. could duplicate it on,; the ■ba.cks hf a million farmers in the United' States to-day. Ho safd she People’s party stands pledged to the principles of free trade Mr. Hopkins (Rep , 111.(’’criticised stateto Simpson in speaking of* the farmers. Mr. Pickier (Rep., & D ) opposed the bill. He said South Dakota had “HdHjMUWj*! advantages for the.raising <Jf-shqe,p fpr ftooi. and had faoiiltiesnfor raising many more sheep than it now possesses; hut under the operation's of the t Wilson bill this Industry would be ruined I And so with the raising of cattle, horses, I and other farm stock

Mr. Burrows (Rep.. Mich.) submitted a letter from * wool-grower at Adrian. Mich., showing that the wool la4o*try of Michigan would be killed by the passage of the Wilson bill Mr. Springer (Dem. Ill) said It was unjust to attribute all the distress which bad been prevailing to the threatened changes hr tbe McKinley act The sooner tbe pending bill was passed the better It would be for the country. -And just as soon as this bill Is passed every loom In the conntry will be started, every furnace fire will be lighted and every instrument of production will be put In active operation. Give this country free wool, free cres, free coal and free raw material, workingman's industry, and we will take a front position In the markets of the world.” Mr. Dolllver (Rep. Iowa) said that the remedy for tbe present depression 1* the employment of our own leuple, not giving it to those of other countries. The opportunity to werk created the wage fund on which thj prosperity of our people depended. Mr. Harter (Dem.. Ohio) said that a protective tariff put down wages'and lowered their purchasing power by puttiog up the price of goods Mr. Turner (Dem.. Ga.) undertook the refutation of t(ie charge that the Wilson blii was framed so the interests of Southern as against Northern farmers, and said he believed In free trade. Mr. Grosvenor (Hep, Ohh j argued In favor of the Wilson bill. He said tbe inevitable and neiessary consequence of tho bill will be the ruin of the remaining industries of the country. It will reduce tbe value of slieeo 130.000,000, close up innumerable factories and workshops, and greatly lessen and practically destroy the demand for t lie eu'.rmous output of coal fiog jini heretofore being ruined and marketed for manufacturing purposes. Mr. B< en (l’op. Minn.) vigorously oppo e l tbe prov sions of the bill. Mr. Hondo.son (Rep, III.) spoke against tbe bill, and was loiioweJ by Mr. Weadock (Dem, Mich.) In favor of the bill. Mr. Clark (Dem.. Mo.) amused the House for a time. He was strongly In favor of the measure. Mr. Shaw (Rep. Wis.) opi osed tbe bill, and said It was neither fish, flesh, nor fowl

Sir. DalieU (Rep. Pa.) charged Mr. Johnson, of Ohio, with manufacturing certuin kinus cf street railway rails, behind the protection of U)2 patents, and for that reason was willing to have railway rails go on,the free list- He denounced Mr. Johnson's attack on Carnegie, and said that Carnegie, the true i hilantbroplst, is giving 85.000 a day for tho relief of tho poor In Pit.shark, while the fulso philanthropist from Cleveland takes advantage of the winter’s blast to dicker about the wages of ids employes. Mr. Johnson replied to Dalzell la a serni-humorous tone, lie said that Dalzell liad Inade a personal attuci on him, and oven confessing that all he says is true that offers no reason why rails should not go on the free list. Mr. Bland (Dem.. Mo.) declared that free rails would enable many roads to repair their roads mid take many out of the nand: of rceeivert The Johnson amendment to put sioel rails on tlie free list was lost Mr. Bell (Pip, < ol.) spoke in favor of tbe bill, although it did not go lur enough to suit him. Mr. Shaw (Kep. Wis.) opposes it. especially the proposod reduction ut duties on barley. Mr. Morgan (Dim, Mo.) while be indorsed the provisions of tile llil, generally condemned in strong terms the proposition to place lead ore on the free list.

In the consideration of the sugar schedule Mr. Dlngley of Maine and Mr. Mercer of Nebruska supported the present bounty and Mr. Tarsney of Missouri defended the bounty provision of the Wilson bill. Mr. \\ ashlngton (Dem.. Tenri.) urged a 1-cent tax for revenue. Representative Glllet (Kep. Mass.) criticised the sugar schedule of tbe bill on the ground tiiat the taking off the bounty took awav the constitutional ground of national expediency on which the sugar sehedulo was chiefly sustained. Mr. bnodgrass (Dem.. Tenn. ) and Mallory (Dem.. Fla.) o posod the bounty. Jit 1 . Boutner whs in favor of a revenue duty on sugar. Mr. Payne protested against put ing it tax back on sugar. Mr. Wilson spoke briefly against any change in the tar.lT bill as prepared by tho Committee on Ways and Means. The amendments and substitutes presbnled to the s sgar schedule were then rend prior to taking tho vote upon them. The first amendment whs the one offered by Mr. Mcßae, suspending the bounty on sugar and putting sugar on tho free list. The Mcßae amendment was agreed to on a vote by tellers by yeas, 135; nays, 69. Mr. Robertson offered an amendment providing for a tariff tax on sugar. 'I o this amendment Mr. Warner offered an amendment putt Dg refined sugar on the free list Mr. Breckinridge offered a substitute, providing for a duty of 1 cent per pound on molasses, sirups, and all raw products of cane juice, beet juice, tank bottoms, sugar sweepings, etc. Mr. Warner’s amendment was agreed to. nearly all Republicans voting .in the affirmative. Tho Breckinridge amendment was lost