People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 January 1894 — THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

THE TARIFF.

BjmopsU of the Debate in the National House of Representatives. Mr. Wilson cone lulled his speech on the 9th. He began with a reference to the legend which hqsald had always been inscribed on the democratic banner: "Equal rights to all and special privileges to none.’’ The people had brought the democratic party into power on the broad principle of equal Justice to aIL He said: "The democratic Darty raises Itself as one man, takes up this great cause, plants its standard here to sink or swim, survive or perish. that the democratic party may continue In power. We will plant the banner here We mean to have a fight and we will call every true believer in democracy to rally to our side. Let us call upon the American people, the silent masses, the farmers, scattered, unable to organize, who Dlod their way under the burdens of taxation. Our petition boxes are filled with protests of the trusts and combinations of this country. Let us be true to our faith. Let us go forward until we make tbis a country where every man shall see the gateway of opportunity opening before him, where every man shall see before him the opportunity to rise to such influence, to such prosperity as his own merits Justify, not weighted down with burdens of taxation Let us labor for a country free to all, equal to all, with opportunity planted in every home, in every humble fireside in the land.” As Mr. Wilson finished the democratic side broke into cheers and a wave of applause swept over the galleries. Mr. Burrows (rep., Mich.) replied to Mr. Wilson, and his remarks were liberally applauded by his republican colleagues. He said the measure under consideration had for its avowed object a radical modification of the tariff act of 1890. It involved not only a change of rates, but a complete reversal of an economic policy, the act of 1890 was enacted not only with a view of securing revenue for the support of the government, but for the further purpose of giving encouragement to the creation of new enterprises and protection to American industries and American workmen against unequal and injurious foreign competition. In its practical workings it accomplished both these results. The act went into effect October 6, 1890, and as a measure for revenue it met, so long as its operation was undisturbed, the needed requirements of the government Sinco July 1,189 J however, there had been a marked decline in the revenues until they had actually fallen below the requirements for the public service. This decline in the public revenues during the present fiscal year was not attributable to any defect in the law of 1890, but 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 had not only crippled and suspended the operation of our domestic manufactures, but the importer of foreign fabrics naturally curtailed his importations in the hope of securing their admission into our markets upon more favorable conditions. He confidently asserted that if the election of 1892 had resulted in the retention of the republican party in power, accompanied as it would have been with the assurance of continuance of the American policy of protection, the effect upon the public revenue, as well as general prosperity ot the country, would have been entirely reversed. President Harrison only affirmed the truth of history when in his last annual message to congress he said: “So high a degree of prosperity and so great a diffusion of wealth were never before enjoyed by our people. ” This exultant declaration made but a little over one year ago, as it seems in the midst of present appalling conditions, was, nevertheless, grounded on indisputable facta We are justified in asserting that the act of 1890, could its permanency have been’nssured, would have accomplished the double purpose for which it was enacted—revenue and protection.

The McKinley tariff never closed a mill In the United States, shut up a mine, stopped a wheel, blew out a furnace fire or drove a single workman into the streets. This general paralysis of business throughout the country comes solely from the ascendency of a political party pledged to the repeal of tho act of 1890 and the substitution therefor of a tariff divested of all protective features. W r ith such a party in full control of the government is it any wonder that domestic manufacturers suspend operations until advised of the conditions under which Ihoy must market their output? Mr. Burrows then took up the tariff plank of the last democratic national platform and compared it with the South Carolina ordinance of nullification. He asserted that, whatever may have been the purpose of the majority in making this bill, in so far as it conforms to the democratic platform of 1892, it will, If enaoted into law, prove disastrous to the interests in volVed, and in so far as it seeks to redeem the pledges, it is either a confession of error or an ■exhibiton of cowardice. He said it would not escape notice that upon examination of the list of articles transferred Irem the dutiable to the free list the interests of the farmer seem to have been selected for special assault and destruction, as nearly onehalf of the items embraced in this proposed transfer are the products of domestic husbandry. The bill is a free donation to foreigners, at a time, too, when the treasury of the United States is in pressing need of increased resources. There is not in it even a suggestion ot reciprocity. It is a bold free trade gift—the price paid for a democratic theory. After calling attention to individual Items of the pending bill, and. declaring that the minority in the house intended to resist to the last this wanton destruction of American industries, he said if there was any provision in the bill which would stimulate a single domestio industry or give employment to labor it had not been pointed out Under the proposed policy of ad valorem for specific rates, coupled with the reduction proposed, revenue and domestio industries will alike diminish and the latter in many instances disappear. After quoting from leading authorities as to the advantage of specific duties, Mr. Burrows said starving families, clutching for the last morsel of food, cannot be lulled Into forgetfulness of present misery by the announcement of lower ad valorem duties on the necessaries of life. 'Tramping the streets, out of employment, receiving alms, lower ad valorems will not heal the wounded prido of the brave men who never before were dependent upon public charity. The laboring people of this country ask not lower ad valorems, but work. They prefer high ad valorems, constant employment and abundant wages to low ad valorems, Idleness and want. After showing the growth of the country in recent years Mr. Burrows concluded as follows:

“The record of this year’s industrial and individual suffering resulting from this proposed legislation will never be made up It exceeds the possibility of human calculation, and I implore you to abandon this suicidal policy. Have you not pursued it far enough to be convinced of its disastrous consequences? You have it within your power to instantly relieve this appalling situation. You have only to substitute for the pending measure a joiut resolution declaratory of your purpose to maintain existing law in full force and eflept during the continuance of this administration and business activity will instantly take the place of business depression. It would arrest the slaughter of our fiooks. open our mines, relight the fires of our furnaces, unchain the wheels of our industries, start every spindle and loom, while whistles and factory bells would call the tramping, starving millions back from enforoed idleness to profitable em, ployment and American republic would leap with a bound to its accustomed place in the van of Industrial nations. ’’ At the conclusion of his speech there was a great outburst of republican applause. Mr. Black (dem., 111.) 'hen took the floor, and referred to Mr. Burrows’ picture of dire disaster in this oountry and said the suffering depicted by him existed after thirty years of laws written by his own party. Not a law has . been placed on the statute books by the democratic party since 1880. The democratic party's responsibility for the laws came only with this congress “Before we took charge,’’ said he, “the present condition of affairs had begun If that condition to due to existing law you cannot aay we did it So far as tne law is responsible tor the present conditions it is the law of the high protective tariff. ’• Mr. Hlack proceeded to discuss the condition of UwagrtcaliunU claa-v*. who are now, he said, twa* mr *tw lows 1 1 prices since records

have been kept. In referring to the state of affairs antecedent to the inauguration of the protective policy he declared that no public and little private indebtedness existed then. Mr. Hopkins (rep., Ill) said that the bill that had been reported by tbe ways and means committee was certainly an anomaly of congressional legislation. It neither comes up to the standard of the bold and defiant declarations of their party platform nor meets the expectations of the more conservative element of their party. As a revenue measure it is a confessed failure With the treasury almost depleted ana the government marching on the high road to bankruptcy, this bill still further reduces the revenues of the government and cuts off its power to meet its obligations to tbe enormous amount of 870,000,000 annually. He then proceeded to make a long review of the history of tariff legislation in this country. On the 10th Mr. Johnson (dem.. O.) denounced the attitude of his party In the prolonged delay of action upon the tariff question after coming into power. If Mr. Cleveland had shown the sagacity and courage the situation demanded, tbe ink could not have been dry on the commissions of his secretaries ere congress would have been called into executive session to relieve the country of its burdens of taxation. But instead of that we were expected to rest on our laurels and divide the spoils. At last however, the committee charged by the house with tbe duty of bringing in a bill for the abolition of a system which the majority had declared a fraud and robbery had been heard from. They had given us a democratic report and a republican bill The voice is tho voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau. It is a bill for which they have taken the McKinley bill as a model and of which the best that can be said is that it is the McKinley bill shaved down: or a redistribution of spoils of protection. He would vote for the bill if ho could get nothing better, but he did not like it That the bill contained some good points, he said, was true. 'Tho McKinley bill contained some good points; it put raw sugar and some other things on the free list. This bill goes farther and puts wool, coal, iron ore and undressed lumber on the free list, and in so far makes some show of redeeming the pledge to abolish protection. This was its little sprinkle of saving salt which commended it to him. The bill might suit tariff reformers, whatever they may be, but he was pioud to say that he never was a tariff reformer. Ho was only a plain free trader.

Put before a republican house by a republican ways and means commute, the pending bill would fitly represent the idea of “protection amended by the friends of protection.” But proposed by a democratic ways and means com mittee to a democratic house as representing the idea of an administration eleoted on a platform declaring protection an unconstitutional fraud and robbery, it is an evasion of a promise and a political blunder of the gravest kind, a confession that the democratic party lacks courage and honesty. Mr. Johnson proceeded then to show that the bill, if enacted into law, would injure but one trust, the sugar trust Mr. Dalzell (rep., Pa.) followed Mr. Johnson. He said: "In the few months that the dominant party has held the reins of government It has proved itself conspicuously incompetent to deal with a single important question presented 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, 1 predict posterity will pronounce the most intamous legislative crime of our history. Instead of relief it brings aggravation. To the manufacturer whose idle capital is bringing him no returns, whose plant by disuse is depreciating and whose Income has been sadly narrowed or entirely cut off. It offers the deceptive lure of free raw materials and the Ignis fatuus of the world’s markets, while It strips him of tho ability to compete in any market and be just to his employes. To the farmer it offers instead of protection an enlarged competition from abroad in the produots of tho farm, instead of a vast and growing homo market, a market abroad in which his increased surplus cannot but degrade prices.” The speaker then proceeded to a disoussion of the schedules of the bill, and in conclusion remarked: “There is not a single industry in which we compete with our fellows across seas in which our laborers do not roap richer rewards than their fellow-toilers abroad.” Mr. Warner (dem., N. Y.) followed Mr. Dal zell, speaking in defense of the Wilaon bill. In urging Us prompt passing he admitted that 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 slill more strongly against the tax of one - quarter of a cent a pound by which It was proposed to protect tho sugar trust. And he protested against the reciprocity which was now proposed to be revived for the benefit of the Standard Oil company. In conclusion he urged the passage of the bill, not an a compromise but as an attack on the outworks of protection in order that the guns might flow be turned upon the citadel aud complete the work at a future dav. Mr. Coombs (dem., N. Y.) followed, speaking on the same line, and when he had finished a recess was taken, Messrs. Snodgrass (dem., Tenn.) and Curtis (rep., N. Y.) occupying the time of the evening session.

On the 11 tli Mr. Breckinridge (dem, Ky.) opened the discussion. He said he had always considered himself the foremost free trader in the house, but since the recent speech of his friend from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, he had learned that he (Mr. Breckinridge) did not occupy the most distant outpost of free trade democracy. In some particulars the Wilson bill did not meet his approval, in that it did not go far enough. He would like to hc.ve seen tin plate put on the free list even if n heavier tax would have to be levied on whisky. He would like to see the bounty on sugar removed, but he wanted the sugar men of the south and the sorghum men of the northeast placated, in order that they might be brought into the democratic fold, for it was only by union that the reform could be consummated. B / our policy of large profits ou small 3ales and our imposition of taxes upon merchant vessels our carrying trade has been thrown Into the hands of the English. The speaker favored the ad valorem feature of the pending bill. While it did not meet with his unqualified approval he was ready to vote with his party on the experimeat of an income tax In conclusion he said he hoped to “live to see the day when tbis contiaent will be one for freedom and the tariff restrictions be wiped out from the St Lawrence to- the Columbia, when free religion, free government and free education will be put side by si<ie with free trade. ’

Mr. Dingley (rep, Me.) spoke in opposition to the bill. He said instead of being a measure, as termed, to provide revenue, it was in fact a bill to abolish revenue. He argued in favor of protective duties, and said protection simply says to the foreign manufacturer: ‘‘You must pay our government a 3 a duty the difference between our wages and your wages in the production or manufacture and distribution of any article which you have withheld from your labor aud which we have paid ours.” He said the democratic majority, deaf to the protest of the people in the recent elections, are hurrying forward their scheme of warfare on domestic industries, under the mistaken idea that they received a commission in 1892 to enact into law the tariff theory enunciated in the Chicago platform. Mr. Springer (dem., Ill.) said it was unjust to attribute all the distress which had been prevailing to the threatened changes in the McKinley act There were other and substantial causes contributing to this condition of distress. Under the protective system, which had prevailed for thirty years, private indebtedness had largely increased in this country The sooner the pending bill was passed the better it Vvould be for the country. “And mark my words,” he continued, “just as soon as this bill is passed every loom ip the country will t* started, every furnace fire will be lighted aad every instrument of production will be put in active operation and there will be witnessed a revival of prosperity such as this country has never before seen. Gige this country free wool, free ores, free coal and free raw material, workingman’s industry, and we will takeafront position in the markets of the world.” Mr. Dolliver (rep., la.) took the position that the remedy for the present depression is the employment of our own people, not giving it to those of other countries The opportunity V> work created the wage fund on which the pros purity oi our people depended

Mr. Harter (dem., <\) said that there was a greater difference between the wages of protected France and free trade Great Britain, in favor of the latter, than there was between America and Great Britain. A protective tariff put down wages and lowered their purchasing power by putting up the price of goods. Mr. Brosius (rep., Pa.) was the last speaker in the afternoon, and at the evening session, Messrs. Maguire (dem., CaL) and Cockrell (dem., Tex.) spoke in favor of the pending measure, arraigning the system of protection as one which served chiefly to foster monopoly. Mr. Brosius (rep., Pit) concluded his speech on the 12th, In the course of which he gave an amusing description to show the limited extent to which local goods were used at home even in the various states Mr. Everett (dem.. Mass.) said he was going to vote for this hill because he had believed for years that such a measure as this was demanded by patriotic considerations He thought, however, that the Wilson bill did not go far enough. Its free list was not wide enough, but he uocepted It as the best thing that could be obtained at this time. Mr. Black (dem., Ga.) devoted a large part of his time to a discussion of the income tax feature, which he understood to go hand in hand with the vVllson revenue bill. If any man should endeavor to escape from the Imposition of such a tax as tbe income tax he would advocate a thorough search into every secret recess into which a man might hide, and he would do it by process of law in order that such a man might be compelled to bear his share of the burdens of the government The wealth of the country was better able to bear the extra burden than the common people. Mr. Pendleton (dem.. W. Va.) said It was unfortunately true that one of the reasons for the reduction of the tariff no longer existed. The surplus in the treasury had disappeared in the four years of the Harrison administration. Mr. Payne (rep., N. Y.) said the pending bill was a sectional measure in that it extended protection to southern while cutting the duties on northern agricultural products. He attacked the ad valorem system and asked why should the committee open the door for frauds and crime? The more he examined this bill tho more he was convinced of the astuteness of that Canadian member of parliament who stated that Canada got more out of the Wilson bill, without giving up anything in return, than she could have hoped to obtain by the most favorable reciprocity treaty. The pending bill, if passed, will drive, the honest importer from business, will put a direct, offensive and inquisitorial tax upon our people, will give a gratuity to the sugar produoer without a farthing of benefit to the country, will foster the interests of sections at the expense of others, will impoverish our farmer and continue the blight of poverty and want and hunger and cold which has so recently overtaken the people of a country one year ago the busiest, tho most prosperous, the most progressive, the happiest, and the most independent the world ever saw.

Mr. Simpson (pop.. Kan.) said that while he intended to vote for this bill there were many provisions in it that did not meet with his approval; but inasmuch as it was a robber tariff at least 20 per cent, lower than the McKinley bill he should have to support it The people’s party stands to-day pledged to the principles of free trade. The cause of the existing troubles he found in the intolerable burden put on the agricultural classes by the system of indirect taxation. He described the effects of the McKinley protection upon the farmers—it was to increase tho cost of things they bought and to reduce the price of things they sold. A result of this system had been to concentrate in the hands of 9 per cent, of the population of the United States 71 percent, of its wealth. He illustrated his remarks on the deplorable condition of the agricultural classes by displaying a dilapidated overcoat which he got from a farmer on the market place. He said he could duplicate it on the backs of a million farmer; Id, the United States to-day. Messrs Daniels (rep., N. Y.> and McDowell (rep, Pa.) spoke against tho Wilson bill. At the evening session Messrs. MclCaig (dem.. Md.) and English (dem.. N. J. > advocated the pending measure, and Messrs. Herman (rep.» Ore.) and Waugh (rep., Ind.) spoke iu opposi tlon. On the l’3th Mr. Pickier (rep., S. D.) spoke lit opposition to the Wilson bill. Bis state being principally engaged in agriculture he confined his remarks almost entirely to th* agriculture features. He saidi South Dakota had all the natural advantages for the raising of sheep for wool, and had facilities for raising many more sheep than it now possesses; but uxder tho operations of the Wilson bill this industry would bo ruined. And so with the raising of cattle, horses and other farm stock.

Mr. Turner (dem., Ga.) spoke in defense of the pending measure. He undertook the refutation of the charge that the Wilson bill was framed in the interests- of southern as against northern farmers. Touching upon the question of rice cultivation he said: “The rice industry is exotic in this country. It has always been unable to flourish in spite of the immense sums expended to promote its cultivation. Yet a duty has been still left upon rice, and it has been done for the benefit of the African laborer of the south—for these poor Africans, who are as ignorant now as they were when their ancestors were sold- by the people of New England to the people of the south. I believe in free trade, but at the same time the measure which is put before the house deals with existing institutions, and I, being in a slight degree responsible for its preparation, prefer to throw the mantle of liberty over the subiect” Mr. Grosvenor (rep., O.) made an argument in favor of protection and in opposition to the Wilson hill. He said the inevitable and, necessary consequence of the Wiison hill will; be the ruin of the remaining industries of the oountry. It will reduce the value of sheep 139,090.0)0. close up innumerable factories and workshops, and greatly lessen and praotioaily destroy the demand for the enormous output of coal now and heretofore being mined and marketed for manufacturing purposes. The republicans will not aid in shaping this bill to make it palatable. It is base and defective and full of wounds, bruises and putrefying sores from the crown of its head to the soles of its teet,. and it it passes will overthrow the democracy in 1896. Mr. Cockran (dem., N. Y.) spoke in support of the Wilson bill, and said the objection that the bill would not afford sufficient revenue is one born of absolute ignorance of the laws of revenue reductions. A low tariff will not only increase the revenues of the government,, ho said, but it will increase the opportunities of American labor. For every dollar that goes into the treasury, hundreds of dollars are-col-lected by the processes of consumption and trade throughout the 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 of which no man can tell. He discussed the benefits of diversified industries, and said, if the pending hill were passed it would take more than six months of hard times to put soup kitchens in every city. In conclusion he said the Wilson bill was not perfect in all particulars Many articles had been left on the dutiable list on- the principle that a man who- had been engaged on a prolonged debauch, would, doe if his whisky was cut off too suddenly. Messrs. Taylor (rep., Tenn ), Draper (rep., Mass.). Doolittle (rep.. Wash.) and Wright (rep.. Mass.) opposed the Wilson, bill, and. Mr. Weadock (dem.,. alich.) spoke in us favor. The discussion under the. fire-minute rule was begun on the 15th. The reading of ihebill consumed over two hours, after wi.icli Mr Wilson (dem., W. Va.). offered the first committee amendment by striking out in the tobac co, schedule the words, “commercially known” in. the description of wrapper tooacco. He explained that the amendment was desirable to prevent incorrect interpretation at the custom house.

A warns discussion followed, Mr. Payne (rep., N. Y.) offering and Mr. De Forest (dem., Gonn.) supporting an amendment to the amend ment to increaso the duty on cigar wrappers from o*e to two, dollars. Mr. Payne’s amendment was finally lost yeas, TO, nays, 170—and the Wilson amendment agreed to by a vivu boce vote. Other amend-, meats offered by Mr. Wilson were agreed torto include cotton duck in the cotton schedule, aril to add to the free list sweat leathers, binding ribbons, cut felt, etc., for bat trimmings. In the course of the debate Messrs. DaForest (dem., Conn.), Cockran (daw., N. Y.\ Payne (rep., N. Y.), BcuteUc (rep, Me.) anil others engaged in a spirited discussion in which the question of labor wngea was considered, Mr. Cockrsa caking vbv'.t or

the rate of wages depended on the trades oniony or whether It depended'on the law of supply and demand. Mr. Payne replied that the manufacturer must first be given the ability to pay the wages as a conditional precedent Mr. Cochran then asked whether Mr. Carnegie and the proprietors of the Homestead mills had not abundant means to meet the demands of the laborers when the strike occurred there Mr. Payne said he did not know, but stated that a democratic member of the committee, when he found out what wages the Carnegie workmen bad been receiving, said they were the highest wages he had ever heard of In mis country. To this Mr. Cockran replied that when the trades unions sought to maintain those wages they were met by ballets In the hands of hired assassins in the protective interests. Mr. Boutelle here interposed by saying that his position was that protection furnished to the manufacturer a market for his commodities so that he could convert them into cash and be able to pay good wages for labor. In the course of his further remarks Mr. Cockran asked as to what was left for the ben etlt and protection of the laboring man to enable him to get his share of the robberies made universal under the appellation of protection? Why, ne asked, are laborers hungry and manufacturers comfortable? What principle of division of profits bas been used which enables the manufacturers to look on the condition of things with composure while the map who work are wandering homeless, hopeleS, and without food? Mr. Reed (rep.. Me) said how easy it was to meet Mr. Cockran’s assertions by similar ones and to say tbat the reason why labor was walking the streets in idleness was on aocount of the unfaithfulness of the democratic party to Its duty. It was because to-day all industry was arrested by the mere threat of attempting another system. He went on to argig: that the theory of wages being dependent upon the law of supply and demand was exploded. He said the democrats would sacrifice their market at home for a more extended ond abroad, while the republicans believed in enlarging the 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 constituting a market as broad as American production Mr. Boen (pop., Minn.) opposed and Mr. Hudson (dem., Kan.) defended the provisions of the Wilson bill.