People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 January 1894 — THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

THE TARIFF.

Vntopsi* of the Debate in the National Hooae of Representative*. On the 18th Mr. Springer (dem. Ill) stated that he had highly commended the pending tariff measure. Instead of denouncing it as had beea reported. Amendments offered by Mr. Wilson (dem., W. Va.) were agreed to—to reduce the duty on furs for hatters’ use from 80 to 10 per cent; to place on the free list, in addition to books, eta, printed over twenty years, hydrographic charts: changing the rate on condensed milk from 20 per cent ad valorem to 2 cents a pound; restricting the increase <ft the tax on cigarettes from 50 cent 3 a thousand to t 1.50 to those wrapped in paper: to tako chairs, cane or reed, wrought or manufactured, from the free list and restore the dutiable list at 7 per cent, and make the lumber schedule on the free list effective only against suoh countries as admit the same articles from this country free An amendment was also offered by Mr. Wilson. providing that the free wool schedule should not go into effect until August l, 1891 Mr. Payne (rep., N. Y.) offered an amendment to this amendment fixing the date at October 1, 1898. Mr. Johnson (dem., O.) submitted a substitute for the amendments pending providing that the free wool clause shoUid go Into effect immediately after the passage of the Wilson bill. Considerable discussion followed on the proposed amenuments. Mr. Cannon (rep., Ill.) was not in favor of Mr. Wilson’s amendment because if the clause had to go into effect at all within the next twelve months he thought the sooner It took effect the better Mr. Wilsau said it was improbable that the bill could take effect March 1, and it was impossible to predict when it would take effect, and he would like to give the wool growers a chance to get up their spring kids. And he proposed to offer anolher amendment, fixing the date at which the reduction on woolen manufactures should take effect as December 1. 1891, in order that the manufacturers might work off their stock of wool. In the debate which followed. Mr. Bryan (dem., Neb.) said not one farmer in ten raised sheep for wool; and while one farmer might be benefited by a protective tariff on wool, the other nine would be injured by having to wear 98 per cent, woolen goods. Mr. Marsh <rep, III.) opposed the bill. Mr, Bland (dem.. Mo.) Baid he would like to see a general reduction all along tho line, and he would vote against the amendment Mr. Henderson (rep, 111.) spoke against the bill and was followed by Mr. Weadock (dem., Mich.) in Its favor. Mr. Clark (dem., Mo.) said representatives who wanted to put off the date ot tho enactment of the wool schedule until 1898 might as well put it off until the day of judgment. When a man was freezing in 1891 it would be cold comfort to tell him he would have a good coat in 1898, and to mako up the deficit which world be causod by the Wilson bill, he said, we are going to pass such an income tax as will make theevo3of the multi-millionaires bulge out Mr. Shaw (rep, Wis.) opposed the bill, and said it was neither fish, flesh nor fowL Mr. Hopkins (rep., Ill.) said ho had been born in Illinois and had lived in Illinois all his life, and he knew the farmers there enjoyed a degree of prosperity which they had never had

•under a low tariff. Mr. Burrows (rop., Mich.) submitted a letter from a wool grower at Adrian, Mich., showing that the wool industry of Michigan would be killed by the passage of the Wilson bilL He then submitted an amendment providing for the taking efrect of the wool schedule December 30, 1899. Mr. Funk (rep.. Ill) spoke against the Wilson bill from the standpoint of a practical farmer. The committee arose without coming to any decision on the pending amendments and their substitutes. At the night session the speakers were Messrs. Arnold (dem, Mo.), Ellis (rep. Ore.), and McDearmon (dem., Tenn.). On the 17th Mr. Burrows (rep., Mich.) read from statistics to show that our foreign trade and exportations had increased under the full •operations of the McKinloy law. Mr. Springer (dem., Ill.) stated that the balance of trade between 1850 and 1830, under a low tariff, was in favor of this country; that this country had bought more than It had sold, andhe thought the country was so much better • off by the excess of importations. Mr. Dingley (rep., Me.) said if 5200,000,000 worth of goods were brought into this country it was depriving American manufacturers of a sale of that amount and slopped work to just that extent. Mr. Hatch (dem.. Mo.) spoke in favor of free wool Whenever the tariff on wool had been raised American wools declined in price, he said. Mr. Bynum (dem., Ind.) spoke briefly in favor of extending the time for the operation of the wool schedule to take effect. Mr. Cannon (rep., Ill.) asserted that wool had been as cheap in this country since the Ist of last June as it could be bought in Australia. He had opposed the extension of time because if free wool had to come it might just •as well come then as later. The only advantage to be gained by postponing the time would be that It would give the importer time to sell •out his stock on hand without beneiiting the wool-grower or consumer. Mr. Cockran (dem, N. V.) said the importation of 6350,000.000 worth of goods meant the exportation of an equivalent amount in goods or money. He argued that if the amount of goods had been imported it must have besn because they were Cheaper than they could be bought here, and that consequently we must have got more goods for the 5250,030,000 expended than if we had manufactured 5350,000,000 worth our■selves. And if we import more goods we must manufacture more goods to meet it and pay -lor it. Mr. Wilson’s amendment was then stated, proposing that the free-wool clause of the tarifl bill should go into effect August 1. 1834. Mr. iPayne (rep., N. Y.) offered an amendment making the time October 1, 1893. For these Mr. Johnson (deir.. O.) proposed a substitute providing that the clause should go into effect immediately after the passage of the bilL To this substitute an amendment was offered by Mr. Bower (rep., Cal.) fixing the date of operation of the clause as of December 31, 1899. Messrs. Payne's and Bower's propositions were defeated, and the next vote was on the •substitute proposed by Mr. Johnson, which ■was agreed to—yeas 112, nays 102, a large number of republicans voting in favor of the immediate enactment The next amendment submitted by Chairman Wilson was one puttlug marine engines and equipments on the froe list, which was agreed to. In the course of the debate Mr. Walker (rep., Mass.) took occasion to make several thrusts at Mr. Coekran (dem., N. Y.) for references made to the former by the latter In his recent speeches. Replying to Mr. Cockran’s remark that he (Walker) was not bound by the usual practices of controversy and good sense, Mr. Walker said that when Mr. Cockran was unable to answer his (Walker's) question, ho pounded his desk violently with his list so that his voice was drowned in the uproar. Another way he bad of answering was to say four words at the beginning and four at the end, put three ■words in the middle and add two at the end, and then say; “Isn’t that what the gentleman said?" Mr. Burrows (rep., Mich.) offered an amendment to the wool and woolen manufactures •schedule substituting the clause in the McKlodley bill for the one In the pending bill, and he spoke in support of this proposition. He stated that he had in his desk remonstrances from thirty-four states and territories against putting wool on the free list, and not one in fa--wor of It, and that the only petition presented ■to the committee on ways and means in favor of free wool had come from the Thurman club of Onto Mr Pickier (rep, S. D.) offered an amendment increasing the duty on first-class wooi • from II cents to U and on second-clas3 wool from 12 io 19 cents; and made an argument in support of it. What he complained of is that ■ there is no protection for any article raised by ■the farmer— tor his horses, his cattle, his Mr. Springer (dem.. I1L) explained that un--der the Inducement of high protection millions -of dollars had been invested In wool manufacturing. and the committee desired to give the manufacturers time to adjust their business. Mr Hunter (dem,, III.) declared that no man should be called a democrat who was in favor

At the evening session Messrs. Sperry (dem.. Conn), Talbert (dem., S. C.), Hunter (dem., I1L), Bower (dem.. N. C) and Post (rep.,Hi.), engaged in the debate Almost the entire day on the 18th was spent In the continuation of the debate on Mr. Burrows’ amendment to restore the existing duties on wool, with the result of Its defeat by a strict party vote Mr. Johnson (dem., O.) offered his amendment placing on the free list rsllway bars (made in part of steel), rails and girder street rails and punched iron or steel flat rails which in the bill are dutiable at 25 per cent. He explained that his amendment included In paragraph 116 girder street rails specifically, so that there could be no misunderstanding about that class of rails That a steel rail pool existed which paid steel rail mills to close their works and gave them a monopoly of this production, he said, was generally admitted. No revenue would be produced from putting a duty of 25 per cent, on them. The ways and means committee did not claim that it would produce revenue, and he asked the house either to put steel rails on the free list or show a good reason for not doing so. Mr. Springer (dem., I1L) asked Mr. Johnson, who is himself a steel-rail producer, whether placing rails on the free list would drive rail manufacturers out of the business, to which the latter replied that it would not Its only effect would bo to reduce the profits of the mill owners In reply to a sarcastic remark of Mr. Boutelle (rep.. Me.) Mr. Johnson said he was not In congress voting money into the pockets of hls stockholders To this Mr. Boutelle replied that his (Johnson's) patriotism had about it an element of improbability. In further reply to Mr Springer Mr. Johnson stated that hls mill was not more favorably situated than others) that it was in about the center of the steel-rail production. Mr. Dalzell (rep.. Pa.) said that steel-rail production was an important industry in eleven states. This proposition was to place steel rails on the free list and leave billets and blooms, out of which they were manufactured, dutiable at 25 per cent. Was that just? The steel industry was the most splendid monument of protection. Under its beneficent operation the price of rails had gone down from SSO to $25.

Mr. Johnson wanted to know, if the price went down here, what brought it down abroad? To this Mr. Dalzell replied it was the inventive genius stimulated by ihe establishment of the industry here. He said wages paid abroad were 40 per cent, lower than here. Any argument based on the present price of rails was fallacious, because of the depressed condition of business at this time. Mr. Johnson, he continued, sought to give strength to his plea lor free rails on the ground that he was himself a manufacturer. He sought to give the impression that he was in competition with the mills in the alleged trust. As a matter of fact he only manufactured street railway rails and he had a monopoly of that production. Mr. Dalzell went on to say that ho held in his hand copies of the 102 patents issued to Moxham, tho president of the Johnson company. They gave him the most complete and despotic form of protection, yet from behind that wall of protection he assumed the role of philanthropist and wanted to take the protection away from tho producers of railroad rails who had no patents. He accused Mr. Johnson of false statements in the house recently and of altering the Congressional Record. At the night session Mr. McKelghan (ind., Neb,) wanted tree trade, pure and simple. He was followed by Mr. Sibley (dem., Pa.) who ridiculed the pretentions of the framers of the Wilson bill, and severely criticised tho president and secretary for issuing bonds. Mr. De Forest (dem., Conn.) ill favor of the bill, and Mr. Russell (rep., Conn.) against it, concluded the debate for the night. On the 19th Mr. Dalzell (rep, Pa.) continued his remarks. He began by recapitulating the charges ho had made against Mr. Johnson (dem., O.). He did not believe, and had it on authority of the president of the Cambria iron works, that Mr. Johnson paid higher wages than hls neighbors. Johnson and Carnegie were both robber barons, with the difference that the latter was a true philanthropist and gave $5,090 a day for the relief of the poor ih Pittsburgh, while the fa’se philanthropist from Cleveland (Johnson) takes advantage of the winter's blast to dicker about the wages of hls employes. He (Johnson) had waxed fat on the watered stock of his street railroads, and his bank account was swelled by the manufacture of rails under the protection of patents. Mr. Johnson replied by saying that the question before the committee was whether steel rails should go on the free list. He had listened to the fearful tirade against himself and his partner, but even confessing that all said was true that offered no reason why rails should not go on the free list. The personal side of this controversy was not brought Into the house by him. Instead of arming himself with arguments he (Dalzell) had brought pins here to stick into him (Johnson). As to the personal charges, he plead guilty to the first, that he was a monopolist. To the next charge, that he was manufacturing a class of rails protect 1 by 120 patents and would not be affected by free rails, Mr. Johnson replied: “Wo only have twenty or thitty patents on rails; we tried to perpetuate the monopoly and control the market, but the courts decided against us. That threw us open to home competition. My amendment proposes to put girder rails on the free list, so that we will be open to the world's competition."

Mr. Johnson went on to explain that the alternative was to reduce wages or close the mills entirely, as was done at Sparrow Point, Md. As to the grave charge that in changing the record ne had practiced a deceit upon the house, he explained that when he made his speech he was totally unprepared to answer the question Mr. Dalzell propounded to him. When he went home and cousuUed liis records he found he was slightly in error and he had' made the change to which Mr. Dalzell hud alluded. But the first thing he had done the next day was to inform Mr. Dalzell of that fact. The gentleman had been so hard pressed, continued Mr. Johnson, that he had lugged in his wicked partner, Arthur J. Moxham. Mr. Moxham. although not a naturalized citixen, when the flood at Johnstown left 12,000 people in the water and 3,000 drowned, was chosen dictator. He fed the living and buried the dead. It was also true that he had purchased an engine in England because he could not get it here until five months after the English manufacturer agreed to deliver it. In those five months he had paid out 5175,000 in wages. The purchase of that engine had benefited American labor. The other personalities had been brought into this controversy by the eloquent advocate of the steel rail trust to cloud the argument. In all seriousness he declared that this steel-rail pool was only typical of other protected trusts the existence of some of which was perhaps not so easily proved as this. * Mr. Bland (dem., Mo.) declared that free rails would enable many companies to repair their roads and take many out of the hands of receivers • Mr. Wilson, chairman of the committee, took a position against Mr, Johnson. He and many other democrats had no doubt sympathized with much that Mr. Johnson had said, but they could not afford to go off in a great question like this at half-cock. There were, he declared, no friends of the steel-rail pool among those who framed this schedule. The steelrail schedule had been dealt with in the same spirit of fairness as others had been. Mr. Hopkins (rep, 111.) offered an amendment to restore the existing rates on steel rails. This was lost without a division. The vote was then taken on Mr. Johnson’s free-rail amendment, which was defeated by a vote of 10u to 79, forty democrats voting with Chairman Wilson. * Mr Henderson (rep, la.) was then recognized to offer the agricultural schedule of the McKinley law as a substitute for that of the Wilson bill. ivj.r. Hull (rep., la.) follower with a discussion of the effect of the agricultural schedule on his state. This precipitated a long discussion between Mr. Hull and Mr. Springer (dem., 111.), who produced statistics aud figures to prove that protection for she farmer was a sham and a fraud.

On tbe 20th Mr. Henderson's amendment substituting the existing law for the proposed agricultural schedule of the Wilson bill was defeated—yeas, 63; nays, 116. Other amendments were offered and voted down Mr. Bynum (dem., Ind.) offered an amendment defining more exactly the different classes of iron, but not materially altering the pending bill. Mr.

Bynum held that failures and strikes were more frequent under protection than 'hey had been under the Walker low tariff, and that the greatest fraud over perpetrated on the people In the name of protection was the tariff bill of 1890. Hls amendment was unanimously agreed to. Mr. Hitt (rep., HI) offered an amendment providing that when a country Imposed a tax on American products which this country imported free that the existing rates be imposed. He made a plea against the throwing away of the opportunities the country possessed of wresting from Canada free entry of our manufactures and agricultural products In return for free entry into the United States of Canadian coaL He pleaded for reciprocity with Canada—a reciprocity which should not give Canada all the advantages Representatives of Canada had been besieging the doors of the state department for forty years asking for reciprocity. In appealing to the democratic party not to throw away the great advantages they possessed In reciprocity, he said: “We all live under the same flag. We are legislating for ourselves and not for foreigners. There is a market In Canada which we could get In a great part,’’ At the night session the first three speakers were Messrs Talbot (dem, S. C.), C W. Stone (rep., Pa.) and Boatner (dem.. La.). The latter in referring to the sugar question said it was the only American agricultural product which could be protected Incidentally by a tariff for revenue only. But the Wilson bill was not a democratic measure in the sense of being a revenue bill, for It intentionally cut below the line of necessary revenue, and was out and out a protective measure where it was no a free trade bill Mr. Strong (rep., O.) drew in parallel columns an amusing picture of the farmer a 3 heis under protection and as he was “in the good old days of free trade,” the comparison being largely in favor of the latter-day farmer. Mr. Wheeler (rep., I1L) thought the Wilson bill should be entitled “A Bill to Decrease the Revenue and Increase the Public Debt by the Issue of Bonds,” instead of a bill to reduce taxation and to raise revenue. On the 22d a running debate was had on several amendments offered to the sugar schedule of the AVilson bill. Mr. Dockery (dem, Mo.) arraigned the bounty paragraph in unmeasured terms and said he would cheerfully vote to strike the bounty feature from the statute books.

Mr. Cannon (rep., Ill.) made a vigorous attack upon what he called the cowardice of the democratic party in retaining a bounty which they had denounced as unconstitutional. Mr. Gear (rep., la.) advocated the bestowal of bounties, which he said had always been the policy of the government. Mr. Bryan (dem., Neb.) protested against putting a tax back on sugar, and to raise the revenue needed he favored an income tax. Mr. Dingley (rep., Me.) said he was in favor of continuing in the experiments provided by the tariff of 1899 to test the question as to whether we can produce our own sugar by offering for fifteen years a bounty of two cents per pound. He was opposed to the pending propositions. Mr. Wilson (dem., W. Va.) spoke briefly against any change in the tariff bill as prepared by the committee on ways and moans. Brief speeches were made by other members, after which the proposed amendments were voted on—one by Mr. Mcßae (dem, Ark.) suspending the bounty on sugar and putting sugar on the free list, being agreed t 0 —135 to 69; another by Mr. Warner (dem., N. Y.) putting refined sugar on the free list, being also adopted —137 to 52. At the evening session several speeches were made. Mr. McCreary (dem., Ky.) was in favor of repealing the sugar bounty at once and entirely. He regarded it as a fraud and an outrage, and was gratified at the action of the house in adopting an amendment for its repeal Mr. Hilborn (rep., Cak) took up and presented seriatim the articles of California production in which California would be injured by the passage of the Wilson bilL Mr. Goldzier (dem., 111.) defended the Wilson bill, and was followed by Mr. Avery (rep., Mich.) who spoke In opposition to it.