People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 July 1894 — THE TARIFF IN THE SENATE. [ARTICLE]

THE TARIFF IN THE SENATE.

The Conference Report on the Bill De- „ bated. On the 20th Senator Voorhees (dem., Ind.) chairman of the flnance committee, oalled up the conference report on the tariff bill. He yielded the floor to Senator Smith (dem.. N. J.). Senator Smith criticized the president for attempting to Interfere with the preroga'tjves of the legLlative branch of the govern* pent. He said that In the senate to pass the fell as a party measure needed every democratic vote, and the flnance committee had ifftme heroioally to work to harmonize the disJterenoes on the democratic side. He then proceeded to deliver a glowing eulogy -of'the tariff bill as it passed the senate, which, unlike the house bill, he declared, oontalned no menace to the industries of the country. He asserted that the framers of the house bill and |a large proportion of the democratic party were not tariff reformers; they were free traders; The president in his letter accepting the (nomination had favored not free but “freer” MW materials. I say, concluded he, for myself I know, _and for many others I believe, that if I were a "member of that committee, I should say to the conferrees from the house in answer to the defiance which has been flung in our faces: "Gentlemen, there is our bill. It is the result o$ great labor and infinite pains. It has met with the approve 1 both of the free trade and protection elements of our party. It is adapted to conditions, not theories. It is not perfect, bjit it is as nearly perfect as we can hope to make it at this session. In any event, such as It is, there it lies. You are at liberty to take it or leave it.” That, sir, would bo my position. I would not recede from it bj much as a hair’s breadth. Mr. Hill, in closing his speech.’called attention to the fact that the president, who had been so often quoted in the tariff debate as favoring the income tax. had at last, on yesterday, come out in no uncertain tones against it. tar. Gray moved that the senate insist upon itjs amendments and consent to farther conference, There was nothing, said Mr. Gray in speaking to his motion, that had occurred to make an unusual action upon the part of the senate necessary. He did not think It was nec-essa-y to retreat on acoount of the determined attitude of the house or threats from any quarter. He commended the wisdom which overcame the difficulties which stood in the way of passing the bill. At the conclusion of Mr. Gray’s speech Mr. Vilas took the floor and offered a motion to Instruct the senate conferrees to recede from so much of the Senate sugar amendment as provided for a duty of % oent a pound on refined sugar in addition to the 40 per cent, ad valorem on all sugars.

Mr. Vilas addressed the senate in support of his amendment. He referred to the petition of the business men of Chicago, presented to the senate, praying for a speedy and profitable end to this long uncertainty. He Indorsed that petition. The conference had failed. The two houses were arrayed against each other. The majority in the house to-day was a majority sent by the people to crystallzc the doctrine of tariff reform after years of agitation. The house, after months of laborious work. Had ent to the senate a measure of tariff roform that had been received with jov by the cdhntry. When the senate had heaped upon that measure its amendments the bill was not received with cordiality by tho people. It was hardly recognizable. Yet it was proposed to Stand fast for each one of the 634 amendments. The senate sought to make articles dutiable which the house placed on the free list. The amendment he offered, he said, would strike down an iniquitous and indefensible amendment placed in the bill bv the senate. Mr. Palmer (dem.. Ill.) proclaimed that ho wfis in favor of free raw materials, and announced that he would oppose the one-eighth differential to the sugar fust. He thought sugar producers of Louisiana were in poor Company when they joined hands with the stfgnr trust. The partnership should be dissolved. Mr. Vest took the floot when Mr. Palmer sat down. After the speech of the senator from New York, he began, it was a subject of congratulation that he and the president had at last found a platform on which both could stand. The lion and the lamb had at last lain down together and were led as a little child by tbe ways and means committee. Ho left to others to decide which was the lion and which was the lamb.

The senator from New York had said that free raw materials was a ordinal prlnnlple of democracy. The president went further and declared that failure to place raw materials on the free list was democratic perfidy and dishonor. Mr. Vest then proceeded to read the letter of acceptance of President Cleveland In 18‘h!, pronouncing in favor of “free raw materials.” Xet he now denounced free raw materials as perfidy and dishonor. In scathing tones he arraigned the president. Where did the president get the right to dictate to congress: to denounce one branch of congress to the other* Did he embody in his single being all the democracy. all the t:\rlff-reformsentlment In this country? Mr. Cleveland was a big man. But tjie democratic party was greater than any one than. It had survived Jefferson. Madison. Jackson: it would survive Grover Cleveland. Personally, he said, the hill did not suit yfn. He was a radical tariff reformer, but if fie could not get all he would take what he could get. “I givo It as my opinion,” he declared in conclusion, “that we will pass this bilL or no bill.” Then Senator Hill got the floor and spoke as follows: **A theory as well as a condition now confronts us. The theory of the democratic party IS that in the enactment of tariff legislation fCpe raw materials should always be an essentiajand conspicuous element. "until recently I had supposed that there w»a no dispute upon this question of principle, but that every democrat worthy of the name was willing to conoludo that if there was one tbuig more than another to which the democriftic party was committed, it was in favor of the doctrine of absolute free riw materials. Tme true and honest construction of every democratic national platform for twelve years past Irrevocably commits us to this just and reasonable principle." Senator Hill read the democratic national platform of fß9:i and continued: “If any democratic orator in any part of the country, forgetting the interests of the whole land and subserving the supposed interests of adocation, promised the people of any state or section that there would be any exception made tithe enforcement of the general principle of fi?fee raw materials when the democrats should obtain power, he exceeded his authority and misinterpreted our position. *Ttiss;.idby some in justification of or excuse for their present action that the presidfent's letter of acceptance in 189: modified the extreme demands of our platform. It is true tfiat some portions of his letter may tend to bear that construction. “But no matter what idea it may be claimed wag Intended to be conveyed in his letter of acceptance in mitigation or modification of the platform, there can be no doubt as to the president’s position at this time upon this essential principle of free raw materia’s. Let me read from that remarkable letter of the president’s which was yesterday submitted to the house of representatives. It expresses better than I can hope to do the true, sound and logical position of the democratic party upon tnm question. Alter reading extracts from this letter, Mr. Hilj went on as follows: “Mr. President. I approve every word that I have quoted It is an honest and manly statement of the true attitude which the party Should assume in this crisis. “Upon the question of free raw*materials the president Is right, and you know it. You cannot answer his arguments. You cannot sucod|.“fully dispute his propositions. You cannot ddUbt his sincerity and patriotism. You must yield in the end to his views. You cannot stand up against the sentiment of the gjeat democratic masses of the country, which tflil rally around the president In his contest with you upon this particular branch of the •utioect. The time to yield is now before there la further humiliation, embarrassment and 2 A the light of the letter of the president, house oannot honorably retreat. It has no ir olternat ve except to insist upon its bill. u&ffrelu It provides for free raw materials. THb president cannot approve the senate bill •Ifor what he has said in this remarkable letter. lie arraigns the senate and Intimates

, that the enactment of the senate bill means j ’party perfidy and party hlshonor.' These are ; strong words which the president of the United States would not use toward a measure which I he ever expected afterward to approve. “I respectfully differ from the president in ■ his assumption that a tax upon sugar is neces- < sary at this time, conceding that an income tax is to be retained. Clearly both are not needed i for any legitimate purpose of the treasury. UnI der the existing circumstances—with an ln- | come tax retained in this bill—l voted for free I sugar before, and I shall do so again. In my judgment the house cannot now honorably retreat from its position in favor of free sugar. The president’s suggestion came too late. The senate must recede from its amendments.” On the 23d Senator Gorman (dem.. Md.) drew a graphic picture of the anxtety with which the country awaited the fate of the bill, the idle factories, the closed workshops and the unemployed, saying that no one more than he appreciated the gravity of the situation. Further suspense was neither to the best interests of the country nor of the party. He eulogized Senators Vest, Jones. Voorhees and Harris, who had accomplished the feat of adjusting the differences between senate and house, and had made possible the passage of any bllL The infamous calumnies heaped upon the heads of the senate forced from him, he said, a plain, unvarnished statement of the facts, making it with malice to none. “It was the most uncalled for, the most extraordinary, most unwise communication," said he. In bitter tones, “that ever came from a president of the United States, it places this body in a position where its members must see to it that the dignity and honor of this chamber must be preserved. It places me In a position where I. must tell the storv as it occurred. The limit of endurance has been reached." Senator Gorman charged directly that every one of the senate amendments had been seen by Secretary Carlisle and scanned by him before they were agreed upon. He drew from his desk and had read un interview with Secretary Carlisle on April3o in which the secretary of the treasury gave the same bill his sweeping indorsement. The secretary of the treasury necessarily spoke in a great measure for the president in matters relating to his department. On the morning following the publication of that interview the papers announced that the president was in entire accord with his great secretary of the treasury. As a compromise Senator Gorman asserted that the bill as completed was satisfactory to not a single, solitary human being in all its details, but as a whole the structure presented was acceptable as the best bill that could be passed. There was no suggestion anywhere, either from the president or the secretary of the treasury, that the bill as modified was a violation of tho democratic principle. With dramatio emphasis Senator Gorman called upon Senators Vest. Jones and Harris to bear testimony as to whether his statements had varied a hair's breadth from the truth. “Let the people have the truth,'' said he, as he paused. Senator Vest said that he had not himself seen the president since the repeal of the Sherman law last summer, but with the secretary of the treasury he had frequent conversations. Mr. Carlisle had repeated and distinctly stated to him that the greatest possible calamity that could happen would be the failure of any bill. He had distinctly stated to him that no difference in rates should be allowed to stand in the way of the consummation of some scheme of tariff reform. His colleague, Senator Jones, had seen both Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Cleveland and they had both declared that the bill was acceptable to them. Senator Jones said: “I told the secretary of tho treasury, after he had approved the bill, to lay it before the president. He promised to do so. The next day I called on tt\e president and asked him if Secretary Carlisle had done so. The president said yes. I then said I wanted to know the attitude of the administration toward tho bill. He must. I told him, indorse it or I wquld not go fa ther with it. The president said he approved of what we had done, and would do all in his power to effect a compromise.” Senator Vilas jumped up with a question. “During that interview,” he said to Senator Jones, “was anything said by you about putting a auty on coal and iron?” “Yes.” Senator .Tones exclaimed: “I told him distinctly that this duty had been put on.” •But ” persisted Senator Vilas, “was there a single interview between you and the president in which the president did not impress the hone for free coal and iron?" 'There was not." Senator Jones replied, “but ho did not even suggest that putting on the duty was an abandonment of democratic principles." Senator Gorman then called on Senator Harris to affirm or contradict his interview in the morning papers in which he was quoted as telling the story of the tariff legislation in the senate substantially as ho (Gorman). Senators Vest and Jones had told it. Senator Harris said, in his usually impressive manner, that the interview was correct. “I id the president ever say to you,” Senator Gorman asked him, “that a duty on coal and iron ore was a violation of democratic principle?" "No such sentiment was ever expressed to me.” Senator Harris cried, melodramatically, “bv the president, by any member of his cabinet or by any human being." Senttor Gorman spoke of the deep regret that he was compelled to ask the public testimony of these senators. But the time had come to speak. The limit of endurance had been reached. The senate had been traduced. An attempt had been made to "try and gibbet it before the country." These charge- had been foully made from distinguished sources." They mst be met and refuted. Senator Gorman said he had nothing but the kindest feeling for the president. He had labored hard to secure his election on the occasion of his fl’St candidacy. He had stood by him throughout his second and third campaigns for the presidency. He did it with an admiration for the man. with a be’ief that he would serve his country well, but be did it also in order that there might be democratic control In this government. The senator continued: “I have given the president a fair support and an honest support: never subservient never swayed by the want of patronage, ready to stand with him on wnatever was right; He has no cause of complaint against me. I am not his debtor. Let him answer for himself." Never before since the declaration of independence. Senator Gorman went on, had a president of the United States been guilty of such a violation of the spirit of tho constitution as had Mr. Cleveland in writing his letter to Chairman Wilson. “The liberty of the senate should not be invaded.” he said in thunderous tones, "though 1.000 hirelings write us down and traduce us.” The president, he continued, had said it would be dishonorable to tax coal and iron. The house, parrot-like, repeated the cry. “Men who set up high standards.” said the senator, “should come to us with 'lean hands." Senator Gorman then defended the senate bill at length and In considerable detail. He told how President Cleveland in his letter of acceptance of his nomination had declared for freer, not free,' vavft m 'terials. “And but for that doctor tion Jro.acould not,” Senator Gorman exclaimed, *“iiF my opinion, have been elected." He hoped the senate conferrees would say to the house conferrees that the tows must be oboyed, and that the law was that when one house of congress p-oposed to change an existing law and a difference of opinion existed as to how much change should bo made, the house proposing the most radical change should adopt the less radical propositions of the other. Senator White followed Mr. Gorman. He said that the q' est'on of merits on the tariff was infinitely superior to the f quest!on of taste as to the president s letter read in the house. He reviewed the difflyulties in. framing the tariff bill. Free coal and free iron would be a great boon to California. The styte pays almost the entire coal tax, and yet this bill was cheerfully a cepted because it was the best that could be had. There was nothing for the senate to do but to vote for the resolution of the senator from Delaware (Mr Gray > to insist upon the senate bill. If the Vilas resolution were adopted it would open the door to a flood of amendments and wo: Id precipitate another long and acrimonious co itest over the tariff. If the bill was to include free iron and free coal the senator from New York (Mr. Hill) knew that the bill would be imperiled and he would probably shod uo tears at lt» peril.