.. ....... '\.... - -- ·. ~ • I • 

' 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8841 ~ 

Also, petition of SO citizens of St. Francis County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. · 

Also, petition of 129 citizens of Lee County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of 147 farmers and citizens of Phillips County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, resolutions of colored planters and farmers, adopted March 24, 

1890, and the Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union, of Arkansas, 

against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition from 103 farmers of Lee County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of 34 farmers of Phillips County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of 57 colored farmers and laborers of Lee County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of 70 colored farmers and farm laborers of Phillips 

County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of 390 colored farmers and farm laborers of Phillips 

County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, pet.ition of 30 members of Phillips County Wheel, Phillips 

County, Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of 16 members of the Agricultural Wheel of Phillips 

--County: Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of 55 members of Lee County Wheel, Lee County, 

Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, protest from Hon. J.P. Jones, county judge of Desha County, 

Arkansas, against same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of Jacob Trieber, of Helena, Ark., against passage of 

Honse bill 283, known as the Conger bill, and House bill 679, known as the Butterworth hill-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By l\Ir. GEST: Petition and proof upon the bill for the relief of fra 

W. Center-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. JOSEPH: Petition and communication in reference to eight 

12-pound brass howitzers unearthed at Albuquerque, N. Mex., August 

12, 1889-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. MI:(..LS: Memorial of J. C. Allen & Co. and others, citizens 

of Corsicana, Navarro County, Texas, protesting against legislation by 

Congress compelling railroads to transport petroleum barrels free-to 

the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. MORSE: Memorial of E. 0. Fuller and others. ciLizens of 

Canton, Mass., protesting against legislation by Congress· compelling 

railroads to transport petroleum barrels free-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts: Memorial of D. P. Morrison and 

others, citizens of Massachusetts, protesting against legislation by Congress compelling railroads to transport petroleum barrels free-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. PAYSON (by request): Petition of S. C. Clarke and others, 

citizens of the District of Columbia, fora municipal government, etc.-

to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

By Mr. THOMPSON: Petition, affidavits, etc., in case of William 

A. Miller-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

SENATE. 

WEDNESDAY, August 20, 1890. 

The Senate met at 10 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, ·Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. 

The Journal ofyeste.rday's proceedings wn.s read and approved. 

LEA VE OF ABSENCE. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I ask leave of absence, beginning 

to-morrow, for six days, on account of health. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont asks to 

be excused from attendance upon service in the Senate for six days 

from to-morrow, on account of his health. Unless objection is made, 

leave will be granted. 

PETITIONS AND l\IE.YORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented a petition of citizens of Almena, Kans., praying for the prompt payment of pension claims to re- lieve the wants of the veterans on account of the total failure of crops 

in Western Kansas and Nebraska; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a petition of the Mart. Armstrong Post, No. 202, 

Grand Army of the Republic, of Lima, Ohio, praying for the appointment of S. S. YODER as one of the managers of the soldiers and sailors' 

homes of the United Sliates; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented resolutions of gratitude adopted by the Young 

People's Society ot Christian Endeavor of the First Congregational 

: 

Church of Washington, D. C., for the passage of the original-package 

bill; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented a petition of Vinland Farmers' Alliance, Vinland, 

Kans., praying for the removal of the restriction imposed by the Brit-

.ish Government on the importation there of cattle from the United 

States; which was ordered to Jie on the table. 

He also presented a memorial of the Society of Friends, Damascus, 

Ohio, protesting against use of the United States mails by lotteries, 

etc.; .which was reforred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post. 

Roads. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. BATE, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3857) to provide tor the disposal of a portion of 

the United States military reservation at Baton Rouge, La., reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. BLAIR, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were re- ferred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment, 

and submitted reports thereon: 

A bill (S. 4313) granting au increase of pension to Step-hen D. Smith; 

and 

A bill (S. 4320) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary E. Dickey. 

Mr. SA. WYER, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were re- ferred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment, 

and submitted reports thereon: 

A bill (H. R.10208) granting an increase of pension to Moses Graham; 

A bill (H. R. 8890) granting an increase of pension to Lewis Solomon1 

a private in Company A, First Indiana Infantry, Mexican war service; 

and 

A bill (H. R. 5712) granting a pension to J. G. Fetherstone. 

l\1r. MOODY, from the Committee on Pensions, to w horn was referred th~ bill (H. R. 7914) granting a pension to Jay Marvin, reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. CAMERON introduced a bill (S. 4336) granting a pension to 

Mary A. Irving; which was read twice by its title, and, with the ac- companying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

l\Ir. VOORHEES. Ey request ofthe Wage-Workers' Political Alli- ance I introduce a bill and ask its reference to the Committee on 

Printing. 

The bill (S. 4337) to provide for the publication of a periodical 

whirh shall be known as "The Congressional Petition-Box," and for 

other purposes was read twice by its title, aqd referred to the Committee on Printing. . Mr. FAULKNER introduced a bill (S. 4338) to provide the assessor oft.he Di&trict of Columbia with plats of subdivisions outside the cities 

of Washington and Georgetown; which was readtwice by its title, and, 

with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. -

Mr. MOODY introduced a bill (S. 4339) for the relief of William 

Tarrant and Lyman L. Hatch, who allege loss of property by Indian 

depredations; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying paper, referred to the Select Committee on Indian Depredations. 

MESSAGE FROM THE H01JSE. 

A message from the Honse of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, 

its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 3714) to 

apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agricult- ure and the mechanic arts established under the provisions ot au act of 

Congress approved July 2, 1862, with an amendment in which it re- quested the concurrence of the Senate. 

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. '.Ibe Chflir lays before the Senate the 

resolution offered by tho Senator from P~.tvania [Mr. QUAY], com- ing over from a previous day. It will be<ttitd. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution submitted by Mr.QUAY on the 

18th instant, as follows: 

Resolved, That the following orders be adopted for the government of the Senate during the present term of Congress: 

Ordered, 1, That during the present session of Congress the Senate will not take up for consideration any legislative business other than the pending bill · (H. R. 9416}; conference reports; general appropriation billil; pension bills; bills relating to the public lands, to the United States courts, to the postal service, to agriculture and forestry, to public buildings; and Senate or concurr~nt reso- lutions. 

Ordered; 2, That the consideration of all bills other than such as are mentioned in the foregoing order is hereby postponed until the session of Congress to be held on the first Monday of December, 1890. 

Ordered, 3, That a vote shall be taken on the bill (H. R. 9416} now under con· sideration in the Senate and upon amen<iments then pending, without further debate, on t-be 30th day of August, 1890, the "Voting to commence at 2 o'clock p. m. on said day and to continue on that and subsequent days, to the exclusion of all other busines!', until the bill and pending amendments are finally disposed of, For the foregoing-stated purpose the following rules, namely, VII, VIII, IX, 

X, XII, XIX, X.,"'{.II, XXVII, XXVIII, XXXV, and XL, are modified. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

resolution. 

,. I • 

-· 

-·' 

.::- .,,. 

: 

., \ 

~. 

,. 

.· 

.. :. 1. 

--
I . 

·. 

I• 

1, \ 

·. 

8842 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

Mr. HOAR. I Mk for the yeas and na.ys on the adoption of the resolution. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

.lfr. HOA.R. I move to amend the resolution by substituting what 

I send to the desk. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proposed substitute will be read. 

Th~ Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Resol't'cd, Tha.t the rules of the Senate be amended by adding the following: 

When any bill or resolution shall have been under consideration for a reason- able time it shall be in order for any Senator to demand that debate> thereon be 

closed. If such demand be seconded by a majority of the Senators present, the 

question shall forthwith be taken thereon without further debate, and the pending measure shall take precedence of all other business whate'\·er. If the Sen- ate shall decide to close debate, the question sha.U be put upon the pending amendments, upon amendments of which notice shall then be given, and u,pon the measu-re in its successive stages according to the rules of the Senate, but 

without further debate, except that. every Senator who may desire shall be per- mitted to speak upon the measui·e not more than once a.nd not exceeding one hour. 

After such demand shall have been made by a.ny Senator no other motion 

shall be in order until the same shall have been voted upon by the Senate, un- less the same shall fail to be seconded. 

After the Senate shall have decided to close debate no motion shall be in order 

but a motion to adjourn or to take a. recess, when such motions shall be sec- onrled by a majority of the Senate. When either of aaid motions shall have been 

lost or shall have failed of a second, it shall not be in order to renew the same until one SenJltor shall have spoken upon the pending measure, or one vote upon the same sha.11 have intervened. FoT the foreg-oing-stated purpose the following roles, namely, VIT, VITI, IX, 

X, Xll, XIX, XXII, XXVII, XXVIII, XX.XV, and XL, a.re modified. 

M.r. HOAR. I also move, with a view of perfecting the pending 

resolution, to amend the matter to be stricken out by inserting what 

I send to the desk. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts 

moves to amend the part proposed to be stricken out as will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Amend the -resolution by iuserting, lliler the words "tho pending bill (H. R. 

9416)," the words, "the bill to a.mend and supplement the election laws of the 

United States (H. R.11045)," and by adding at the end of the resolutions the 

word1:1: "And immediately thereafter the bill to amend and supplement the 

election laws of the United Sta.tesshall be taken up for consideration, and shall 

remain before the Senal;e every day for three days, after the reading of the 

journal, to the exclusion of all other business, and on the 4th day of September, at 2 o'clock, voting thereon, and ~n the then pending e.mendments, shall begin and shall continue from dn.y to day, to the exclusion of other business. until the same are finally disposed of." 

Mr. QUA. Y. Upon that amendment I give notice that at the proper 

time I shall demand a divi.Bion of the question. 

Mr. GORMAN. We could not hear the Senator from Pennsylvania 

on this side. 

The PRESIDENT pl'O tempo1·e. The Senator from Pennsylrnnia gave 

notice that at the proper time he will ask for a division of the question. 

l\fr. HOA.R. The two amendments are proposed separately, not together. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. So the Chair understands. 

Mr. QUAY. The majorproposition in thesecondamendmentisthat 

the election bill sh::ill be included in the schedule of business contained 

in the order proposed. A second provision in the same amendment is 

that the bi11 shall be made a special order when taken up~ 

~Ir. HOAR. l\Ir. President. I suppose that ordinarily it would not 

be neces.~ary to discuss at all the merits of a measure which is proposed 

to be inserted in an order of business. But this amendment which I 

have offered, to include one of the most important subjects before the 

Senate and before the country among those to be dealt with at the 

'(lresentsession, requires, as itseems to me, a compactstatementofthe 

purpose, the mechanism, and the necessity of the bill which I have 

Jlroposed to place in this list of subjects. 

There was never a measure so much misrepresented or so much misunderstood as this. While it has been sent to us from the Honse of 

Representatives, carefully considered by a committee of the Senate, 

dem:mded by certainly a very large and respectable portion of our fellow-citizens, I think nothing has been beard about it here except a threat from one highly honored Senator of bloodshed if its provisions 

should be adopted or attempted to be put in force. 

I think therefore it is proper to cail the attention of the Senate for 

a few moments to a proposition which is nothing more nor less--

Mr. PUGH. Mr. President--

Mr. HOAR. Allow me to finish my sentence, and then I will yield 

to the Senator. I propose to call attention to a proposition which is 

!lotbing mq_re nor less than a proposition to remove force and fraud 

from the election of members of our great representative Chamber, 

and to substitute for the election processes with which we are all unhappily too familiar, the peaceful arbitrament of the courts of the 

United Stat-es. I will yield now. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield to the Senator from .Alabama? 

Mr. HOAR. I do. 

Mr. PUGH. I dt;Sire to inquire of the Senator if he alluded to what 

I .said at the time he reported the bill from the Committiee on Privileges and Elections in relation to the effect of an attempt to execute 

that bill? 

Mr. HO.A..R. I did. I have it here. 

Mr. PUGH. I desire to say, sir, that I made no threat. What I 

said was a mere prediction, a mere expression of opinion, which has 

been repeated in the other House and in the press, that the effect of 

an att.empt to execute such a law would lead to bloodshed. I made 

no threat. It is an utter perversion-I am bound to say it is a willful 

perversion-of the language I used at the time of the reporting of that 

bill from the committeA when it is said that I made any threat that 

that should be or would be the consequence of the execution of such a 

Jaw. It was a mere prediction, a mere expression of opinion. It was 

the expression of a fear and not a desire or an intent that that would 

or should be the-consequence of an effort to execute the law. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, the difference between a prediction and 

a threat, coming from the leaders of gentlemen who have managed elections in some parts of the country, has unhappily been found in the 

experience of some people a pretty thin and narrow one. .But if the 

Senator does not like that phrase I will withdraw it, and I will read 

to the Senate what he did say; and upon that we shall both stand. 

Mr. PUGH. H prostitutes the judiciary of the United States to political and 

partisan uses, and it is subversive of the fundamental principles of local selfgovernment. If the bill becomes a. law, its execution will insure the shedding 

of blood and the destruction of the peace and good order of this country. Its passage will be restated by every parliamentary method and every method allowed by the Constitution or tbe United States. 

I suppose the Senator does not question the accuracy of that report, 

and the country will determine whether that be a threat. That was in 

the debate on the 24th of April and appearl'! in the RECORD of the 25th. 

Every Senator, when he enters upon his office, takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and to defend it against all 

enemies, foreign and domestic. The obligation of this oath attends 

him through bis whole service. It is his first, last, constant, and 

fundamental duty. It is the supreme law of his great office. It is the 

chief purpose for which the legislative power is placed in his handfl. 

I seek to impose no law upon the conscience and understanding of other 

men. But I must keep that oath myself, as I understand it. The 

duty to use that power for that end is as bindin~ on me, on all :fit occasions, as is the duty of the President to use the executive power or 

of the soldier to use his sword. The failure so to use it, on fit occasion, 

from timidity, from selfish ambition, for personal o.dvantage<>r for personal ease, is as ignoble for me as a. like failure of the soldier in the 

hoar of battle. 

This bill undertakes to defend the Constitution of the United States 

against an attempt to overthrow it by depriving the majority of the 

people of tbeir right honestly and freely to elect Representatives in the 

other House of Congress and by substituting for such election processes of fraud, intimidation, and bribery. 

It relates to a matter of purely national concern. The national 

House of Representatives is the final judge of the election of its members. The main object of this bill is to provide for obtaining the evidence upon which the House can safely proceed in renderingtbatjudgment. 

The function of the Representative is wholly national. Upon that, 

as upon scarcely any other, depends the continuance of the national 

life it.self. In case of failure by the people, the House of Representatives elects the President. It alone can set in motion the great mechanism of impeachment, by which, in the la.st resort, every national officer is kept to his duties. The power of taxation and the power of 

expenditure can be initiated only with it.s consent. It only can open · 

the Treasury of the nation. It only can open the·purses of the people. 

It is the immediate depositary of the people's will. It is the only branch 

of the Government which, in the original scheme of the Constitution, 

was made immedia~ly dependent on tbe people alone. 

The House of Representatives is so constitutedSays Alexander Hamilton, in his masterly treatiseas to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the cords by which 

they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people. 

Are they not all that government will admit and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means by which repub- lican government provides for the liberty and happiness of mankind. 

When the foundation of this Chamber was laid in 1851, Daniel Webster declared as the fundamental prineip!es on which our system rests, 

first, "the principle of popular represen · ation " and, next, "that the 

will oftbe majority, fairly expressed through the means of representation, shall have the force of law; for it is obvious that there can be no 

other foundation for law to rest on." 

History, Mr. President, has already vindicated the wisdom of our 

fathers in their conception of the House of Representatives. In it the 

American people may see it~elf as in a mirror. It has partaken, doubtless, in fullest measure of the faults and imperfections of the communities from which it springs. A republican government is a government 

where human nature shows itself as it is. But still its history has 

been, in large degree, the epitome of the history of the country. As we think of that great as embly, its fiISt stormy century just gone 

by, tbt. generations are brought together, and the historic figures seem to stand side by side1 still deliberatinj", still speaking to each other and 

to us. Here the consummate wisdom of Madison ever guides the people in the paths of that Constitution which jt did so much to create. 

The trumpet voice of Clay seems again to stir in the veins of his 

.. 

I"' 

... -
.. .. • • •• •J. 

1, ... ":. .... •,' '! ··,, '1· , '.· 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL I REOORD-SEN:ATE. 8843 

countrymen the spirit of their rising nationality. Here the fignre of 

Adams, his four-score years resting as a crown of glory upon his head, 

again breasts the tempestuous sea of slavery and declares "thus far 

shalt thou come and no farther; and here shall thy proud waves be 

staid." Here Stevens, the great commoner, breaks through the trammels of a strict and narrow construction and accomplishes constitutional 

ends with little regard for constitu ional restraints. 

It seems to me, Mr. President, that it is the most important single 

object of legislation that this spring of liberty should be kept pure. 

The House sends to the Senate for its concurrence a measure which it 

deems essential to its own preservation. That House has ever been 

jealous of its authority and its prerogative. We may well believe that 

when it asks the aid of any other power than its own to secure its constitutional integrity a serious crisis has arisen. I should b~ the last 

man to undervalue the great conservative functions of the Senate. 

This body represents, as no other, the purpose of the States and the 

sober second thought of the country itself: But when after twenty 

years' constant discussion and constant complaint the House of Representatives spoke upon this subject, it p:ronounced the people's mandate 

that we should secure the honest expression of the people's will. 

The provisions of this bill are the result.of a most satisfactory experience in this country and in England. There is nothing in it that 

is new. It is simply blending the provisions of a law which has been 

in operation in England for twenty-two years with general public 

satistaction, with the provisions of a law which has been in operation 

in this country for nineteen years with general public satisfaction. 

The only change which has been made in either is to limit, restrict, 

and guard them against the possibility of partisan abuse. 

It is said that this measure imputes dishonor to one part of the 

country. I shall show presently that it takes for granted no condition 

of fact there which its own authorities and leaders have not again and 

again declared to exist. But it strikes at evil in all parts of the country 

alike. 

It only applies to the whole country with especial precaution and 

safeguard what the North has applied t.o itself for nearly twenty 

years. Unhappily, popular elections are attende:l with these abuses. 

The passion for political power, even in free countries, is with many 

men the strongest passion of the soul, t.oo often overcoming the love 

of country itself. The national power has again and again, even at 

the present session, been invoked by the representatives of the South 

to protect their people against money-making combinations, burdening 

and engrossing the necessaries of life, which the States find themselves 

unable to control. 

How are they dishonored when the power of the country comes to 

their aid against a still more powerful combination, whose object is to 

engross the political power of this country in a vast private trust, and 

so to plunder the American people of that primal necessary of life of 

all, the right to their equal share in their own Government? 

In proposing this measure we are doing exactly what the framers of 

the Constitution expected of us. I shall not to-day enter into any 

elaborate vindication of the constitutionality of this bill. The Constitution declares, Article I, section 4: 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Repre- sentatives shall be prescnoed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at a.ny time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. 

• • "' "' • * SEC. 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qua.lifica- 1:ions of its own members. 

The manner of the election and the a-;certainment of the result are 

reserved to the final and absolute discretion of the National Legislature. It may borrow, for the time being, for its convenience, the 

mechanism of the State; it may modify or alter that mechanism to 

effect its purpose, or it may take the whole matter into its absolute 

control, if the interest oftbe people require. 

The purpose of this provision has been declared again and again, not 

only by the men who enacted it, but more recently by the Supreme 

Court of the United States it:elf. 

I give from the very able r eport of my colleague in the other House 

[Mr. LODGE] the language of Afr. Madison, taken from his own notes, 

when this clause was under disens.~ion in the convention, as also that 

of Rufus King a.nd of Gouverneur Morris, who I belie-ve was chairman 

of the committee that reported it: 

Mr. MADISON. The necessity of a General Government supposes tha.t the State Legislatures will sometimes fail or r efuse to consult the common inrerest a.t the expense of their local conveniences or prejudices. The policy of referring- the appointment ot the House of Representatives to the people, a.nd not to the Leg- islatures of the States, supposes that the result will be somewhat influenced by the mode. This view of the question seems to decide that the Leu;islalures of the States ough.t not to have the uncontrolled right of regulating the times, 

places, a.nd manner of holdin~ elect.ions. These were words of great latitude. It was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the discretion- ary power. Whether the electors should vote by balJot or viva voce; should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet at one place; should all vote for all the Representatives or a.ll in a district vote for a'tlumber allotted to the district-these and many other points would de- pend on the LegislatDTes, and mh~ht materially affect the appointments. Whenever the State Legislatures had a favorite measure to carry they would take ca.re so to mold their regulations as to favor the candidates they wished to succeed. Besides, the inequality of the representation in the Legislatures of particular States would produce a. like inequality in their representation in the 

• J > .-

Na.tional Legislature, as it was presumable that the counties having the power in the former case would secure it to themselves in the latter. What danger could there be in giving a controlling power to the National Legislamre? Of whom was it to consist? First, of a Senate to be chosen by the State Legisla- tures. If the latter, therefore. could be trusted, their representatives could not be dangerou s. Secondly, of Representatives elected by the same people who elect the State Legislatures. Surely, then, if confidence is due ~o the latter it must be due to the former. It seemed as improper in principle, though it might be less inconvenient in practice, to give to the l:ltate Legislatures this great au~ 

thority over the election of the Representatives of the people in the General Legislatm·e ns it would be to give to the latter a like power over the election o'f their representatives in the State Legislatures. Mr. KING. If this power be not given to the National Legislature, their right of judging of the returns of their members may be frustrated. No probability has been suggested of its being abused by them. Although this scheme of erecting the General Government on the authority of the State Legislatures has been fatal to the F ederal est.a.blishment, it would seem as if many gentlemen still foster the dangerous idea. l\Ir. G ouverne ur l\lorris observed that the States might make false returns and then make no provisions for new elections.-The Madison Papers, volume 3, pages 1280, 1281. 

Hamilton says (Federalist, No. 59), speaking of the power of Congress to regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own members: 

I am greatly mistaken' if there be any article in the whole plan more completely defensible than this. Its propriety rests npon the evidence of this plain prop- osition, that every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation. 

The purpose, scope, mea.ning, and extent of this power ha.ve been dealt 

with by the Supreme Court of the United States in two most elaborate 

judgments, one delivered by l\Ir. Justice Bradley in Ex parte Siebold, 

100 U. S., 371, the other by Mr. Justice Miller in .E.i: parte Yarborough, 

110 U. S., 651. The latter was the unanimous judgment of the court. 

In the case of Siebold (Ex pa.rte Siebold, 100 U.S., 871), Mr . .Justice Bradley de- livering the opinion of the court, .Justices Clifford and Field dissenting, the fol- lowing passages give the vie,vs of the court upon this important power of Con- gress: 

"lt seems to us tba.t the natural sense of these words is the contrary of that assumed by the counsel of the petitioners. "After first authorizing the States to prescribe the regulations, it is added,' the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations.' 'Make or alt~r!' What is the plain meaning of thesewords? If not under the prepos- session of some abstract theory of the relations between the State and Nationa.l Governments, we should not have anydifficultyin understaudingthem. There is no declaration that the regulat.ions shall be made either wholly by the State 

Legislatures or wholly by Congress. If Congress does not interfere, of course they may be made wholly by the State; but, if it chooses to interfere, there is nothing in the words to prevent its doing 110, eit!ler wholly or partially. On the contrary, their necessary implication is that it may do either. It may either make the regulations or it may alter them. If it-only alters, leaving, as mani- fest convenience requires, the general organization of the polls to the State, there 1·esults a neces..«ary co-operation of the two governments in regulating the subject. But no repugnance in the system of regulations can arise thence~ for the power of Congress over the subject is paramount. It may be exercisea as anti when Congress sees fit to exercise it. 'Vhen exercised, the a.ction of Con- gress, so far as it extends a.nd conflicts with the regulations of the 8ta.te, neces- sarilysuper3edes them. This is implied in the power to• make or alter.' (Pages 

383,384.) 

•·So in the case of laws for regulating the elections of Representatives to Con- gress. The State may make regulations ou the subject; Congress ma-y make regulations on the same subject, or may alter or add to those already ma.de. The paramount character of those made by Congress has the effect to supersede those made by the State, so far as the two are inconsistent, and no farther. There is no such conflict between them as to prevent their forming a. harmoni- ous system perfectly capable of being administered and carried out as such. (Page386.) 

"The objeotjon that the laws and regulations, the violation of which is made punishable by the acts of Congress, are State laws and have nut been adopted 

by Congress is no sufficient answer to the power of Congress to impose punish- ment. It is true that Congress has not deemed it necessary to interfere with the duties of the ordinary officers of election, hut has been content to leave them n.s pTescribed by State laws. It has only created additional sanctions for their performance, and provided means of supervision in order more effect- ually tosecuresuchperformance. The imposition ofpunishmentimplies a.pro- hibition of the act p1mished. The State laws which Congress sees no occasion t~ alter, but which it allows to stand, a.re in effect adopted by Congress. It simply demands their fulfillment. Content to leave the laws .a.s they are, it is - not content with the means provided for their enforcement. It provides addi- tional means for that purpose, and we think it is entirely within its constitu- tional power to do so. It is simply the exercise of the power to make addi- tional regulation.'' (Pages 389, 389.) The Supreme Court a lso discussed this clause of the Constitution still more fully in Ex par le Yarborough (110 U.S., &"'1), when Mr. J'ustica l\liller delivered the opinion of the court, and no dissent was noted: "That a government whose essential character is republican, whose execu- tive hea.d and legislative body are both elective, whose most numerous and powerful branch of the Legislature is elt>cted by the people directly, has no power by appropriate laws to secure this election from the infi.uence of violence, of corruption, and of fraud is a proposition so startling as to arrest attention a.nd demand the gravest consideration. "If this Government is anything more than a. mere aggregation of delegated 

agents of other States and Governments, each of which is superior to the Gen- eral Government, it must h.a.ve the p c.wer to protect the elections on which its existence depends from violence and corruption. 

"If it has not this poweT, it is left helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence and insidious corruption. 

(Pages 657, 658.) 

•·Will it be denied that it is in the power of that body to provide Jaws for the proper conduct of those elections? To provide, if necessary, the officers ·who shall conduct them and make return of the result? And, especially, to provide ina.n election held under its own authority for security of life and limb to the voter while in the exercise of this function. Can it be doubted that Congress can by law protect the act of voting, the place where U is done, and the man who votes from personal violence or intimidation and the election itself from cor- ruption and fraud? "If this be so. a.nd it is not doubted, are such powers annuiled because an elec- tion for State officers is held at the same time and place? Is U any less impor- tant that the election·of members of Congress should be the free choice of all the electors because State officers are to be elected at the same tim.e? (& parte Siebold, 100 U.S., 371.) •'These questions answer themselves; and it is only because the Congress of the United States, through long habit and long years of forbearance, has, in de-

,· .. ' -

. ' 

.. 

.. 

\ . 

,,, .· .. ·:.! 

' s. 

. I 

.. 1-:' 

, :. .. 

-· . I 

... 
--

' · 

..  

·. 

8844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

ference and respect to the States, refrained from the exercise of these powers that they are now doubted. 

"But when, in tne pursuance of a. new demand for action, that body, as it did 

in the cases just enumerated, finds it necessary to make additional laws for the 

free, the pure, and the sa.fe exercise of this right of voting, they stand upon the same ground and a.re to be upheld for tile same reasons. (Pages 661, 

662.) 

"If this were conceded, the importance to the General Government of having 

the actual election-the voting for those members-free from fo1·ce and fraud is not diminished by the circumstance that the qualification of the voter is determined by the law ot the State where he votes. It equally affects lhe Government; it is as indispensable to the proper discharge of the great function of legislating for that Government that those who are to control this legislation shall not owe their election to bribery or violence, whether the class of persons who shall vote is determined by the law of the State or by the law oflhe United States, or by their united result. (Page 663.) . "If the Government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authnrity to provide against these evils, if the very sources of power may be 

poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage without legal 

restraint, then, indeed, is the country in danger. and its best powers, its high- est purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand and unprincipled corruptionists on the other. (Page 667.) 

"It is objected that Congress has no power to enforce State laws or to punish 

State officers, and especially has no power to punish them for violating the laws 

of their owu State. Asageneralproposition this is undoubtedly true, but when 

in the performance of their functions State officers are called t-0 fulfill duties 

which they owe to the United Htates, as well as to the State, has the former no means of compelling such fulfillment? "In view of the fact that Congress bas plenary and paramount jurisdiction over the whole subject, it seems almost absurd to say that an officer who receives or has custody of the ballots given for a Representative owes no duty to the Na- tional Government which Congress can enforce, or tha,tan officer who stuffs the 

ballot-box can not be made amenable t-0 the United States. IfCong1·ess has not, 

prior to the passage of the present laws, imposed any penalties to prevent a.nd 

punish frauds and violations of duty committed by officers of election it bas 

been been.use the exigency bas not been deemed sufficient to require it, and not because Congress has not the requisite power. (Pages 387, 388.) 

"The counsel for the petitioners concede that Congress may, if it sees fit, as- sume the entire control and regulation of the election of Representatfres. This 

would necessarily involve the appointment of the places for holding the polls, 

the times for voting, and the officers for holding the election; it would require 

the regulation of the duties to be performed, the custody of the ballots, the 

mode of ascertaining the result., and every other matter relating t-0 the subject. Is it possible that Congress could not, in that r.ase, provide for keeping the peace at such elections and fol" arresting and punishing those guilt:v of breaking it? If it could not, its power would be but a. shadow and a naree. But if 

Cono-ress can do this, where is the difference in principle in its making provision fur securing the preservation of the peace, so as to gi;e to every citizen his 

free right to vote without molestation or injury, when it assumes only to super- vise the regulations made by the State, and not to supersede them entirely? In our judgment there is no difference; and if the power exists in the one case it. 

exists in the other." (Ex parteSiebold. page 396.) 

No political opponent will now impute to either of these great magistrates any purpose of wresting the Constitution to political ends. 

They both concurred in the judgment which limits the power of Congress to interfere by legislation for the protection of civil rights to the case of an express denial of those rights by affirmative legislation of 

the States, thus sweeping away at one blow the carefully prepared 

frame-work of Republican legislation. That decision has been bailed 

by Southern Democratic orators, on this floor and elsewhere, as giving 

anew birth tothe doctrine of the rights of the States. Wnat Republican, what Democrat, what Senator, what loyal and law-abiding citizen 

will stand up here to deny the constitutional power of Congress or to 

threaten revolution in the face of this unanimous judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal ? 

Bot it is said that this power is given to Congress only that it may - be used when the States neglect to provide for an election and in order 

t-0 prevent a vacancy. Let me answer byr.epeatingonce more the language of the Supreme Court in Ex parte Yarborough, which I have just 

read: 

It is indispensable to the proper discharge of the irreat function of legislating for that Government that those who are to control that legislation shall not owe their election to bribery or violence. * * * 

If' the Government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, if the very sources of power may be 

poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outra.~e without legal re- straint, then indeed is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which sustains it are at the mercy of the combination~ of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand and unprincipled corruptio~sts on the other. 

Undoubtedly the States should not be permitted so to legislat.e or so to refrain from legislation that their seats in the House of Representatives shall be vacant. That wa.'3 one great reason for this constitutional 

provision. 

Bnt is that seat any less vacant, in any genuine and constitutional 

sense, when the man entitled to it is kept out of it because a usurper 

has got into it? If the man whom Uassachusetts has commissioned 

t-0 express her will is defrauded of his authority, is she any the less 

deprived of representation that somebody pretends to speak for her 

against her will, contrary to her desire, and imposes upon her the 

thing she would not have? In that case, it seem to me, the law is 

doubly overthrown and justice is twice slain. 

Mr. President, Congress has exercised this power repeatedly, over and over again, from the very foundation of the Government. 

The whole manner and time of electing Sena.tors is regulated by the 

act of Congress of 1868. We compel by national law the two branches 

of the State Legislature, at a time which we determine, to lay aside all 

otbe.r business, to merge themselves into one and devote tbemsel"\"es 

to the choice of a Senator till it is aecomplished. We fix the hour of 

their meeting, determine what they sh~l enter upon their journals, 

and compel the executive and the secretary of the State to sign and 

countersign the certificate. 

In re::gard to Representatives we provided long ago, very much against 

the will of some of the St..atesThat they should be elected in single districts; 

That these districts should be of contiguous territor 

That all votes shall be by written or printed ballot; 

That elections shall be on a day fixed by national law uniform 

throughout the country, leaving to the States only to prescribe the 

time for filling vacancies. 

We have clothed the eircuit courts with the power to enforce the 

right of citizens to vote for members of Congress. We have provided severe penalties for interference with that right; for the punishment 

of fraudulent voting and of intimidation of voters; for supervising 

and guarding elections by national officers; for the trial of eJection offenders in national courts; for the punishment of State election officers 

for misconduct or neglect of duty. 

The only important feature of this bill not found in existing law, 

besides a carefully drawn penal section ap;ainst bribery, is the provision 

that the judgment of the circuit court shall decide the question of the 

right to be placed on the roll of the House of Representatives, subject 

always to the final jurisdiction of the House itself. As was felicitously said in a report laid before us from the other House, the only thing 

to be determined here is "whether a pl'ima facie title to a seat in the 

House of Representatives shall rest on fraud and murder or on the 

judgment of a court." 

This bill strikes at the North quite as much as at the South. I do not 

think bribery is generally believed to be a Southern offense. It is the 

offense of large cities, of old communities. I can not affirm that my 

own Commonwealth bas wholly escaped from it. Unless well informed men much mistake, there has been at least one election where it rained 

shekels, even under the very shadow of Harvard College. 

In England for more than ei_ght hundred years the House of Com- mons has been the judge of the election of its members, Its contest.edelection cases have been the scanda1

.s of legislative history. During 

all these centuries the people. of Great Britain stru!!gled in vain to se- cure honest elections and honest decision of election cases. There was bat one thing under their constitution more scandalous than an English 

election: that was the decision of an election case by the llousP. of 

Commons. At last they committed this dearest of their rights to the 

protectionoftbecourts, whereeveryotherright, in the last resort, finds 

its vindication. There has been no syllable of complaint from that 

hour. 

The great reform bill, 2 and 3 William IV, c.bapter 45, was followed 

by provisions for revising the registration and for trying the title to 

the seat by judicial process, which at last (!Ulminated in the registration act of 1863, provides that the lord chief-justice of the Queen's 

Bench shall, for the city of London, the city of Westminster, and the 

several boroughs of the county of l\liddlesex, and the senior judge for 

the time being in the commissions of assize for every other county shall, 

during the summer circuit in every year, appoint as many barristers as he shall deem necessary to revise the list of voters for every such county, or for the ridings, parts, and divisions of every such county, and for the 

several cities and boroughs in every such county. anrl for every city 

and town, and county of a city and town next adjoining to any such 

county. These revising barristers have authority to add to the registration any name omitted on the application of the voter, and to ex- punge any name from the voting-lists on the application of any other 

voter. From their decision an appeal lies in every instance to the court 

of common pleas. This system was built up by the statutes 6, 26, and 

28 Victoria, of the years 1843, 1863, and 1865. 

The honesty of the registration thus secured, provision is made for 

the trial of election contests by statute 31 and 32 Victoria, 1868, chapter 165. Under this statute, the members of each of the Courts of 

Queen's Bench, exchequer, and common pleas select respectively one of the puisne judges from among their n11mber, who sits in open court 

without a jury for the trial of election contests. 

The judge trying tbe cause certifies the result to the speaker, and 

his decision is final. If a question of law arise which seems to him of 

sufficient importance, he may withdraw the certificate until the determination of that question by the court of common pleas. 

It is curious, Mr. President, to see bow many good men dreaded the 

effect of this legislation, as likely to drag the judges into politics 

and destroy the confidence of the people in the judicial office. Yon 

will observe that under the English system the decision of the judge 

is conclusive upon the title, while here it can only give a light to be 

placed upon the roll, subject to the opinion of the House itself. 

l\Ir. Markham Spoffort in bis testimony before the "Select Committee on Corrupt Practices Prevention and Election Petitions Acts," April 

23, 1875, read from a. letter of Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord ChiefJustice of the Queen's Bench, to the Lord Chancellor, February 18, 

1868, showing the apprehension which the j adges felt before the enactment of this measure, which I should like to haYe the Clerk read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

I have consulted the judges, and I am charged by them, one and all, to con- '\"ey to you their strong and unanimous feelina- of insuperable repugnance to 

• l 

·, "'• 
" . - '· -- .,. ....... ,-... .-· .· -· 

1890. _CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8845 

having these new and obiectionable duties thrust upon them. 'Ve are unanimously of opinion that the ineviLable consequence of putting judges to try 

election petitions. will be to lower ana degrade the judicial office and to destroy, or, at all events, materially impair the confidence of the public in the 

thorough impartiality and inflexible integrity of the judges, when in the course of their ordin:.i.ry duties political mattt:rs come incidentally before them. This 

confidence, which does so much to maintain the respect for the administration of justice and to uphold the salutary influence of its ministers, has1 in 

great measure, arisen from the judges being in no way mixed up in political 

matters, except when, as wae just observed, such matters are unavoidably involved in ordinary trials. This confidence will speedily be destroyed if, after 

the heat and excitement of n. oontest.ed election, a. judge is to proceed to the scene of recent conflict, while men's passions a.re still roused, and in the midst 

of eager and viole11t partisans is to go into all the details of electioneering 

practices, and to decide on questions of general or individual corruption, not unfrequently supported or resisted by evidence of the mostquestionable character.-Report.ffrom Committees, volume 8, 1875, page 98, minutes of evidence. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, the duty which the judges so dreaded 

has been performed to the full satisfaction of everybody. No man in 

England would now go back to the old metbo.ds. Even as early as 1875 

this was made apparent by a thorough palliamentary inquiry. When 

it was ordered both sides bore testimony to the excellence of the existing system. 

In the House of Commons, February 23, 1875, the attorney-general, 

Sir Richard Baggallay, said, on a motion by Mr. Sergeant Simon 

" that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the working of 

theparliamentaryelectionsact, 1868, and to report, what if any, amendments are necessary: '' 

There was one thing, however, that be was glad t-0 bear from the right honoro.ble a.ud learned member from Cla.re (Sir Colman O' Loghlen), and that was that 

he had no desire to alter the character of the tribunal by which election petitions were to be tried, 3. tribunal which he [the attorney-general] thought had 

given general satisfa.ction.-Hansard's, third series, volume 222, page 770. 

Mr. Disraeli, prime minister, said, February 9, 1875, speakin~ of the 

election petition act of 1868: 

I am not prepared, however, in any way to supersede or abrogate that act. I believe that it has worked well for the country and for the House of Commons. 

It is possible that in some of its details it may be improved-and that is a point on which it is unnecessary to enlarge-but the general spirit of that act. is good, and it will be well for the House of Commons always to support it. 

Baron Bramwell, who had twice been au election judge, said before 

the committee to inquire into the corrupt practices, prevention, and 

election petitions acts, in reply to the question: 

In general, what is your opinion of the success of the act which was passed in 

1868 transferring this jurisdiction to the judges? I think it has been successful. I dare sny it has not been perfect; it would 

be a very remarkable thing if it were so; but if I compare the results with what I have heard of the results of the former tribunal, I should say that the present tr~bunal is the preferable one. I scarcely know of any fault to find with it; 

there may have been mistakes made, but I declare I am not cognizant of one at the present moment. 

With this judgment the witnesses at the hearing, including several 

judges, with one possible exception, concur. 

This system remains, as I understand it, in substance unchanged, 

except so far as the reconstruction of the jndicial syst.em has changed 

the style and jurisdiction of the judges. It gives, as I have said, absolute satisfaction. Are the English judges more truatworthy than 

ours? Are the learned and able men who adorn our bench incapable 

of the judicial function when the dearest rights of their countrymen 

are at stake? Can nob Republican liberty be preserved under the 

forms of a republic and by the judicial tribunals which are within its 

reach as well as under the form of a monarchy? 

But we need not invoke En~lish example to vindicate the wisdom of 

this measure. Let its enemies praise it. Within a year or two of the 

passage of the statute 31 and 32 Victoria, Congress passed the act in re- lation to the election of members of Congress which is now the law, 

with that exception, save that the present measure provides that the 

national election commissioners, subject always to the authority and 

scrutiny of the circuit courts ancl to the final judgment of the House, 

shall make the certificate which gives title to a place on the Clerk's 

roll It difters from that law chiefly in its stringent penalties for 

bribery, for offenses by the election officers themseh'es, and in careful 

guarding against excessive fees. Otherwise, it is even more moderate 

and conservative than the law now in force. 

The Senate is familiar with the condition of things that called for 

the law of 1870. New York was still struggling with Tweed. He bad 

just boasted that so lonEt as he did the counting he did not care who did 

the voting. There had been issued in the city of New York alone 

64, 000 fraudulent naturalization papers, all but about 3, 500 purporting 

to be issued in October. These papers, large numbers of them being in 

blank, were scattered broadcast over New York and the neighboring 

States. Not only fraudulent naturalization, but repeating, false personation, bal1ot-box-stutflllg, false counting, a.nd other kindred crimes 

upon the suftrage prevailed to such a degree that the return of the vote 

in that city bore no more relation to an honest vote than to the calculation of an eclipse. 

The act of 1870 provided for a suppression of these evils so far as 

related to the election of members of Congress by stationing at the 

polls officers of the United States to be appointed by the circuit courts, 

who should witness and scrutinize the elections. It needed but two 

petitioners to set the act in motion in cities or towns of 20,000 inhabitants, and but ten elsewhere. 

That law was encountered, as this is, wit.h an outcry from the whole 

Democratic party. I will read one specimen from The New York 

World, to which I ask the careful attention of Senators, especially on 

the other side: 

Register! if you mean to be your own mast-ers in yow· own city of New York in the November election!! against the Radicals, who threaten to bayonet New Yorkers at their own polls. 

October 24 it made the followin~ flaming announcement, accompanied 

with an open incitement to armed resistance to the Federal Government: 

We have information that battalions and regiments stationed at varioua 

points in the South and Southwest are on their wa.y to this city to be encamped on Governor's Island and other neighboring forts, in readiness to march through our streets and shoot down onr citizens on election day. We have in this State 

arsenalR and arms and a. gallant militia powerful enough to resist and easily 

drive out any force that General Grant can send against us. But this force will not be used. 

The next day, in an article upon a Democratic ratification meeting, 

it made even a plainer threat: 

Ah undred thousand Democrats will keep step to the music of their respective 

bands and concentrate with some approach to military precision and order in 

and around Union Square. A large portion of the men who will bear festive 

t{)rches in peaceful processions have born~muskets on the field of battle, and 

all of them are equally capable of performing either the military or the political 

parts of the duties of freemen. The Democratic voters of New York a.re three 

times as numerous as the present Federal Army. All the soldiers that General 

Grant can assemble on Go;ernor's Island would make a poor show if confronted 

against the citizens who could any day be put under arms in this city. · 

Now, Mr. President, see the result. I am told on gQod authority 

tbat since the passage of the act of 1870 t.here has been no contested-election case in New York City in regard to a member of Congress, and but one in the even year, when the State and national elections were held t~ether, in regard to a member of either branch of the New York Legislature. That one was not because of any doubt as to the vote, bot only 

to expose the invalidity of fraudulent naturalizations. 

The election system of the act of 1870, as it operates in New York, 

was fully investigated by the Democratic House of Representatives in 

187i, through a committee of which Samuel S. Cox was chairman. 

Their report is written by Mr. Cox and signed also by A. V. Rice and 

A. M. Waddell. Mr. Cox says: -

CREDIT TO OFFICIALS. 

Whateycr may be said about the United States law as toelectionsor theirsu• 

pervision by United States authority; whatever may be sa.id as to the right of a State t-0 regulate in all ways such elections, this must be said, that the administration of the law by Commissioners Davenport, l\Iuirheaa, and Allen, the 

United States functionaries, and their subordinates, was eminently just. and 

wise and conducive to a fair public expression in a Presidential year of unusual 

excitement and great tempiation. The testimony of Mr. Davenport, the United 

States commissioner for the southern district of New York, is a .remarkable 

statement, which the committee would adopt as the basis of their report as to the thr;e cities. 

There never was an elect.ion where such thorough preliminary investigation was requirect. or had as to the registration or as to the ballots, or the poll-lists, 

tallies, check-books, certificates, statements, and returns by the State and other 

officers. No interference was allowed so M to defraud the honest voter of his 

right, except in a. few instances, and no fraudulent yo!;es were gh-en except on 

very rar~ occasion~. 

·The political organizations com:urred with Mr, Davenport ih .this arrange- ment. It proved a decided success. and the result was, what all who have any knowledge of this New York election have concurred in confirming, that there was comparatively no fraud, and the attempts made to repress it were wel· 

comed by both parties and carried out in good faith. 

A PA.'ITERN FOR IMITATIO::S-. 

The committee would commend to other portions of the countryBloodshed, as my honorable friend trom Alabama. suggests ? This 

Democratic committee wonld commend to other portions of the coun- tryand to other cities this remarkable system, developed through the agency of 

both local llnd Federal authorities acting in harmony for an honest purpose. In no portion of the world and in no era of time, where there has been an ex· pression of the popular will through the forms of la.w,ba.s there ever been a.more complete and thorough illustration of republican institutions. \Vhatever may have been the previous habit or conduct of elections in those cities or howsoever 

they may conduct themsel ;es in the future, this election of 1876 will stand as a. monument of what good faith, honest ende!'..vor, legal forms, and just authority may do for the protection of the electoral franchise. 

I find in the RECORD which is laid on my table this morning the 

report of the eulogy upon M1·. Cox made by my honorable friend from 

New York [Mr. EVARTS], as beautiful and exquisite a portrait as ever was carved by Italian artist in costliest shell or stone. And in that 

matchless portrait he says of Mr. Cox that perhaps there were other men who did some one thing better, but there was no man who did so many things so well. Among all th~ things that were well done by 

thatemim.nt Democraticstatesman tbe best thing he everdid was this 

commendation to the other portions of his country and the other portions of his countrymen of the system which had rescued the fair city 

of New York from the dishonor and disgrace of fraudulent elections. 

It is not I, it is not Republicans, it is not the Republican party, it 

is the dying voice of this eminent Democratic statesman that calls upon 

his countrymen for the adoption of this system. . Let us go a little further, Mr. President. Mr. William C. Whitney 

is probably a gentleman of whom some people in this Chamber have 

heard-if I mistake not, the Secretary of the Navy in the last Democratic Administrntion-a man as familiar with New York politics, with 

New York habits, with New York laws, as lives upon the continent.. 

'... . ~ 

..... , , .... 

.. 

'.'I 

J'I!~: 

... 

I 

''· 1 ... 1 •• 

. ~ 

. .. ·· 

:::.''. 

! ....... -

... . ~. . ~ 

... ~ 

. .... -'!' 

·J-· .. 

... .. 
. , 

.· 

(. 

/ 

.. :-

. ; 

.. 

. · 

'. / -.. .... . .. . . : .~ ~- i~ .. ·' . .. ..·· . 

. ... '· 

8846 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

He was, I believe, indeed I know, for he says so in his testimony, cor- poration counsel for the city of New York under a Democratic administration at the time when this election law of1870 was put in force. 

No other man had larger opportunity to judge of the fairness of the 

election and the operation of the national election law. He expla.ined 

to the committee the operation of the statute which we propose to con· 

tinue with Jittle substantial change. I will read two or three extracts 

from his testimony. This testimony of l\Ir. Whitney was before the 

examining committee of the House of Representatives, evidence given 

by a.Democrat to Democrats. Now hear what he saye: 

So far as I was concerned I was entirely satisfied, after our conference on Sat- urday night, of what in fact I knew before, that Mr. Davenport, while he is an unusually zealous partisan, only desired to secure a fair and honest election, and that all his action has been directed to that 1·esult. When he comes to explain to you, if you intend to ask him in regard to that, the elaborate ma- chinery for detectin1r frauds upon the franchise in New York City w hicb he bns devised and set in motion, you will see plain lythatsecurity against frauds of this character in New York City is greater than anywhere else in the United States. Q. What is your judgment as to the fairness of the election for electo1·s and • Congressmen in this city? A. Of com·se my judgment is not as important, perhaps, as that of some other people might be; and from what I have seen of the preparation that was made to preventfra.adulentvoting, with which Mr. Davenport is justly to be credited, I do not believe. that there is as honest an election in the United States as is held in New York City. It that is not so I have never seen evidence to the contrary. 

Q. Have you heard any prominent gentlemen of either party challenge the correctness or purity of the ballot ali this last, election? A. I never heard anybody that knew anything about. it challenge it. Q. You think that t.he supervision of the election under the system of Mr. Davenport lias had a tendency to prevent illegal voting and to give a fair election? 

A. I think it has. Yes~sir. I think Mr. Kelly satisfied himself in some way that no abase of power was intended, and I know that I have heard him si~ce 

expri>.ss to the organization with which he is connected, and in one place i'ftld another, the same opinion I have expressed here, that Mr. Davenport bas been a very important accessory in preventing fraudulent voting in New York City. I know further that there was nothing bat perfect co-operation on the pa.rt of theloca.1 authorities of the city with the Federal authorities, and an earnest de- sire that there should be an honest election. 

That measure can be put in operation upon the application of two 

persons in any city or town above 20,000 inhabitants, or upon the application of ten in any other place, while this measure requires, respectively, the application of fifty and one hundred. 

Tbe statute of 1870 was designed specially to affect cities having a population of 20,000 or upward. There were 99 such cities by the census of 18 0, all bat 22 of them in the North. The law has been 

enforced in 57 of these cities, of which all are in the North save 16. 

Ho,,. idle, then, to speak of this a.s a sectional measure, or to threaten 

bloodshed, or not to threaten bloodshed, like my good friend from 

Alabarua. 

How idle to tell us tbatwe are reviving the issues of the war, which 

I have seen in one Southern newspaper of high authority. Was cheating' at elections an issue of the war? Did Jackson die; did Lee go 

through that stru~gle more bitter than death, between his allegiance 

to his country and his love for his 8tate, that ballot-boxes might be 

stuffed, that naturalization papers might be forged, that returns might 

be altered, an cl that vote3 might be falsely counted? It is a foul wrong 

upon the authors of this bill to say that it reopens the issues of the 

war. It is a fouler calumny upon the mighty shades of the Confederate dead. 

The necessity for some extension of the provisions of the existing law 

to places where it has not heretofore been in operation is easy to show. 

Even Mr. CLARKE, of Alabama, in an earnest speech against this bill 

in the other House, declares: 

The negro vote has not been wholly free in the South. In some pl'ecincts it has been kept from the polls by the domination of the whites. In others it has not been counted as cast. 

He goes on to say that he thinks that the evil is narrowing, but 

that the vote will still be suppressed in some measure; but that elections in the North and West are as bad and that in many Republican 

districts votes are notoriously bought. 

The Charleston News and Courier, the leading Democratic paper of 

the South, has again and again admitted, sometimes excusing, some- times deplorin~, the criminal processes by which elections have been 

carried in South Carolina. 

Henry Watterson, formerly a Dsnocratic member of the other House, 

editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal, makes this statement in an 

article in the April number of The Forum, 1888: 

I should be entitled to no respect or credit if I pret-ended that there is either a. fair poll or count of the vast overflow in States where there is a negro ma- iority, or that in the nature of things present there can be. 

The governor of West Virginia, E. Willis Wilson, says in his biennial message to the Legislature in 1889: 

Reproach has been cast uvon our Stale as never before by illegal, fraudulent, and corrupt voting in almost every county within its borders. This is so palpa- ble that•· he who runs may read." The capitations-

! suppoae he means by "capitation" a sort of census, per capita I 

suppose, of the votersThe capitations of 1884 were 133,522; and the entire vote, after the most active political campaign ever made in the State, 137,527. The capitations of 1888 were 147,~. and the vote 159,HO. The ditference in the capitation and the "\"Ote in 1884 was 4,065; in 1888 it was 12,032. This shows an increase of votes in four years of 21,853, which, if legitimate, would indicate a population of 900,000, and a.n 

·. ... .. -

increase in four years of much mo.re than 100,000. It is certain that no such in- crease has taken place. 

That is, of course, not the gentleman of the same name who so ably 

represents that State in the other House. 

But the decisive testimony is found in the reports of contested-election cases in the other House. From the Thirty-eighth to the Fiftieth 

Congress there have been two hundred and seven election contests. If 

the evidence in those cases shall be preserved to later generations it 

will fill the hearts of our posterity with horror and shame at its picture 

of republican government in our day. In many of the cases the an- swer is recrimination rather than denial. A majority ofthe people 

firmly believe to-day that for fourteen years the House of Representatives has been a usurpation, and that for four a usurper got in the ex- ecn ti ve chair. When we seek to transfer the ascertainment of the will 

of the people from these processes to the courts, we are met by the cry 

that we are raising a race issue and that this is a force bilJ. 

There was never a more senseless utterance than to call that a force 

bill which transfers the settlement of a great public question from the 

shotgun to the court, unless it be that which calls this a bill to promote negro domination or to oreate a race issue. This bill only touches 

elections for Congress. The negro is in a large minority in every State 

in th'3 Union but four. In the days of Republican government in the 

South, with one hundrad and twenty-one Southern Representatives 

there were never but eight negroes at once in the House and never but two in all in the Senate. What tendency has it to put any State 

under the dominion of the African to provide that in a national as- sembly to be forever composed in a proportion at least of 50 to 1 of men of the Caucasian race, the vote of 1,500, 000 negroes shall have in 

the election their proportionate weight, and no more, to that of eight 

times their number of white men? 

The Board of Trade of Brunswick, Ga., July 11, 1890, in resolutions 

opposing this bill, which they declare a.re united in by men of both 

parties, but say would be equally appropriate if they were all Democrats, go on to say: That it is the sense of this body that there is no race problem to solve. That the conduct of elections is fair, and if it were not the remedy, if it exist is in a division of colored men upon honest and _Patriotio lines of party diJfer: ence, which will ineTitably result in honest division upon the pa.rt of all classes of our people. 

Let us take these worthy gentlemen at their word. Elections are fair 

in Georgia. There is no race problem to solve. The colored men are voting the Democratic ticket. 

I ask attention to the following table of figures, showing, first, the 

majority of colored voters over white voters in the black districts of 

Georgia and, second, the Congressional vote in the same districts, by 

virtne of which six Democratic members of Congress from Georgia. now hold their seats. 

I should like to have the Secretary read the number of votes and the 

Democratic majorities in the six Georgia districts known as the black 

districts, where the preponderance of colored votes is greatest-where it 

exists at all, I mean. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be read, if there be no objection. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Congressional districts of Georgia known as tlLe black districts. Second district: majority of colored voters over white voters in this dis- trict as shown by the last census . .... .. ........... . . . .. ..... ...... ........ .... .. ....... 3, 763 Official majority for TURNER, Democrat .................................... ...... f ..... , .. 10 991 Third district: majority of colored voters over white voters in this dis- ' trict as shown by the last census......................................................... 2, 431 Official majority for CRISP, Democrat...................................................... 6, 124 Fourth district: majority of colored voters over white voters in this dis· trict as shown by the last census ......................... :.......... ...... ......... ...... 2, 947 Official majority for GRIMES, Democrat.............................. ............. ......• 5, 673 Sixth district: majority of colored voters over white voters in this district as shown by the last census......................................................... 8, 229 Official majority for BLOUNT, Democrat............................. ..................... 8, 809 Eighth district: majority of colored voters over white voters in this dis- trict as shown by the last census .. ... . . . ..•.•• ...... ........ .... ...... ...... .. .... ..... 4, 180 Official majority for OARLTON, Democrat................................................ 5, 1 2 Tenth district: majority of colored voters o\""er white vote1-s in this dis- trict as shown by the last census ................................. ...... .................. 6, 14.5 Official majority for BARXES, Democrat................................................... 5, 780 

l\Ir. HOAR. Mr. President, this is not a question of the domination 

of a negro majority over you; it is the question of the domination of a white man's minority over us that we are called upon by a just regard 

to our own rights and for constitutional liberty to consider. 

Is it not then Clear that this bill c.an create no possible friction between the races and can only result in proving to the whole country 

what the Brunswick Board of Trade know so well? 

Among the precedents of Congressional exercise of authority over 

this subject I alluded to the act of Congress which compels the States 

to elect their Representatives in single districts. Before, ome of the 

States elected their Representatives on joint ballot, so that if the State 

of New Hampshire elected three RepreRen tatiYes on a single ticket and 

chose them, as of course she would, a.11 of one political party on joint 

ballot, and the State of New York elected forty Representatives by 

single districts, with twenty-one of one political party and nineteen of 

the other, the result was that the State of New Hampshire outweighed 

with her three Representatives the great State of New York with her 

forty on all the great questions upon which the political parties in this 

.. . .. "" 
I • •. • 

' . 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8847 

country were divided. That is the operation of this gathering into the 

power of one political party by these proceS8eS the entire representation of these Southern State~ South Carolina, with her five Representatives, if tha.t be the number, or senn, practically electing them 

all on one ticket, practically effecting their election all by a single will, 

outweighs in her political power in the House of Representative.s the 

great State of New York, or of Ohio, or Illinois, where they are fairly 

and evenly divided between the political parties. 

Mr. President, it is needless t-0 accumulate the proof that the H6publican party, by everything which can bind a party, is pledged to this 

policy. I will cite a few of its many promises. 

I will ask the Secretary to read a few extracts from the inaugural 

addresses of our Presidents and of the resolutions of different States. 

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read as requested. 

Mr. HOAR. With leave of the Senate, in the great heat, I will 

omit the reading of those various declarations and will have them 

printed as a part of my remarks. They contain the earnest, emphatic 

pledges of President Harrison and of the successive Republican national 

conventions, of the platforms of great States, including New York, Illinois, and other States; and I will proceed with my remarks. 

I will insert the extracts to which I referred in the RECORD without 

reading. 

President Harrison in his inaugaral said: 

It is very gratifying to observe the genera.I interest now being manifested in the reform of our election laws. Those who have been for years calling atten- tion to tbe pressing necessity of throwing about the ballot-box and a.bout the elector further safeguards, in order tha.t our elections might not only be free and pure, but might clearly appear to be so, will welcome the accession of nny who did not so soon discover the need of reform. The national Congress has not yet ta.ken control of elections in that caseoverwhich the Constitution gives its jurisdiction, but has accepted and adopted the election laws of the several States, provided penalties for their violation, and 11. method of supervision. 

Only the inefficiency of the State laws or an unfair or partisan administration of them could suggest a departure from this policy. It was clearly, however, in the contemplation of the framers of the Consti- tution that such an exigency might arise, and provision WllS wisely ma.de for it. The freedom of the ballot is a condition of our national life, and no power ve&ted in Congress or in the Executive to secure or perpetuate it should remain unused upon occasion. The people of all Congressional districts he;ve an equal interest that the election in each shall truly express the views and wishes of a majority of the qualified electors residing within it. The results of such elec- tions are not local, and the insistance of electors residing in other di.Etricts lhnt they shall be pure and free does not sa>or at all of impertinence. 

President Harrison, in his first annual message, said: 

In many parts of our country, where the colored population is large, the peo- ple of that ?'flee are by various devices deprived of any effective exercise of their political rill:"hls and of many of their civil rights. The wrong does not e.xpenc.l. itself upon those whose ·votes are suppressed. Every constituency in 

the Union is wronged. It has been the hope of every patriot that a sense of justice :i.nd of respect for the law would work a gradual cure of these flagrant evils. Surely no one supposes that the present can be accepted as a permu.nent condition. 

If it is said that these communities must work out this problem for them- selves, we have a right to ask whether they are at work upon it. Do they sug- gest any solution? When and under what conditions is the black man to have a free ballot? When is be in fact to have those full civil rights which h11.veso long been his in law T 'Vhen is that equality of influence which our form of government was intended t-0 secure t-0 the electors to be restored? This gen- eni.tion should courageously face these &n"ave questions, and not leave them as a heritage of woe to the next. The consultation should proceed with candor, 

calmness, and great patience, upon the lines of justice and humanity, not of prejudice and cruelty. No question in our country can be at rest except upon the firm ba.se of justice and of the law. I earnestly invoke the attention of Congress to the consideration of such meas- ures within its well defined oonstitutional powers as will secure to all our peo- plea free e.xercise of the right of suffrage and every other civil right under the Constitution l\nd laws of the United States. No evil, however deplorable, can justify the assumption, either on the part of the Executive or of Congress, or powers not granted; but both will be highly blamable if all the powers granted are not wisely but firmly used to correct these evils. The power to take the whole direction and control of the election of members of the House of Repre- sentatives is clearly given to the General Government. A partial and quRlified supervision of these elections is now provided for by 

law, and, in my opinion, this law may be so strengthened and extended as to secure, on the whole, better results than can be attained by e. law taking all the processes of such election into Federal control. The colored man should be protected in all of his relations to the Federal Government, whether as liti- gant, juror, or witness in our courts, as an elector for members of Congress, or as a peaceful tra>eler upon our interstate railways. 

President Hayes, in his second annual· message, December 2, 1878, 

said: 

I respectfully urge upon your attention that the Congressional elections, in every district, in a very important sense, a.re justly a matter of political inter- est and concern throughout the whole country. Each State, every political 

party. is entitled 'o the share of the power which is conferred by the legal and constitutional su1'frage. It is the rigbt of every citizen possessing the qualifica- tions prescribed by law to cast one unintimidated ballot and to have bis ballot honestly counted. 

President Garfield in bis inaugural said: 

It sbould be said with the utmost emphasis that this question of the suffrage will never give repose or safety to the States or to the nation until each, within its own jurisdiction, makes and keeps the ballot free and pure by the strong sanctions of the law. 

Republican national platform of 1888: 

·we bold the free and honest popular ballot and the just and equal representa- tion of all the people to be the foundation of our republican government and de- mand effective legislation to secure the integrity and purity of electio~, which are the fountains of all public authority. 

Republican platform, 1884: 

"\Ve extend to the Republicans of the South, regardless of their former party 

afllliations, our cordial sympathy, and pledge to them our most earnest efforts 

-, 

to promote the passage of such legislation as will secure to every citizen, of whatever race and color, the full and complete recognition, possession, and ex- ercise of all civil and political rights. 

From General Logan's letter of acceptance: 

In the mean time it is the duty of the National Government to go beyond resolutions and declarations on the subject and to take such action as may lie in its power to secure the absolute freedom of national elections everywhere, to the end that our Congress may cease to contain membei;s representing fictitious majorities of their people, thus misdirecting the popular will concerning na- tional legislation, and especia.lly to the end that in Presidential contests the great business and other interests of the country may not be placed in fear and trembling lest an unscrupulous minority should succeed in stifling the wishes of the majority. 

From the Uas.sacbusetts platform of 1889 (Republican): 

To our Senat-0rs and Repre~entatives in Oongress we would say that the Re- publicans of 1\Iass&chusetts look to them to strive without ceasing to secure a. national election law which shall give protection to the national ballot and to the citizen in casting it. 

From the Nebraska Republican platform of 1889: 

We condemn any theory or States' rights which shall be held to prevent the Government from protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of all their civil and political rights. 

Pennsylvania. Republican platform of 1889: 

We cordially indorse the Administration of President Benjamin Harrison • • * beca.use it aims to secure, by adequate legislation, prot-ection age.inst the offenses of suppressed and miscounted ballots, of perverted returns and false certificates of election, and of murderous methods of maintaining the in- sufferable wrongs which now stain the records of Southern States and touch the honor of the Southern people, making elections in most of them a fraud O!'. 

farce, whose fruits are a large body of Democratic usurpers now assuming to represent those States in the legislative halls of the nation. 

From the New York Republican platform of 1889: 

'Ve emphasize our approval of * * "' a national election law to secure tbe honest choice of Representatives in Congress. 

From the Mississippi Republican platform, 1889: 

We demand that national elections shall be held by national officers, and to this end, if no belt.er plan can be adopted, we ask an amendment to the present 

laws, so that the registration of voters shlfll be me.de, the election held, and the returns certified by officers appointed as supervisors of election a.re now ap- pointed in any Congressional district where petitioned for by a specified num- ber of voters. We regard this a.s the paramount issue in politics. 

Republican convention of Alabama, 1888: 

We favor a national law to regulate the election of members of Congress and Presidential electors. 

Republican convention of .Missouri. 1888: 

We demand a free vote and an honest con.nt of every legal ballot; that one vote iu the South should count as much a.s one vot-ein the North, East, or West, and no more; that one vote in the North, East, or West should count as much asonevote in the South, and no more. And we do especially denounce the frauds in the ballot-box in the Southern States as publicly admitted by the leaders of the Democratic party. 

I suppose no man: doubts that the purpose of this resolution is to defeat for this Co~ress the bill of which I am speaking. The next session will last but thirteen weeks, from which the Christmas holidays 

must come out. There will be thirteen great appropriation bills to 

pass, besides the apportionment bill and all the other business which 

in the closing session of Congress presses upon our attention. That consideration should be enough to defea~ 

But there is one thing to be said. ~ E_very man who votes for it commits himself forever to the principle that the Senate has the right to 

cut off debate and to order the qu.estion to be taken at its discretion. 

He merely declares that he will not apply that to a bill to secure honest elections, and that if there be any ti.me left of the session after the 

tariff is disposed of it shall in no case be devoted t-0 that subject. 

Those gentlemen, if there be any, who have once thought they could 

not conscientiously vote to limit debate in the Senate, and that every 

State bas the constitutional right to be heard there at its own discretion, are now invited to say that they will, ten or twelve days beforehand, make a despotic order that debate ~ball cease, although ~hey 

can not then know what amendments may be pendin~what shape 

the bill may have assumed five minutes before the vote. 

What consideration does this resolution hold out t em for this 

wonderful change of policy or of opinion? It is this, and it is this 

only: that the national election bill, to which their Administration, 

their associates in the other House of Congress, their party in national, 

in State, and local conventions, are a hundred times solemnly pledged, 

shall be slain. If you have a right to order a vote on the tariff to be 

taken on the 30th of August, you have a r~ht to order a vote to be 

taken on the election bill on the 4th of September. If you can vote 

with the Democrats to do this thing and exclude the election bill, yon 

can vote with the Republicans to do this thing and include the election 

bill. If you can vote to occupy the rest of the session with public 

buildings, you can vote to occupy the rest of the session with the rights 

of American citizens. If you can vote that the expenditure for postoffices and custom-houses shall be in some measure equal in the different parts of the conntry, you can vote, if you care to, thatawbitem.an 

in Maine or in Kansas shall count at least a quarter part as much as a 

white man in Georgia or Alabama. 

No man, I think., will question the sincerity of my devotion to the 

protective system. I have agreed with the Republican. party in its 

financial policy. I have rejoiced in the popular vindication of the 

tariff. I have been grateful to the Committee on Finance for the wis-

• . I 

... -' .·: 

,, 

·-

. ' 

")I 

~ 

.. 

~ ·. 

- I 

.. 

·. 

-.· 

··. 
--

;:. 

". 

... 

,. . 

'. -

--

·. 

8848 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

.dom and fidelity they have devoted to the pending measure, which I 

expect will bring so large prosperity to the whole people, especially 

to the men who work in shops and the men who work on farms. I 

think it will stimulate the health of the country in every nerve. But 

I shall take little satisfaction in it if it is to be the price of the dishonor of my country or the broken pledges of my party. 

The protective tariff, a..i;; I understand it, is a measure to increase the 

wages of American labor, that thereby American citizenship and Ameri- can manhood may be exalted. Our fathers did not devise this policy 

and their sons do not enact it that wealth may have larger returns, 

that capital may he gathered to capital, and that this country may ex- hibit to the world the spectacle of palaces where a few rich men spend 

lives of sumptuous ease, surrounded with the splendors of architecture 

and art. 

We can note. eel or so much as equal other countries in these things. 

But we can bring it to pass that the American workman shall Ii ve in a comfortable dwellingj that his wife shall be at church and his child shall be at school; above all, that he shall have his equal share in the 

government of his country, aml everywhere through the whole land 

cast bis vote in freedom and in honor. "'Whatever else of her handiwork the United States mny show or fail to show in the great competitive ex1>0sition of the world, let her at least give an example of the 

Republic's power to "cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and to 

lay low the haughtiness of the terrible; to make a man more precious 

than "fine gold; eYen n. man than the golden wedge of Ophir." 

The PRESIDENT pro tcmpore. The question recurs upon agreeing 

to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts to the 

part proposed to be stricken out. 

Mr. SPOONER. I move to refer the resolutious and pending amendments to the Committee on Hules. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin moves to commit the resolution and the amendments to the Committee on Rules. Is the Senate ready for-the question on that motion? 

Mr. QUAY. Let us have the yeas and nays on that. 

The PRE.SIDENT pro tempore. On this motion the Senator from 

Pennsylvania asks that the yea~ aud nays may be entered on the 

Journal. 

The yca3 and nays were ordered. 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, I desire to say but a word or two before _this vote is taken. I sympathize with the distinguished Senator from 

Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] in all of the utterances of this great speech, one entirely worthy of him. It was my fortune, or misfortune, early 

in my public career in Washington, to be compelled to investigate into 

election methods in the South and also in the State of New York. 

The barbarities inflicted, the outrages perpetrated, the inj nstices done 

to a harmless nnd innocent body of American citizens in the South for no reason under the sun except that they desired to exercise their rights, 

which the Constitution of their country gave them, so impressed my 

mind and my heart that for years I never have permitted myself and 

my conscience bas never allowed me to address my fellow-citizens from 

public platforms without undertaking to incite and quicken their con- sciences on this subject which has to-day been under discussion. I knew 

perfectly well as they did that the Republican party had neglected its 

opportunities when it had unlimited power almost in both Houses of 

Congress, and I have assured these people and promised them again and 

again and again that if the Republican party, under God, was ever permitted to be in power again in this Repnhlic something should be un- dertaken at least to right the terrible wrongs which were being com- mitted. [Applause in the galleries.] 

The PRESIDENT pro tem110re. The Senator from Maine will sus- pend one moment. The Chair -admonishes the occupants of the galleries that expressions of approval or disapproval are in violation of 

order and are expressly for lidden by the rules. The Chair is confident 

that this suggestion will be sufficient to prevent a repetition of the 

disorder that bas just occurred. The Senator from Maine. 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, the Republican party is once more in 

power. Will those promises be redeemed? We are confronted in this 

Senate not by a theory to-day, bot bya condition. If there are fortythree RepublicanSenatorswho will waive for a. few days their conven- ience and their comfort, their private business and their pleasure, 

and remain in their seats in this Senate Chamber from 10 o'clock in 

the morning until 6 o'clock at night, and all night long if it may he 

necessary; if there are forty-three Republican Senators who believe in 

protecting Atnerican citizens within our own borders, as they do believe in protecting them everywhere else in the world; if there 

forty-three Republican Senaoors who believe in a protective tariff if 

there are forty-three Republican Senators who believe in enacting an 

election law, and if those forty-three Republican Senators will agree 

first that a previous question sba.U he adopted as one of the rules of 

the Senate, then in three days' time that rule will be adopted, and in 

ten days' time a tariff bill will be passed by the Senate, and in ten da~~~ thereafter an election bill, too, will be passed. ~ :.f on the contrary there are Republican Senators enough so wedded 

to the old rules of the Senate that nuder no circumstances will they 

vote for a previons question, then, sir, you might as well bid good-bye 

to this election bill now and forever. There is not Qi Senator upon this 

• 

floor who does not know that it is absolutely impossible to pass a protective tariff hill through this Senate with an election law, a menace to the other side, behind it. There is not a Republican Senator here 

who does not know that between now and December time enough can not be found to pass both the tariff bill and an election bill. There is 

not a Republican Senator here who does not know that with the election bill behind the tariff bill there is not time enough between now and December to pass the tariff bill alone. 

Mr. President, I do not place the responsibility of the defeat of the 

election bill upon Senators who to-day are proposing that it shall be 

postponed. I place it upon those Senators who early, in a. Republican 

conference, declared that they would not support a previous question. 

I was at that conference. I advocated a previous question for the Senate. When I first came into the Senate, as chairmHn of the Committee on Rules Ireportedarulefor a. previous question. In that first con- ference I became entirely satisfied that there were Republican Senators eno~gh who would never consent to the adoption of a previous question 

evelf though the whole Republican majority was here in the city ready 

for action. I have been to no Republican conferences since, for I saw that conferences were utterly in vain. 

Mr. President, if the Republicans, dropping their old-time prejudices, 

would determine that a previous question should be the rule of the 

Senate, then agree in conference that the tariff bill should be passed, 

and that the election bill should become a law, there would be a revi ,·al in the ~publican party in this country such as has not been seen since the war. It would become, in my judgment, in its power absolutely uncon erable. "Cowardice ne'er yet won a battle and never yet retained a. friend." 

Mr. HISCOCK. Mr. President, I desire to supplement the remarks 

made by the Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE] with this suggestion: 

We have all the propositions now before us. A reference of these 

propositions to the Committee on Rules, in my judgment, is to result 

in further delay. There is nothing that can come from that committee, 

in my opinion, which will either elucidate or solTe the situation. We 

have the propositions here. Let us then consider them in due time 

and vote upon them and acquiesce in the final result. I am opposed 

to anything in the nature of delay, and therefore I shall vote against 

the motion to postpone, or rather to commit the e propositions to the 

Committee on Rules, 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has, ac- cording to what the newspapers have said, made it desirable that I 

should say a word. 

I agree with him that cowardice never won a battle and I agree with 

him that cowardice never robbed a man or never did a forcible injustice to anybody. That is not what it does. There are two kinds of 

courage, Mr. President. One is, having made up your mind that you 

want another man's property, to go and take it and not be afraid about 

it. Another is, that having made up your mind that you want to put a muzzle upon everybody at any time that it pleases your sweet will, 

you put it on in advance without any question having been raised to 

get the power to do it. That is not my kind of courage, Mr. President. 

I have that kind of courage as applied to this particular situation, that 

I shall vote with the greatest satisfaction for the proposition of the 

Senator from Pennsylvania, aided as I hope by the votes of gentlemen 

of different political opinions from mine,.with the addition that we will consider one other gre.'lt public measure, greater than the tariff 

measure, more necessary to be disposed of than the tariff measure. If 

it be evil, defeat it; if it be good, pa.ss it, and provide, now that we have seen and know that somebody and enough people in this Senate 

intend to defeat both measures by obstruction and delay, who are willing to let one pass if they can avoid any discussion of the other-to make 

it just and proper, against obstruction and undue delay, that applied 

to the particular cases we ha.ve in band they shall be brought to an end. 

And in sayin~ that--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour of 12 o'clock having ar- rh-ed, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business the title 

of which will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. .A bill (H. R 9416) to reduce the revenue and 

equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes. 

Mr. QUAY. I hope the Senator in charge of this bill will allow the 

vote by yeas and nays to be taken on the motion to refer. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I have no objection to allowing the Senator from 

Vermont to finish his remarks if be desires to do so. Mr. EDMUNDS. I will finish them when this question is ready to 

be voted upon, now, or at any other time. 

Mr.QUAY. ThenihopetheSenatorfromRhodeisland will give way. 

Mr . .ALDRICH. I can not give way to anything. 

Mr. QUAY. Not for the call of the yeas and nays? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Not for.anything. 

Mr. CULLOM. Before the vote is taken I desire to submit some remarks myself. 

Mr. QUA.Y. Before the vote is taken on the motion to refer? 

Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir. 

1\Ir. EV ARTS. A great many remarks will be made on this floor 

before this measure takes any shape of smothering the election bilJ. 

Mr. President, I hope that the measure now before the Senate--

.- . ' 
.· ..: ... ·" ·- ·.,. 

.... 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD-SEN ATE. 8849 

Mr. ALDRICH. What is before the Renate? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair announced that the Senate resumed the consideration of the unfinished business and the Senator from New York is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. EVATI.TS.• I rise to that question. I ask that this bill, the 

tariff bill, may be laid aside until the now pending me~ures. for the 

adootion of the Senate looking to the pas.sage of a.n election bill shall 

be eoncluded. 

:Mr. ALDRICH. I object to that. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senaiior from New York [Mr. 

EVARTS] asks unanimous consent that the unfinished business maybe 

laid aside for the purpose of proceeding with the consideration of the 

resolution of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. QUAY] and the 

amendments thereto. Is there objection? 

The 

Mr. ALDRICH. 

PHESIDENT 

Mr. 

pro 

President, 

tempore. The 

I object. Senator from Rhode Island v o 

jects. THE REVENUE BILL. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 9416) to reduce the revenue and equalize duties 

on imports, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDENT p1·0 tempore. The pending amendment will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 38, line 7, in paragraph 159, after the 

word "manufactured," it is proposed to strike out all down to and including the word "fifty," in line 16, as follows: 

Valued at not more than 50 cents per dozen, 12 cents per dozen; valued at. more than 50 cents per dozen and not exceeding $1.50 per dozen, 50 cents per dozen; valued at more than $1.50 per dozen 1tnd not exceeding $3 per dozen, $1 

per dozen; valued at more than $3 per dozen, $':?per dozen; and in addition 

thereto on all the above. 50. 

And in lieu thereof to insert '' 45. '' 

Also, in line 17, after the word ''unfinished," it is '{>roposed to strike 

out down to and including the word "thirty,'' in line 22, n.s follows: 

Yalued at less than Si per dozen, SI per dozen; valuedat$4 or more per dozen, ~L 75 per dozen ; and in addition thereto on all the above razors and razor- \Jlades, 30. 

And in lieu thereof t;o insert "45 per cent. ad va.lorem. ' 

So tbat the paragraph when.amended will read: 

Paragraph 159: Pen-knives or pocke~knives of all kinds, or parts thereof, and erasers, or parts thereof, wholly or partly manufactured, 45 per cent. ad 

valorem. 

Razors and razor-blades, finished or unfinished, 45 per cent. ad valorem. 

This table, in my judgment, is conclusive, and it shows beyond any 

doubt that the statement that the importation has largely increased 

and that the result of this importation has been to force into bankrnptcy 

many of the manufacturers of cutlery in the United States is absolutely 

without foundation. 

We heru:d yesterday from the senior Senator from Connecticut the same old charge that was made here and that was made in 1888, that 

the importers were engaged in placing fraudulent labels upon the fo~­

e!gn product in order to avail themselves of the reputation of Amencan man uJacturers. 

Mr. PLATT. I made no such statement. 

Mr. VEST. I should have said possibly the junior .Senator from 

Connecticut; I meant General HAWLEY. All this matter was fully 

discussed two years ago in the tariff debate, and I then produced he~e 

the labels showing that the statements were greatly exaggerated, if 

not absolutely untrue, and per contra I exhibited the labels used by the 

manufactnre,rs fraudulent as to English goods, and it was admitted. 

yesterday by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT], who has just 

addressed the Chair, that in one instance that cbar~e was true and that 

the brand of an English manufacturer with the lion rampant and the 

words ''Cutlers to the Queen" upon it had been used to put these 

American goods upon the American market as English. 

Although I am charged with being a free-trader, I take as much 

pride in the fertility of resources, in the ingenuity, in the mechanical 

skill of the people of the United States, whether they live in ~:me portion of the country or in another, as Senators upon the othex side; but 

we enter noon different roads when we come to that limit in the protectiv~ system where protection is the sole object of tariff taxation. 

When it is proposed to put such duties upon importations coming from 

any foreign country as to exclude them absolutely becaus~ they a~e 

foreign products, I differ with our friends upon the other side of thlB 

Chamber. I need not repeat that the position of the Democratic party 

is in favor of a tariff limited to the necessities of the Government for 

revenue and so imposed as to encourage American industry, and place 

the taxation upon luxuries as far as possible, and not upon the absolute 

nec&saries of life. 

Personally I know nothing about this question as to labor. I represent 

an agricultural State, and yet a State with large ma.nufactnri1:1g interests, but not in the line of cutlery, although there is to-day rn the 

city of St. Louis a hardware and cutlery establishment larger than any 

other in the United States. I refer to the Simmons Hardware Company. 

The PRESIDENT pro fempore. The yeas and nays having been Mr. PLATT. Do they manufacture? 

ordered, they will be taken upon the different amendments as one ques· Mr. VEST. No. I stated that they were engaged in the sale of cuttion,· if there be no objection. The Chair hears none. 1

1 Jery and hard ware. They buy from American m;:mutacturers and they 

l\lr. VEST. Mr. President, yesterday some statements were made buy from foreign importers. They differ from me politically, but I 

in regard to the increased amounts of importations of foreign cutlery claim for them as American citizens the right to buy wherever they 

into the United States. I bave before me a table coming from what please in accordance with their own judgment and as to therr own inwill be considered a very irresponsible source upon the other Ride of terests. Senators upon the other side seek to confine them to Amerithe Chamber, from the importers of the United States, who claim to can manufa-Oturers and say that they shall not buy from foreign imrepresent $60,000,000 of capital invested in the importin~ business as porters if tariff taxation can bring about that result. That is the issue 

to cutlery and hardware, and they make this exhibit in regard to the between us, and I hail it with joy, and am willing to e;o before the 

amount of importations, fort.be last few years, of cutlery. American people year after year so long as I live upon that issue, and 

According to the table of the manufacturers, contained on page 72 I have no doubt as to the resnlt. 

of the hearings before the Ways and Means Committee, this showing But, Mr. President, no Senator has a right to say that a. man makes 

appears: a false statement simply ber.ause he is an importer. There is nothing 

Pocket-knives. illegitimate about the business of an importer. It is as honest and up18~2. American product as per their table, page 72 .................... ........ Sl, 320, 000 right a calling as any other in this country, and it ought to be proImports as per Government statistics ........................ $1, ~38, 198 tected by law, and not discriminated against, as is attempted now by. Add du~. 50 per cent................... ............................... 6191099 the party in the maiority in this Chamber. 

l, 857, 297 a 88 Now, what is the evidence? There is none against it since 18 , Total for 1882....................................................................... 3, 177, 297 when the charge was made on this floor. I have searched these volAdd for estimated increase of consumption from 18!l2 to 1887, inclu- h cc t th t h · te sive, six: years, at 21- per cent. per annum=15 per cent..................... 4761 593 nmes, and I have found no testimony tot e euer a t e impor rs ---- were engaged in placing fraudulent labels upon their ~oods in order t-0 

Total for 1887................................................................................ 3, 653, 890 avail thenlselves of the reputation of American manufacturers. I have 

According to manufacturers' table on page 72, 1887 figures out as before me the testimony of Mr. Boker before the Ways and Means follows: , Importations ....................................................................... $1,419,861 Committee of the Honse. He was asked by Governor GEAR: 

Deduct estimated razors, which are included..................... 250,000 Is it the ha.bit of some German manufa<llurers to stamp their goods with 

.Add duty, 50 per cent ................................................. .. 1, 169,861 l>M,930 

American names? Mr. BoKER. They may stamp them with some American firms' names, be- cause some American houses want their own mark on I.heir own goods. . 

A.merican product for 1887, as per their table on page 72 ..... l, 754, 791 815,000 

.Mr. GEAR. Is it the custom among Germans to stamp the naQJe of some American firm and send them to this country? Mr. BOKER. \Ve do not sell them as American goods. 'Ve have very little 

2,569, 791 to do with that., because we stamp our goods mostly with our own name. ---- Mr. FLOWER. -Aud many goods made in this country are stamped with A.mount unaccounted for by American manufacturers ...................... 1, 084, 099 English names. 

Kow, say the importers: 

The figures in the above statement are not ours, with the exception of the estimated natural increase of consumption for the six years. \Vith this exception the statement is entirely made up of Government statistic~ and the .American 

manufacturers' statements, and there is no other possible deduction to be made 

from this stat~ment and these figures bat the one, that the million dollars un- accounted for must be added to the manufacturers' statement of product for 

1887, making that amount Sl,899,000, instead of $1!15,000, as stated by them. We 

say there is no other possible deduction to be made than the above, unless it can be shown that the consumption of these goods for the six years from 1882 to 1887 decliued to the extent of over ~.ooo, which is simply preposterous. We are informed by the chief jobbers of cutlery that the estimate of 2! per cent. pera.nnum for natural increase of consumption is distinctly conservative, and that in their experience and opinion it is considerabJy over this estimate. 

XXJ-M4 

..! 

-· 

Mr. BOKER. That is because it finds z. market. 

That is the testimony which I find, and the only te.qtimony in the 

report of the Committee on Ways and Means upon this question. 

Mr. HISCOCK. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a "comparison 

of pocket cutlery imported with amount manufactured in the United 

States," furnished by the manufacturers, which I will read, and which 

I have no doubt is entitled to full credit and belief. In 1882 the foreign value of cutlery imported here was $975,000. 

This is taken from the statistics in respect to the importation of foreign goods. The value of American cutlery produced was $1,320,000. 

With the duty added to the foreign importation, it was $1,462,500. 

. ~ - . . ,; 

I 

I 

,·_ ., .. .,, 

• •r 

·• 

,. \ 

., . .... ,-

-· 

•. 

.. 

· . 
._ 

•·. 

.. 

. . . . 

·-

r • 

J 

........ -

·. 

'· 

•' 

:.. ... .• ' ,-•. 

8850 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

In 1887 the foreign value of the importation was $1,200,000; duty 

added, $1,800,000, and the American product was $815,000. In 1888 

the foreign value of the imported goods was $1,245,900; duty added, 

$1,868,850, and the total American product was $795,000. In 1889 

the foreign value of the importations was $1,337,450; duty added, 

$2,006,175, and the total American product was $7~0,000. 

The a.bove correct figures show a steady increase in the importation of foreign pocket cutlery, and a corresponding decline in the amonnt manufactured in 

the United States. 

Mr. President, I have one word more to say in respect to the duty 

which will be imposed under the provision which we are now considering. You can take a particular knife which is imported of a particular grade, making your own selection, and doubtless the duty which 

has been stated would be imposed upon that particular knife. The 

bill for the purpose of an honest administration classifies imported cutlery according to its value. Take pen-knives or pocket-knives of all 

kinds, or parts thereof, and erasers, or parts thereof, wholly or partly 

manufactured, valued at not more than 50 cents per dozen, 12 cents 

per dozen. 

Now you take, valued at more than 50 cents per dozen and not exceeding $1. 50 per dozen, 50 cent.s per dozen. 

Now you take the very lowest cost or value in that provision and 

the duty imposed appears to be very large, and I have no doubt as to 

the statements made by importers, in respect of charging excessive 

duties, that they took the lowest valuations in one or the other of these 

grades. That is not fair. Assuming that these goods are all imported, 

it is proper to take the average to ascert.ain the amount of duty which 

is imposed. Taking that average which has been ascertained and it 

amounts to 73 per cent. ad valorem; it has been carefully figured out. 

And it must be borne in mind in this connection that upon nearly all 

the raw material which enters into cutlery there is a fair protective 

tariff, and I insist that, compensating for that and the additional labor 

that is bestowed upon pocket cutlery, there are few articles the products of American industry which are protected less than pocket cutlery. 

Now, what will be the operation under the law? and I call the attention of Senators to that. The moment that this provision goes 

upon the statute-book tho importations here are to be with reference 

to this provision of the law, and the result of it will be that the knives 

which will come in here will be as near as possible to the upper limit 

of one of these divisions, and not of value enough to carry them over the 1ine and put them above the lower limit in the next division; an'd 

the consequence will be that under the administration of this provision 

this 73 per cent. will be largely reduced. I am not prepared to say 

what the result would be if it was worked out and all the importations were to come just below the higher limit in these divisions, but I 

imagine it would not be far from 60 pe.r cent. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Mr. President--

Mr. VEST. I want just a moment, if my friend from Kentucky 

will permit me. Mr. CARLISLE. Go ahead. 

Mr. VEST. &fore we pass from this question of increa.Ees by this 

bill I wish to ask the Senator from New York a question. I understand 

him to say that the increase averages 73 per cent. · Mr. PLATT. No, the whole duty imposed. 

Mr. VEST. I did not so understand him. What was the Senator's 

statement as to 73 per cent. ? 

l\fr. HISCOCK. Worked out under this provision there would be an average protective duty upon all the importations, provided the aver- age tbrongh these different subdivisions in respect to quantity was 

maintained, which would amount to 73 per cent. It is now 50 per 

cent. What I said, which I supplemented that with, was this: That in 

all b uman probability the importers, the foreign manufacturers, will sell 

these goods here with reference to their reaching our market at the 

least possible protection that can be imposed, and therefol'e they will 

be as near as possible to the upper value or the upper limit, the higher 

limit in these classifications, which, as I said before, while I have not 

worked it out, and I have not seen that it has been worked out carefully, will be not far from 60 per cent. 

Mr. VES-T Does that apply alone to paragraph lfi9? 

1\lr. HISCOCK. We are on that alone now. I say this to the Senator, that, in all cases where there is a division made in the amount of 

duty that is imposed in respect to the value of the goods, that is between 

certain values to be so much, and between certain higher values or the 

higher in one division and a still higher one in anothflr, the result will 

doubtless be worked out in reference to all importations of that kind 

under the bill, but the foreign merchant, the importer here will adapt 

himself to the law, and the goods t.hat he brings in here will be of a value which will just come in above the higher limit in one clas.sification, and not just above the lower limit in the next. 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, I find t;ables prepared by the importers 

marked C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, in which the different grades of 

pocket cutlery, together with razors and butcher-knives, are classified 

and put in these respective tables. For fear thatthere might be some 

mistake about these tables, as they were made up by interes~ parties 

(because there are two distinct sides to this conflict, one being the im-

·'. 

porters and the other the American manufacturers, and their statements are always contradicted by each other), I submitted these tables 

to the most reliable 0Xl>ert I have ever found in the city of Washington from actual experience, and that is Mr. Talbott, formerly clerk of 

the Committee on Ways and Means of the Honse, an'1 now clerk of the 

Interstate Commerce Commission, and one of the most valuable officers 

this Government has ever had. 

Mr. PLATT. A clerk where? 

Mr. VEST. He is now a clerk of the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion. He was formerly clerk of the Ways and Means Committee; and 

during the debate of 1888 I bad to rely on him almost exclusively for 

information and he never misled me, I am happy to say. 

I had him go ove:r these tables carefully, and he says they are correct with very slight variations between his calculation and that made 

by the importers. I ask that these tables be made a portion of my 

remarks, because they ought to be put in permanent form for future 

discussions, of which I hope we shall h:.we a great many. Table A is 

one-blade pocket-knives. Here is the foreign cost per dozen, the cost 

under the Senate substitute, which we discussed in 1888, then under 

the Senate amendment to this bill and the proposed duty now before 

the Senate, and the average of the proposed duty is 103 per cent. 

The Senate substitute of 1888 made it 148 and the Senate amendment now 95. The proposed duty is 103 per cent. That is one-blade 

knives. Table Dis two-blade pocket-knives. The Senate substitute 

of 1888 made it 135 percent., the Senate amendment 82 per cent., and 

the proposed duty now 100 per cent. Table Eis three-blade pooJketknives. The Senate substitute made it 125 per cent., the Senate 

amendment 76, and the proposed duty now is 98 per cent. Table F, 

four-blade pocket-knives. The Senate substitute made it 97 per cent., 

the Senat;e amendment 67~ per cent., which is increased now to 94 per 

cent. Table G shows the present and proposed rates of duty on pocketknives. Table H gives the duty upon razors. Under the Senate substitute it ran from 35 to 95 per cent.; under the Senate amendment 

it runs from 77 to 190 per cent.; and at 50 per cent. ad valorem added 

under the McKinley bill it runs from 67 to 170 per cent. Table I is 

for carving knives and forks. UndertheSenatesubstitutetheaverage 

was 49 per cent.; under the Senat.e amendment it is 49 per cent.; the 

proposed duty is 67 per cent. The next gives butcher-knives, with an average of 68 per cent. against 35 per cent. at present; but the prin~ipal knives, 6 inches long, will have to pay 80 per cent. duty. 

I state that the...~ tables are absolutely correct, and yet the Senator 

from New York tells us that there is an average duty of 73 per cent. I deny it; I absolutely deny it; and I will put the estimate of these 

importers, backed by that of Mr. Talbott, against those of any other 

experts in this city or anywhere else. If any Senator who knows anything about it will go through one of these tables he will see that they are correct. They are published here by all the importer& of the United 

States, including the Simmons Hardware Company of my own State, 

who stand as high as any gentlemen engaged in any business in all this 

country. I want these tables put into the RECORD so that the people 

of the country can see what is•the real increase upon cutlery. Instead 

of 73 per cent., the lowest here is over 95 per cent. 

The tables referred to are as follows: 

TABLE C.-One-blade pocket-kiiives. 

[Present duly, 50 per cent.] 

Foreign cost, 

per dozen. 

Senate 

substitute. 

Per cent. $0.18................. 302 .2-1................. 233 . 37................. 164 .48................. 127 . 61................. 106 .73................. 93 . 8.5................. 84 1.00................. 75 

A ...-erage rate ... 148 

~!~~13- Proposed ment. duty. 

Pei· cent. 

117 

100 

82 

75 

109 

99 

92 

86 

95 

Per cent. 

117 

100 

82 

75 

132 

llS 

109 

100 

103 

Proposed rates. 

12 cents per dozenand50percent. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. Do. 

Do . Do. 

These averages are made uv for like quantities of' each price. The propQ.l'tion sold is always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actual average 

much higher than above gh·en. 

Foreign cost, 

per dozen. 

S0.37 ................ . .48 ................ . .61 ................ . 

.73 ................ . .SS ................ . .97 ............... .. 

TABLE D.-'l'wo-blade pocket-kiiives. 

[Present duty, 50 per cent.] 

Senate 

substitute. 

Per cent. 

294 

228 

188 

161 

142 

128 

,;' 

I , 

Senate Proposed a;:::t duty. 

Per cent. 80 

75 

109 

99 

92 

97 

Pet· cent. 82 

75 

132 

118 

109 

101 

Proposed r:ites. 

12 cent.a per dozen and ISO pe-r cent. Do. 

50 cents per dozen and50percent. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

. . 
·. . ·.· . ' "- .. 

·. 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.A.TE. 8851 '. 

TABLE D~-Two-blade pocket-kniues-Continued. · 

[Present duty, 50 per cent.] 

Foreign cost, per dozen. 

Senate I Senate Proposed substi- amend- duty. tute. ment. 

Proposed rates. 

------1---- ---~ ~-------------

Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. $1.10.... ............. 116 83 95 50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 

l. 2'!....... ....... ... 106 80 91 1.31................. 100 77 fr! 1. 46... .............. 93 75 84 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

1.58................. 88 73 113 $1 per dozen and 50 per cent. 

1. 70... .............. 84 71 109 1. 82................ 80 69 105 ]. 95................. 76 68 101 

Avernge rate ... --135 ,---8-2- -WO 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold is al we.vs of the cheaper grades, .which would bring the actual average much higher than above given. 

TABLE E.-Tltree-blade pocket:..l.;nfres. 

[Present duty, 50 per cent.] 

Foreign cost, b · d c ~ Senate Senate ln.·oposed 

per dozen. ~t~l- a:!!!t. - duty. Proposed rates. 

Per cent. Per cent. I Perce~. -------------

$0.41!................. 330 75 75 12 cents per dozen and50percent. .61................. 270 109 132 50centsperdozenand50percent. 

. 73 . . ...... ........ 230 99 118 Do. · • 85 ......... ., ... _ 201 !i2 109 Do. 

. 97 ............ ..... 180 87 101 Do. 1.10................. 162 83 95 Do. 1. 22................. 151 80 !Jl Do. 1. 3 L.. ........... ... 137 77 fr! Do. 1. 46 ............... - 127 75 84 Do. L70................. 113 71 109 $lperdozenand50percent. 1. 82.... ..... ...... .. 107 69 105 Do. 1. 95 ............... - 103 68 101 Do. 2. 07.. ............... 98 80 98 Do. 2.19................. 94 77 96 Do. 2. 31..... .... . ... .. .. 90 76 93 Do. 2. 43 ............... - fr! 75 91 Do. 2. 56... ..... .. ....... 84 73 89 Do. 

3. 00 ................. 75 70 ll7 S2 per dozen and 50 per cent. 2. 68... ......... ... .. 81 73 frl I Do. 

3. 50................. 68 67 107 Do. 4. 00 .. ........ ...... 62 65 100 Do. 4. 50 .............. - 58 63 95 Do. 

5.oo................. 55 ! 62 90 I Do. 6. 00................. 50 60 83 Do. 

Average rate .. ---"'-,6- ---9-8-

These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The propor~ 

tion sold is always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actual aver.age much higher than above given. 

TABLE F.-Four-blade pocke!?knives. 

[Present duty, 50 per cent.] 

Foreign cost, per dozen. 

Senate 

substitute. 

Senate p I amend- roposed ment. duty. 

Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. SI. 22........... ...... 181 80 91 1. 31................. 170 77 87 

]. 46................. 162 75 84 1. 53... ........ .... .. 157 73 113 1. 70................. 143 71 109 1. 82................. 135 70 105 1. ~5................. 128 69 101 2.19........... ..... 117 77 96 2. 43................. 107 '75 91 

i ~:::: ::::::::::::: 1~ ~~ • ~ 3.16................. 88 69 ll3 3.4l................. 84 68 109 3. ().). ................ 80 f>7 105 3. 89 .. -............. 76 66 102 4.14 ................ 73 65 98 4.38 ................ 70 64 96 4..62................. 68 63 93 4.87................. 66 62 90 5. ll... ............ .. 6-1 6~ 89 5. 35................. 62 61 87 5. GO................. 60 61 S6 5.83................. 59 60 I 84 

~:fo:::::::::.~::::::' ~ gg I fg I 7.30................. 52 58 77 

Average rate ... --971----rni---94.-

Proposed rates. 

50 cents per dozen and 50 percent. Do. 

Do. fl per dozen and 50 per cent. Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. $2 per dozen and 50 per cent. Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold is always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actuaJ. a~eragb 

much higher than above given. 

TABLE G.-Showing tlte present and proposed rates of duty on pocketknives. 

Present Increase of Proposed Foreign cost, per Proportion duty (50per Proposed proposed duty ad dozen. of imports. cent.ad duty. duty over valorem. valorem). present duty. 

Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. S0.24 ....................... 17-t iU.12 $0.24 100 100 

1: ~::::.:::·::':':'~:·:·:·~:::::: i 

~ .26 .76 190 150 

50 .37 . fr! 135 120 

.50 1.00 100 100 1. 22 ....................... .61 1.11 80 91 1.58 ...................... .79 1.79 125 113 

1.82 ....................... >- 30 .91 1.91 110 100 3.00 ....................... 1.50 3.50 133 117 4.00 ....................... 

f 

2.00 4.00 100 100 5.00 ....................... 2.50 4.50 80 90 

6.00 ... .................... 3.00 5.00 66 83 7.00 ....................... 2-} 1 3.50 5.50 57 78 8.00 ..................... · .. 4.00 6.00 50 75 9.00 ...................... 4..50 6.50 45 72 10.00 ....................... l 5.00 7.00 40 70 

Figured out at the proper proportion of imports for each grade the duty is over 110 per cent. ad valorem. 

Foreign cost, per dozen. 

TABLE H. -Razors. 

[Present duty,50 percent.ad valorem.] 

~~~ tute. ~~~1£-1 ment .. ~~1tlit I --------------·----·---------------

S0.72 .. - ............ . . 96 ............... .. 1. 20 ................ . 1.44 ................ . 

Per cent • 170 

134 

113 

100 1 1.68 ................ . 1.92 ................ . 

Ptw cent. 

95 

78 

68 

60 

55 

53 

48 

46 

44 

42 

37 

36 

35 

Per cent. 

190 

154 

133 

120 

110 

102 90 

82 

76 

72 

68 

65 

73 

69 

95 

~ Sl per dozen and 30 per cent. I 

2.16 ............... . 2.40 ............... .. 2.64 ................ . 2.88 ............... .. 4. (18 ... ..... .... .... . 

4.56 ................ . 5.00 ................ . 

96 

92 

88 

85 

80 

77 

75 tit. 7'S pe• dozen and 30 per cent 

Foreign cost, per dozen pieces. 

TABLE !.-Carving "knives and forks. 

[Present duty, 35 per cent.] 

substi- amend- duty tute. ment. (page 79). 

Proposed rates (page 79}. Senate Senate !Proposed 

-----~ ------------·-------------~ 

Sl.46 .... .., ......... . 2.19 ............... . 2.92 ................ . l $1 per dozen and 30 per cent. 

3.65 ............... .. 4.38 ................ . 5.11. ............... . 5.84 ................ . 6. 8'J ............... . S2 per dozen and 30 per cent. 

7.79 .. --······~·· 8.";6 ............... . 9.73 .............. - 11.00 .............. _ S3 per dozen and 30 per cent. 

12.00 ............... .. 13.00 ................ . 14.00 ................ . 

Percent. 65 

53 

47 

57 

53 

50 

47 

45 

43 

53 

50 

48 

46 

45 

44 

43 

Percent. 65 

53 

47 

57 

53 

50 

47 

45 

43 

53 

fJO 

48 

46 

45 

44 

43 

Percent. 99 

76 

64 

58 

73 

69 

64 

59 

56 

64 

61 

57 

55 

68 

65 

63 

8-5 per dozen and 30 per cent. 

15.00 ................ . 

Average rate ... 

Inch. 

49 49 67 

TABLE J.-Bidclter-knives. 

Foreign 

value. 30 per 

cent. 

In addi- tion per dozen. 

Total 

duty. Duty. 

Actual 

assort· 

ment as imported. 

--------1-----------------·-----:----- Per cent. Dozen. 4i .......................... S0.81 S0.2430 $).15 $0.3930 48 5 5 ................. - ......... .89 .2670 .15 .4170 46 100 5~ .......................... LOO .3180 .50 .8180 77 150 6 ............................ 1.22 .3660 .50 .8660 80 l, 200 6t .......................... l.3d .4140 .50 .9140 66 200 7 ........................... 1.63 .4890 .50 .9890 61 300 8 ........................... 2.10 .63 ,50 1.13 54 300 9 ........................... 2.60 .78 .50 1.28 50 100 10 ........................... 3.25 .9750 1.00 L9750 61 200 

11 ... - ...................... 3.90 1.17 1.00 2.17 56 40 

12 ........................... 4. 70 1.45 LOO 2.41 51 100 

13 .......................... 5.30 1.59 1.00 2.59 48 2 14 ........................... 6.86 2.0580 LOO 3.0580 45 30 

2,7'1:7 

Average, 68 per cent., against 85 per cent. at present i but the principal knife, 

6-inch, will have to pay 80 per cent. duty. 

; 

·-

: , 

'· ,. 

. - ~ .. 

J. 

, . -

: 

I•• 

·. 

·. 

,, 

.!'-

'' ..... 
"-. .. · ... 

... _t .._ 

.. 

•, 

-. . - .. -:, .. 

... 

8852 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

.Mr. CARLISLE Mr. President, I rise merely for the purpose of 

calling the attention of the Senate to the statistics just read by the 

Senator from New York (Mr. HrscocK] in relation to the production 

of cutlery in this country and the importation of cutlery from abroad, 

beginning with the fiscal year 1882 and ending with the fiscal year 

1889. 

Mr. PLATT. The statistics that I read are for the calendar year, 

from January 1toDecemher31, and not for the fiscal year. 

Ur. CARLISLE. Then I will correct my statement by saying the 

calendar year. I supposed it was the fiscal year. 

1\lr. HrnCOCK. It was necessary for them to take, as I understand, 

the calendar years because their statistics with reference to home or American manufacture were by the calendar year. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I make no complaint about that. The statistics 

of both Senators show that during the calendar year 1882 the foreign 

importations of cutlery, with the.duty added, amounted to$1,462,500, 

and that the domestic production was $1,320,000, making in the aggregate '2, 782,500 worth of cutlery consumed in this country that 

year. The same statistics show that during the calendar year 1889 the 

value of the cutlery imported from abroad, with duty added, was 

$2,006,175, and that the domestic production was$730,000, makingan 

aggregate of $2, 736, 175. I have looked over the intervening years also, 

by the courtesy of the Senator from New York, and I call his attention to the fact that from these statistics it appears tbat there has been 

an actual decline in the consumption of cutlery in this country from 

1862 to 1889, notwithstanding the enormous increase in our population and the great prosperity of the country, as depicted by Senators 

upon the other side. 

I think, therefore, that there must be some mistake in the Senator s 

:figures. I think it can not be possible that the consumption of cutlery in the form of pocket-knives, razors, erasers, table-knives, etc., 

could have steadily declined in this country from 1882 to 1889, and 

yet if the Senator's statistics are correct that is the fact. 

Mr. HISCOCK. Let me suggest this to the Senator from Kentucky: 

The tables that I have given, as I understand, do not include tablecutlery, do not include razors; they simply include pocket-cutlery, 

nocket-knives, et-0. - Mr. CARLISLE. Very well; then I will modify my statement'accordingly, and say that according to these statistics there has been a 

clecline in the consumption of pocket-cutlery in · this country from 

1882 to 1889. 

.Mr. HISCOCK. I desire to call the Senator's attention, if it will 

not interrupt him, to the fact that we have had an exhibition, or something of that kind, wifo respect to a certain other class of goods which 

proves that there has been a large increase in use while there had not 

been a huge increase in the value. There bad been a large increase 

in the volume, due to a lower price both at home and abroad. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I can understand that it is sometimes the case that 

the quantity is increased while the value may not increase and in fact 

may diminish, and it is possible that such may be the case here. But 

the Senator quQted these statistics for the purpose of showing that the 

importations from abroad were being greatly increased while the domestic production was decreasing. I suppose that the price has fallen 

abroad as well as here, and that whatever reduction has taken place 

in the price of this article, either here or abroad, our citizens have received the benefit of. 

But then the Senator says that under this provision the importers 

will bring into this country for sale that cla."5 of cutlery which comes 

just below the limit fixed as a dividing line between the two rates of 

duty, and that therefore the average rate of duty upon actual importations will not be so high as the rat.e ot duty will appear to be if we 

select now a particular article costing a particular sum of money and 

base the calculation upon that. There is some truth in that, ~1r. President, also. 

I think that is the case now and will continue to be the case for all 

time to come, at least so long as we maintain this vicious system of 

compound rate'3 of duty. It is one of the chiefobjections to the changes 

which the Senator from New York and his colleagues upon the committee now propose to make, that the rates of duty upon pocket-knives 

and other cutlery afford the amplest opportunity and therefore the 

greatest temptation to the commission of frauds. Under a pure ad valorem rate of duty the undervaluation of the article to a small extent 

will scarcely make any difference whatever fa the aggregat.e amount of 

duty to be paid upon it; but with the compound rate as fixed in this 

paragraph 159, that is so much per dozen specific upon the article and 

so much ad valorem in addition, the lines drawn fixing the different 

values to which these various rates shall apply, the temptation to fraud 

is enormous. Take, for instance, the first clause: 

Pen-knives or pooket-kuives of a.II kinds, or parts thereof, and eraset'S, or parts thereof, wholly or partly manufaolured, valued at not more than OOcents per dozen, 12 cents P-'r dozen; valued at more than 50 cents per dozen and not exceedingSl.50 per dozen, 50 cents per dozen. 

Twelve cents per dozen if valued below 50 cents and 50 per cent. ad 

valorem; if valued at more than 50 cents, 50 cents per dozen and 50 

per cent. ad valorem. 

Now, what is the ci>nsequence? If the importer can underv:alue hia 

, 

article to the amount of 1 cent and pass it through the custom-house 

at 49 cents per dozen, he will pay simply 12 centa per dozen upon the 

article and 50 per cent. ad valorem, whereas if the correct and honest 

valuation of 50 cents or 51 cents per dozen is put upon it be will be 

compelled to pay the 50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem. 

That shows clearly and conclusively, in my judgment, the value of ad 

valorem duties pure and simple upon articles of this sort. 

Take, for instance, the pen-knives imported and valued at 48 or 49 

cents per dozen when worth clearly 50cents per dozen. Under a purely 

ad valore-m rate of taxation the aggregat.e amount of difference in duty 

upon them would be so small as to be almost incalculable; but when 

you draw the line at 50 cent8, as I have just stat.ed, the undervaluation in amount; of 1 cent or one-half cent makes a very great and material difference in the amount ot duty to be paid, and hence the temptation continually held out to dishonest importers, of whom there are, 

of course, many engaged in the business, to commit frauds upon the 

revenue and frauds upon honest importers engaged in the same line 

of business. 

Therefore, I say that one of the vices in the proposed increase of duties upon pocket cutlery is this feature of compound duties, partly 

specific and partly ad valorem. If the Senator from New You: believes 

that the average rate of duty upon t.hese articles under the paragraph 

now under consideration would not exceed 60 per cent., let us take 

away this opportunity and this temptation to commit frauds upon the 

revenue by saying " 60 per cent. ad.valorem," and not leave thia temptation to commit frauds, injurious to the revenue, injurious to honest 

importers engaged in the same business, and injurious to the American 

producers of the same article. Let us have, in other words, a purely 

ad valorem rate or a purely specific rate, classifying the articles as best 

we can according to their value and imposing rates accordingly. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I want to make a single suggestion in reply to the 

appeal of the Senator from Kentucky for us to adopt a uniform ad valorem rate. I believe, under tpe operation of the administrative bill, 

drawing the lines of valuation a'3 to different goods, with the value to 

be stated in the invoices, with the penalties provided under the administrative bill, whatever the temptation may be upon the other side 

to undervalue, they will not yield to them, and it is therefore that 

in this bill with respect to this and with respect to some other items we have adopted this division. 

Mr. CARLIS.LE. And yet the Senator from New York has during 

the present discussion made more than one ar~umenttoshow the great 

a<lvantage of specific duties over ad valorem duties . 

Mr. HISCOCK. It is for the purpose of getting as near to specific 

duties as we can. That is the purpose of it, making it so much per 

dozen ~-ind letting them take the risk of an undervaluation-so much per 

dozen, I repeat, upon goods of a certain value and letting them take the 

risk upon the other side of undervaluing their goods. 

Mr. CARLISLE. DoesnottheSenatorfrom NewYorkconcedethat 

the classification of the articles in this way and the imposition of certain specific rates upon different grades, with an ad valorem rate also 

in addition, affords the greatest opportunities for the commission of 

frauds? 

Mr. HISCOCK. I think not. I should prefer if it was otherwise 

but it is the best that can be done. ' 

l\Ir. CARLISLE. Let me complete my statement. The Senator 

says that, under the administrative act, in bis opinion ample provision 

has been made to detect and prevent undervaluationQ. Now, I submit 

to the Senator from New Y'ork that in a vast majority of cases, perhaps in all cases, it will be almost impossible to determine whether a given character of knives is worth 49 cents per dozen or 49! cents per 

dozen or 50 cents per dozen, and a difference, as I ha.ve said, of half a. cent upon the cost of a dozen will make a vast difference in the amount 

of cluty which the importer is compelled to pay. I do not believe there 

is an expert in the United States (and I am quite certain that the President has not succeeded in :finding one to put upon the board of general 

appraisers under the administrative act) who could determine with accuracy and with certainty when there was a difference of only half a cent or 1 cent a dozen upon thecostoftheseknives; andyetthatdifference would make, as I have said;# very great difference in the amount 

of duty they are required to pay. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Mr.President, Idesiretosupplementbyt\little 

explanation some remarks made by the Senator from Missouri, and 

also to call further attention to the table he asked to have inserted in 

the RECORD. 

Thi!:: table, it appears, is found in the protest of the Wholesale Hardware Association against any increase of duties on cutlery and guns. 

It comes to us here with an affidavit attached as to the truthfulness of 

the statements therein contained. 

In Table G, on the twenty-eighth page, they give the proportion of 

imports of the different kinds of knives which hu,ve been imported 

daring the past year, and it seems to be an answer complete and perfect 

to the statement made by the Senator from New York. We :find here 

that the proportion of import.s under a. class of knives costing 24 cents 

per dozen is 17! per cent. of all the imports. Under a class of knives 

costing between 52 cents and $1.22 per dozen, 50 pe1· cent. of all the 

imports. Running from a cost of $1.58 per dozen to $3 per dozen, 30 

·-· . ,. . . . . 
.. 

I.;.., 

... -· 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8853 

f 11 th · ts H fi d th t b t 24 c ts per If additional information is necessary to prove the measure of protection per cent. o a e unpor · ence, we n a e ween en needed by the pocket-cutlery business, it will be cheerfully furnished. 

dozen and $3 per dozen there were 97! per cent. of all t?e imports of Signed by the "Committee representing Amel'ican Pocket-Cutlery .Manufactpenknives or pocket-knives during the year 1889, leavrng but~~ p~r urers." 

cent. of ail importations at a cost of from $4 up to $10, as 1onnd m thIS l\fr. 1\foPHERSON. Will the Senator yield to me for a question? 

schedule. Mr. PJ:;ATT. I will . .l\Ir. President, let us look at the percentages. On those coming in Mr. McPHERSON. Is it not the exact truth taken from the state~ 

under 24 cents per dozen cost it is 100 per cent. ad valorem; on those ment there made, where they speak of additional information, that 

coming in at 52 cents per dozen it is 150 per cent. ad va1orem; on those they had already appeared, before the importers came here, and upon 

under 74 cents per dozen it is 120 percent. ad valorem, and soon. You the statements made by the manufacturers the committee had framecJ 

will find no single importation coming in within the limit I have men- their bill? 

tioned of less than 91 per cent. ad valorem, and yet tht'i Senator from Mr. PLATT. They had appeared before the committee of the other 

New York, in the face of this statement, showing that 97! per cent. of Ho1se. 

all the knives imported in 1889 were ranging from 91to150 per cent., Mr. McPHERSON. The importers cameberet.oprotestagainstwbat 

says he does not think they '!ill exceed ti~ per cent. . . the manufacturers bad already succeeded in doing, which was in satNow, sir, I assume that thIS statement lS made upon a close mvest1- isfying the committee that a great increase of duty was necessary. That 

gation as to the amount of importations, and I simply wanted to call seems to be the exact fact from the statement read by the Senator, beattention to it as an answer full and complete to the Sena.tor from New cause they say "if additional information is needed," and seemingly 

York and to any other statements that have been made touching the they had been here and given some information. 

duty upon these importations. 1\Ir. PLATT. I wish to put in here their statement as to the condi1\Ir. ALDRICH. Will the Senator from New Jerseyallowmetoask tion of this industry since its inception in the United States, andit is_ him a question? not denied by anybody. This is addressed to the chairman of the ComMr. McPHERSON. Certainly. mittee on .Finance of the United States Senate, and it says: 

Mr. ALDRICH. Does be think that the gentlemen he represents- In Ohio, four separate pocket-knife ma.nufactories have operated; only one I do not mean this in an offensive sense, but the gentlemen whose brief is in existence. 

be is now reading-in a case which I will put to him, namely, that In New Jersey, fonr have operated; only one remains. · d In Illinois, two have operated; both are silenced. knives worth 51 cents a dozen, say, ata fair valuation abroad, invoice Jn Pennsylvania, five have operated; a semblance of one may still exist. 

at 5 l cents, would he obliged to pay 50 cents a dozen and the ad valorem In Massachusetts, two have operated; one is dead. 

duty and if invoiced at 49 cents they would have to pay 12 cents per In New York, twelve ho.ve operated; five ha Ye been wiped out; of the redozen and the ad Valorem rate-doe3 he think their hone~ty would be maining seven. four sunk their original capital, failed or suspended, aud reor- ganized with fresh capital. sufficient to withstand the temptation to undervalue to the extent of a In Connecticut, twenty-four have operated; eleYen perished: of the remaincent a dozen or 2 cents a dozen? ing thirteen four have sunk their original capital, failed, or suspended and reh h . "ft f d t organized. Mr. McPHERSON. Mr. President, w en t is spec1 Crate o u Y or fifty-three separate ventures, thirty have been completely wiped out; 

is put here, which of itself upon all the low classes of knives is a rate nine hnve sunk their original investment and reorganized with new capital; 

of dutv even then in excess of what it ought to bear, it is useless for most of the remaining fourteen have auxiliary business. 

the Senator and myself to contend as to what would be done if the im- I read yesterday a letter from a gentleman representin~ them who 

porter was honest or dishonest. I bad come to have an interest in one of the remaining concerns which 

l\Ir. PLATT. Mr. President, I do not know that this matter ought are spoken of here as being in operation, in whicli be gave the condition 

to be further discussed. I am very anxious to get along with the tariff of tba.t concern, showing that that has got to go out of business very 

bill and with votes upon it, but I think I may say one or two things. soon unless some relief is afforded. 

It is admitted on the other side that here has been a contest and that Now, with reference to the amount of American production, because 

different statements of fact have been presented by the manufacturers that is a matter upon which the American manufacturers are contra.-

and the importers. I believe myself that all the statements made by dieted by the importers, on page 72 of the Ways and Means Committee 

the manufacturers have been made after careful study and with a full Hearings a list was given of every manufacturer of .A.merica.n pocketintention to give accurate and fair statements. Gentlemen on the cutlery in 1882 and their busineas in 1882 and in 1887, the amount 01 

other side believe the same of the importers. There is a wide differ- dozens and the value made by each was given, and these manufacturers 

ence between their statements, and we can not well settle this ques- gave it themselves from their own books and a knowledge of their 

tion by going into the details of those differences. But there are some own business. The amount prod need in 1887 was in value $815, 000, 

things which seem to me to make it pretty certain that foreign impor- just what is given here in the table which bas been introduced, and a 

tations are in some way getting the better of American production in decline for 1888 and 1889 is given, bein~ in 1888 $795,000 and in 1889 

this business. If the suggestions of the importers were t.rue these $i30,000. I submit that those men know how much they have propocket-cutlery manufacturers would be making something. If those duced. 

statements are true the pocket-cutlery manufacturers are making a Mr. PLUMB. The Senator from Connecticut is too sensible a man, 

great deal. too well informed, to assert as conclusive evidence of the lack of proper 

Now, what are the real facts? I do not stop here to advert to the duty for the protection of persons manufacturing knives in this country, 

amount of capital invested in the business as compared with the cap- that some of them J1ave failed. I could name to him, with a little 

ital invested in importing. It bas been rather boastfully stated on the time, fifty manufacturing establishments in Kansas that have failed 

other side that the persons making these statements here against the during the last five or ten years, whose failure had no relation whatmanufactnrers represent $60, 000, (JOO in the importin~ business, and it ever to protective duties or to any duty. He must certainly agree that 

has been argued that because they did their statements must be taken there is something due to mismanagement and to other conditions beas true, whereas these poor manufacturers have not all told got $3, 000,- sides the duties. I think he will agree also (because I know bow fair 

000 invested in the business, and therefore inferentially what they say be is) that there is nothin~ in the situation that. puts upon tb·e United 

about it must not be taken as true. States the compulsion t-0 give to everybody who engage.'i in manufactI do not wish to dwell upon that. However, I am glad that in this uring a duty which will enable him to prosper, no matter w l1ether 

case there is 11one of the talk about the immense profits of manufact- other people prosper or not and no matter whether be manages his 

urers, about immense corporations, about monopolists, about immense business right or no':·. I take it there are a good many things, in the 

profits, about men who lla.ve grown rich in the busines3, a.bout trusts, discovery of metals, and in the discovery of new methods, and so on, 

a.bout combinations, about agreements as to prices. That is out of which are constantly workin~changes in 10anufacturing as in commerce 

this case, and I am glad of it. and in a.11 other lines of business. 

Bat, as I was saying, it seems .to me certain facts must settle the 1\Ir. PLATT. That is very true; and the Senator could not have uu- question as to whether there is money made in this cutlery business derstood me as not taking note of that fact, that the usual conditions 

and whether it can stand against the foreign importation, and must which affect business may have affected this business, matters of mansettle the question as between the manufacturerd and importers as to agementormismanagement, mattersofmarkets, and soon; but I venture 

the amount of importations and the amount of American production. to say that there is no other line of manufacturing in this c01rntry which 

The importers came over here in a special train from New York and cau show so unfortunate a result, so far as success is concerned, a.'i the 

bad a bearing before the Finance Committee, and iii was boasted in the pocket-cutlery business. I am speaking of pocket cutlery alone now. 

New York papers that that train contained importers representing I venture to say that there is no other branch of manufacturing in which 

$350,000,000, and yet these manufacturers were denied the right to capita.l has been sacrificed as it has in that branch of business in the enappear before tlie committee a.nd make an answer, which they asked, cleavor to maintain theindustryin the United States. That is all I say 

and they say right here in the statement they made that they had to about it. 

put on paper: I want to say one other word. I have not intended to discuss at all 

This industry had exhaustive hearings bef?re the Ways_ and Means Commit_tee the principle.'i upon which this matter of protection is founded. I do 

and was recklessly opposed by a group of New York resident agents of ~or~1gn not sympathize with that feeling which believ@S that we must not re- cullery manufacturers, who use the name" Wholesale Ha.rd ware Assoc1at1011; . . . . . . . A.H.Saxton, president," fortaritl'purposes only. duce duties many case. My idea of protection ls that if the duty is 

By exhibits of goods, c~sts, and mark:et prices, Wt: refuted M_r. Saxton's slan- not required we ought to reduce it; that if it is not sufficient we ought ders o_n reputa~le lf?~r1orn mam1facturers. Dented a hen rm~ before your to increase it my Yiew heinrr that it is better to have the industry car· ~ddr1:~t;~u(fnh~;M~~~~·1lege was accorded Mr. Saxton for the impol'ters), we ried on in thls country than"' abroad. 

· . 

I • 

-- -

r 

/-

~:. 
'· 

I... ·' 

. . ' 

,_ .. 

/ 

.. 

,. .. _. •'-; ' . 

8854 OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

Mr. PLUMB. I wish the Senator would explain what he means by 

that which is a sufficient duty. Does he mean that which meets the 

demand of the manufacturer or that which meets some other condition 

that may be determined by somebody else or applied outside of the demands of the manufacturers? 

Mr. PLATT. I am sorry to observe what seems to me to be-and 

the Senator will excuse me for saying it-a prejudice on the part of the 

Senator from Kansas against the manufacturer. At least I wish he 

would have a little of that prejudice against the importer and not direct all his criticisms toward the manufacturer. What I mean by sufficient protection is a protection sufibient to equalize the conditions ot 

production between this country and another country, whatever those 

conditions may be, and to compensate in this country for the disadvantage under which the industry is conducted here, whatever that 

disadvantage may be. provided only that there is a fair and reasonable 

opport unity to carry on the business in this country, and that climatic 

and natural conditions are not against us. :llfr. CARLISLE. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Connecticut 

yield to the Senator from Kentucky? 

Mr. CARLISLE. For a question only. 

Mr. PLATT. Certainly. 

Mr. CARLISLE. As I understand the Senator, then, he is not contending simply for a duty which will compensate, to use a common-expre ion, for the difference between the cost of labor here in the production of tbe article and the cost of labor abroad in the production of 

the same article, but he wauts to equalize all the conditions as to cap· 

ital, natural advantages, and everything else. 

Mr. PLA. TT. No; I expressly excluded natural advantages. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Then does the Senator expressly confine himself 

to the difference in the cost of fabor, which has been claimed heretofore? 

Mr. PLATT. No, I do not. 

Mr. CARLISLE. That is what I supposed. 

Mr. PLATT. As I said, I do not want to go into a discussion of this 

question. I shall do so perhaps before this bill passes, but I think I 

have stated very clearly what I do think the doctrine of protection 

rests on. If our natural conditions here are such that an industry can 

be reasonably pursued in this country without violating climatic or 

natural conditions, I think it ought to have all the protection which is 

necessary to enable it to be pursued in this country. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator allow me? 

Mr. PLATT. Let me make this st.atement, because it is a statement. I think it better that that busines.~ shall be conducted in this 

country than in a foreign country. I think it better that the men who 

work in that business shall work in this country rather than in a foreign country. I think it better that the farmer who supplies those men 

should supply them in this country than to attempt to supply them in 

a foreign country with their agricultural necessaries. I think nationally, morally, :financially, and in every possible view, it is better that 

that industry should be pursued in this country than in a foreign 

country. I think it would be calamitous not to afford a. protection 

which would enable the industry to live in this country. I think you 

can have no greater calamity for the farmer in this country than a 

closed factory because needed protection is withheld. 

Where is the farmer going to sell his agricultural products except in 

this country? He can not sell them abroad without coming int-0 competition with the cooly labor of the world. It is nonsense to make the 

farmer think that he can sell bis grain abroad to any great extent. He 

has to come in competition there with India and Russia and the Argentine Republic, and with cheap labor everywhere, which has brought 

down th~ price to apointwheretheraisi.ng of agricultural products for 

export is no longer profitable. Where then is he going to sell his products, his wheat, and his corn, and what they are turned into, unless 

he sells them to men engaged in other occupations in this country? A. 

factory closed because protection is withheld means so many fewer men to buy--

Mr. DA.NIEL. Mr. President--

Mr. PLATT. Wait one moment. It means so many fewer men to 

buy the farmers' products or so many more men going into the production of agricultural products to compete with him. 

I have been betrayed into ma.king this statement of my idea of the 

ground on which protection rests, and I shall not pursue it unless some 

Senator tempts me further. 

Mr. PLUMB. I only want to say one word . 

l\Ir. PLA 'l'T. I yielded to the Senator from Virginia-. 

:M:r. PL UUB. I beg pardon. 

Ur. DaNIEL. I only wish to ask the Senator a question: why itis 

that the American minister to France is seeking to get France to allmiti our meat products and to repeal her restrictive laws and why it is 

that the American minister to France is trying to indoctrinate the 

French Republic witb. the views of free trade if there are no markets 

to be found abroad for our prod nets? 

Mr. PLA..TT. In the first place, I do not think that the American 

minister has been trying to indoctrinate France into the doctrines of 

free trade. I think the Senator is mistaken about that. As I understand it, his contention is against the prohibition of .American products 

·. , . 

founded upon what he claims is an unjust statement as to their quality. 

That is what I understand to be the American minister's contention 

abroad, and not against France putting any tariff upon them if she 

chooses to do so. 

Mr. DA.NIEL. Then I wish to ask the Senator--

Mr. VEST. Will the Senator from Virginia permit me just a second 

to reply to the statement made by the Senator fr-0m Connecticut? 

Mr. DA.NIEL. Certainly. 

Mr. VEST. I have Mr. Reid's statement here somewhere, but it 

amounts to this-I state it from memory, but I think accurately: In 

the first plaee, he makes the contention that American pork is not un- sound and therefore that France ought not to exclude it for sanitary reasons. Then he goes further and undertakes to convince the French 

that it is to theirinterestto admit the pork and not to put an exclusive 

tariff upon it. He puts it upon two grounds, first, that the pork is 

sound andi in the second place, that we can produce it and sell it to 

the French more cheaply than their own people can produce it. 

Mr. PLATT. If that is true, and I do not recollect the text ot the 

letter, it may be a very good Yankee way of trying to make trade. 

1'llr. VEST. That is his contention; it is based upon two grounds. 

Mr. PLATT. Does the Senator from Virginia. desire to ask me a question? 

Mr. DANIEL. I was going to extend my question a little and ask 

the Senator how it was that the Secretary of State is trying to get 

South America to open her ports to our products and the .American 

minister is trying to get France to open her ports to our products, 

when the Republican party on the floor of the Senate, at war with their 

foreign and domestic representatives, urge the country t'!:iat there is 

nothing in the idea of the foreign market, while their Administration 

is, at least apparently, trying to obtain the trade. 

l\Ir. PLATT. Mr. President, this Senate is the queerest debating 

body that I ever happened to get into. 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President, I think this is disrespectful to the Senate. 

Ur. PLATT. One moment. I have the floor. 

Mr. BLAIR. I know; and I call the Senator to order; he ought to 

be elsewhere. 

Mr. PLATT. I have learned this, that whenever a Senator is driving home a point which disturbs anybody on either side of the Chamber who does not agree with him, immediately it is courtesy to stand 

up and ask him some question entirely remote from the point he is 

trying to make, intended to divert the discussion, and extremely discourteous in him not to listen to that and turn the discuszjon into an- other channel. • 

Now, I do not propose to be drawn into a discussion of the question 

of reciprocity as to certain articles with foreign countries. I shall be 

very glad to express my opinion upon it when the proper time comes; 

but the point I was making is this, and it can not be challenged or denied: The American farmer has nowhere to sell his wheat outside of 

this country, except in competition with the cheapest labor in the 

world, which bas brought down thepriceofwheatto a point where there 

is no profit in growing it for exportation; and, therefore if he is going 

to have a market he bas got to have it within our own borders mainly; 

and none of this talk about the tariff having interfered with the profits 

or the prosperity of the farmer will blind him long as to the real truth. 

It is as idle to lay the agricultural depression in this country to the 

protective tariff as it was for Pope Calixtus in the fifteenth century to 

lay the condition of Europe to the comet and to issue, as he is said to 

have done, a bull excommunicating the comet, and to put a new prayer 

into the litany praying the Lord to deliver us from the Turk, the 

comet, and the devil. It is as idle to talk about it as it was the other 

day in China for the soldiers, with th~ populace, to tear up the railroad because they thought it was the occasion of a freshet in the river, 

the authorities standing by and looking on and seeing it done. 

Mr. President, I was sayin11; before I was diverted that my idea is 

that it is better to afford sufficient protection to an industry in this 

country which could reasonably be profitable here and to ¢ve it the 

opportunicy to live. That is all we ask in this matter. There are other 

conditions besides labor, though the advantage in Iaboris the great con- dition. The proposed increase of <luty on this cutlery will not compensate for the difference between the price of labor in this country and 

the price of labor in Belgium, which is four times greater in this country than it is in Belgium. 

Mr. DANIEL. Mr. President--

Mr. PLATT. I wish the Senator would let me state one other idea 

I have in my mind, and then I shall listen to him. I want to say that 

the Democratic party stand committed to all the protection that is 

necessary to equalize the disadvantages which labor suffers under in 

this country; and when they tell the farmer that the protective tariff 

is a thing under which he suffers, I commend to them their own declaration, that so 13.r as protection is neened to equalize the cost of labor in 

this country and abroad and to compensate for tho disadvantages under 

which labor finds itself in this country, they are for protection. This was the resolution on protection to .American labor in the national 

Democratic platform of 1888: 

Our established domestic industries and enterprises should not a.ud need not be endangered by a reduction and correction of the burdens of taxation. On 
... 

\ t ' I .. • 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL BEOORD-SENATE. 8855 

the contrary, a fair and careful revision of our tax laws, with due allowance for 

the difference between the wages of American and foreign labor, must promote and enco·uage every branch of eucb industries and enterprises by giving them assurances of a.n extended market a.nd steady and continuous opera.\ion. 

Directly admitting that protection sufficient to compensate for the 

difference between labor in this country and labor abroad should be 

afforded. Labor in these pocket cutleries averages $2 a day, in this 

country. It is 50 cents a day, and less than 50 cents a. day, in that 

country from which this worthless trash is b~ing imposed upon the 

people of this country. I want to do a little sum in arithmetic to see how much protection is needed. The labor-cost in cutlery in this 

country is affirmed to be 80 per cent. of the whole. The importers un- dertake to contradict that, and the gentlemen had their books examined. An establishment in my city called in the Democratic collector 

of the port of New Haven, the Democratic postmaster of Meriden, and 

the Democratic Representative in the other Honse of Congress and 

asked them as a favor to go through their books and see whether labor was 80 per cent. of the cost or not, and they gave a statement which I 

have before me and which I will read if my statement is questioned 

that that waa correct. 

Now, I want to put a little sum in arithmetic. The labor-cost is 80 

per cent. and the labor is $2 a day in this country. Suppose a dozen 

knives cost" dollar, the labor-cost here is 80 per cent. That is80 cents 

that goes to labor in the cost of that dozen knives worth a.dollar. How 

is it in Germany? We will say that the materials cost them just the 

same-20 per cent. for materials and other matters-and labor there is 

one-quarter what it is here, 50 cents a day instead of $2. The laborcost there i.s then 20 cents on this dollar, and the actual cost of the 

knife abroad 40 cents instead of $1. 

Now, can you tell me how much protection would be needed to equalize the difference between labor in this country paid at $2 a day and 

the laborin Germany or Belgium paid at 50 cent.."! a day? No percentage which bas been given on the other side will equalize that difference, and we do not expect it will, but we do expect it will make these · foreign knives cost enough more to the dealer in them so that there will 

not be such an inducement to him to handle them against American 

knives as there is now. That is all we expect. , 

One word more and I am through. The Senator from Missouri said 

it was claimed that foreign manufacturers put the names of American 

manufacturers on their goods. That is not claimed precisely. If they 

did that they would be liable to the law of trade-marks; it could be 

stopped. Wherever they were sold in the United States they would 

be liable for the infringement of a trade-mark. But this is what they 

do: They put on pocket-knives a name which sounds American and 

which makes the man who buys the knife think the knife was made 

in the United States. I will give an illustration. The pocket-knife 

factory in my city is called the Miller Brothers Cutlery Company. 

Their product is called familiary in the market the Meriden knives. 

The foreign nianufa.cturer does not copy that trade-mark; he does not 

put on anything which can in law be said to be a simulation of it; hot 

be put.son the box in which he sends the knives over here, haTing 

made them in Germany, ''Meriden Knife Company's celebrated pocket 

cutlery. Manufactured of best q ua.lity steel." 

There is no Meriden Knife Company, but when that box goes into 

market and a customer wants to buv an American knife it makes him 

believe that the knife which is in it is an American knife, with the 

good reputation which American knives have, and he will take out bis 

knife and open it and he will find stamped on the blade, "Meriden 

Knife Company," and he will be deceived and deluded into the idea 

that that knife is the knife he wants, made in America, in the United 

States, in Meriden, by the well known knife-manufacturers there, 

whose knife he wants to get, when in fact it was ma.de in Germany, 

and when, in fact, I venture to say, without trying the experiment 

upon it [exhibitin~), he can take that blade and bend it with his fingers so that it would be of no earthly use as a knife. 

The American manufacturers do not ask protection enough to compensate the difference in labor and the difference in the quality and 

cost of these knives, but they do ask enough so that they can have a 

fair chance to go in competition with them in the American market 

with a better knife. 

Mr. GRAY. The Senator from Connecticut proposed a little sum in arithmetic just now, and, as this is an educational campaign, I 

think the Senators present might as well exercise themgelves a little 

in the ratiocination he proposes. He says that the labor-cost of production in the cutlery business in this country is 80 per cent. of the 

product. I hope if I am stating the terms of his problem erroneously 

he will correct me. 

Mr. PLATT. Eighty per cent. of the cost. 

Mr. GRAY. Eighty per cent. of the cost. He means the cost of 

the product, I suppose. That is what I meant. 

.I\Ir. PLATT. Yes. 

Mr. GRAY. The Senator said that in Belgium or Germany the 

labor-cost of the product was 20 per cent.; and then he compared this 

20 per cent. ratio of labor in the cost of the product in Germany to the 

80 per cent. in this country, assuming, as it seems to me he has done 

unconsciously, that the unit of value in both cases is the same, and 

that both the 80 per cent. and the 20 per cent. are calculated upon the 

same unit of cost, whereas itis manifestly true, as I think the Senator 

from Connecticut will admit when he comes to reflect upon it, that 

the 20 per cent. of the labor·cost in Europe is estimated upon the cost 

of the product there, and is not 20 per cent. of the cost of the product 

here. The 80 per cent. here is based upon conditions that belong to 

the industry and the cost oflabor here, while the 20 per cent. is based 

upon conditions that belong to Germany. Assuming it to be 20 per 

cent., he has confused his pro.blem by confusing these two articles of 

product value, and therefore no good result and no rational answer can be given to his problem that will throw any light on the matter 

we are discussing. 

Mr. PLATT. Not at all, 1\Ir. President. I take a dozen knives, 

which I assume cost $1 here. The labor on those was 80 per cent., or 80 cents; and the other was 20 per cent., or 20 cents--

Mr. GRAY. If the Senator will excuse me, I want to be entirely 

fair, and if! am wrong I will freely admit it. I may have misunderstood 

the Senator. He said that the labor-cost in this country was 80 per 

cent. of the cost of the product with labor at $2 a day, but he said in 

Germany the lahor was 50 cents a day, which was one-fourth of the 

cost of labor here per diem, and that, therefore, the cost of labor in-- Germany was only 20 per cent. of the cost of the product there. 

Mr. PLATT. No, not at all. 

Mr. GRAY. That is what I understood. Unless I am mistaken, 

that is just what the Senator from Connecticut said. 

Mr. PLATT. No, not at all; that is, I did not intend to say that. 

Mr. GRAY. Very well; the Senator will correct it, then. 

Mr. PLATT. I intended to make this proposition, and I think I did, 

if the Senator will give me his attention: I assume that a dozen of the 

knives cost to produce them in this country $1, and of that cost 80 

cents. goes to labor and 20 cents to other things. I assume that that same style of knife produced in Germany would cost but 40 cents per 

dozen, because only one-quarter as much would be paid for labor in 

Germany as is paid here. If 80 cents was paid here, 20 cents only 

would be paid in Germany for the labor to ~o on the dozen knives. I 

agree that the other conditions shall be the same. The labor will be 

20 cents, and the cost in Germany will be 40 cents instead of a dollar 

here, and to equalize those conditions you have got to have a good deal 

more than a hundred per cent. ad valorem duty. 

Mr. GRAY. The Senator from Connecticnt has now restated his 

problem and restated it a little more accurately, I think, with all respect to him. 

Mr. PLATT. It is just as I intended to state it before, and I think as I did state it. · 

Mr. GRAY. The Senator stated it first that a given product here 

being worth a dollar the labor was 80 cents, which was 80 per cent. of 

the cost of the product, with labor at $2 per day; but in &ermany 

where the labor was 50 cents a day he said that necessarily the labor 

cost then was only 20 per cent., being one-fourth of what it was in 

this country, but 20 percent. of the same dollar's co'3tofproducthere, 

and therefore he bad confused the terms of his problem and had car- ried the dollar's worth of the product from America to Germany, and 

there calculated the per cent., althou~h the cost was upon the American value of the product here. Now, he says, or assumes (for that was the word he used), that the labor-cost of the same produd there 

was 40 cents. 

Mr. PLATT. The cost on the same product was 40 cents. 

Mr. GRAY. The whole cost? 

Mr. PLATT. The labor-cost there, of course, would be half of it, if 

you put it in that way. 

Mr. GRAY. Very well, the labor-cost was 40 cents, and what was the value of the product? 

Mr. PLATT. Oh, no, the labor cost would be only 20 cents. 

Mr. GRAY. And the value of the product 40 cents? 

Mr. PLATT. Forty cents. 

Mr. GRAY. Exactly; that is what I tried to state; and therefore the 

labor cost was 50 per cent., and not 20 per cent. 

Mr. PLATT. I intended to say 20 cents. 

Mr. GllAY. But I think it is very likely the Senator from Connecticut did not. 

1\Ir. PLAT'T. I do not think I said 20 per cent.; I think I said 20 

cents. 

Mr. GRA. Y. However, the Senator did make the other day a state· 

ment; but now he states that the value of the product was 40 cents and 

the value of the labor 40 cents, which is 50 per cent. ot the product; and 

he says he assumes that the value of the product is 40 cents compared 

with the American, taking in all the elements of cost; and I should like 

to know what the ground of that assumption is. 

Mr. PLATT. It must be so if the labor only costs a quarter as much 

there as it does here to make the same product. 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. Does the Senator assume that high-priced 

American labor is no more efficient than low-priced German labor? 

Mr. PLATT. ~o; I do not. !think something ought to be allowed 

for that; bat, on the other hand, I have not allowed them anything 

for the cheapness of their material, and I have a very wide margin for 

an ad valorem duty over what we ba•e now. Mr. CARLISLE. I want to call the Senator's attention to the fact 

that.in the statement he has just made (which mayor may not be very 

material in this discussion) he assumes tluJ,t the labor-cost in this conn-

· . 

· ; 

·.· 

I L 

·.' 

·. 

" . 

.· ... 

.... 

. ... '~ 

· .. 

.... ' 

,• 

·-
~1 

- . . ·~' . .. , 

8856 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. ··· AUGUST 20, 

try is 80 per cent, of the total eost of production, while in Germany he 

assumes that the labor cost is only 50 per cent. of the total cost of production. What authority is there for that assumption? I understand 

from the statistics which have been furnished us by the Commissioner 

of the Department of Labor and in the arguments in relation to the ar- ticles mentioned by him, the percentage of the labor cost abroad is 

about the same as the percentage of the labor cost here; that is to say 

the cost of labor abroad, where wages are lower thau they are here, 

bears about the same relation to the total cost of the product that the 

cost of labor here bears to the total cost of the product~ If I am mistaken in that, I should like to be corrected. The Senator has assumed 

a very different state of affairs--

Mr. PLATT. There is just the fal1acy of the other side of the Chamber. You ma.y make the proportion of the labor-cost of an article just 

~he same in a forei~n country as,in this country, and then you can not 

Jump from that to the conclusion that there is no protection required 

in this country. 

Mr. CA.HLISLE. I concede that. 

Mr. PLATT. I have no statistics ns to what the laboi--cost of cutlery abroad is. 

~Ir. CARLISLE. But the Senator's assumption I think destroys 

the value of the suggestion made by him and the problem he puts to 

the Senate. 

Mr. PLATT. I think not.. I know how they work there_ I know 

what pay they get there. I know that we can not, without a high protective tariff, contend in this country with the foreign production if the 

amount paid for labor is so low abroad that the article only costs 40 

cents there where it costs a dollar here. 

Mr. DA.NIEL. Mr. President, I did not press my inquiry on the 

Senator from Connecticut because it apparent.ly worried him to have 

~ucb questions as were suggested to my mind propounded to him, and 

1 t was very natural that he should desire to answer them on some other 

<lay. 

Ur. PLA.TT. No, I begtheSenator'spardon. I simply decliued to 

he drawn aside from the discussion in which I was then engaged into a 

cfo:icussion of the question of reciprocity or trades with other countries, 

to takesomething from them free and let them take something from us 

free, which I suppose will come up at a later stage of this discu3Sion. 

That was all. 

Mr. DANIEL. I did not like to interrupt the Senator in his remarks, for I know it is sometimes disturbing, even where you may have 

a thorough answer as you conceive, to be broken in when you are upon 

one line of thought. But I should Iike to suggest for the Senator's consideration and for all of those who, as it seems to me, argue in a circle 

as he does, the inconsistencies and incongruities and contradictions of 

the positions which they assume. The various schedules of this bill 

seem to he divided into compartments. One theory is advocated for 

the purpose of sustaining one schedule, another theory to sustain another, and there is always a new theory invented whenever the emergency arises to call for it. 

NO PROTECTIO!Q' FOR FARMERS AGAIXST PAUPER FOREIGN LABOR. 

When it is argued, for the protection of the American manutacturers, 

that iii is necessary to put such a high and unreasonable rate a.s this bill 

in many cases calls for, it is said that yon must prevent the competition of the foreign and pauper labor of Europe and other countries. 

When the largest class of our industrial population-the farmers-lookin)! at the question as in that manner stated, reply, "Why, we have on hand infinitely more than you can consume at home and must find 

a foreign. purchaser or have none," they say, ''Oh, no; we will soarrange our tariff schedules that you shall not go out of the country to 

get a customer, because then you would come in competition yourself 

with the foreign and pauper labor of Europe." In other words, even 

though the American with his better wages may conceive that be can 

come in competition with unskilled and pauper labor and beat it in 

its own market, he is to be told that an impediment is to be put in the 

way, because coming in competition with pauper labor is of itself an evil. 

If high-paid labor can not beat poor-paid labor, if skilled labor can 

not beat ignorant labor, then there is nothing in high wages and in 

education. 

THE MIERICAN llIINLSTER TO FRANCE BEGGING TIIAT COUNTRY TO OPEN ITS 

llARKETS TO AMl>RICAN PRODUCTS, 

Mr. President, on yesterday, when the Senator from Connecticut 

[Mr. HAWLEY] looked over this w::i.y, he wanted to know what kind 

of people we were, anyway. While the junior Sena.tor from Connecticut [!!Ir. PLATT] was upon his feet I felt like inquiring wliat sort of 

P.eople th~y, t~e Repu~licaas, were, for I can not understand their position, and it shifts so often that when you prepare to meet it in one location it has Oitted away to another. There has never been in our political 

history as many-headed a party as the Republican party is to-day upon 

this tariff question. It has got an embassador to Frnnce who, p.s a sort of 

ruis ionary to tbe heathen, is now strn_ggling to indoctrinate the French 

Republic in the ideas vf free trade, and is clamoring before the civilized 

world that France is immensely unju t to the American people because 

it will not admit their meat products to the Freuch market. It matters not in what way Fm.nee :Uas put this impediment, whether by a high ta.1·iff or whether by pretended sanitary regulations or not, the 

complaint iliat the American minfater addresses to the French Republic 

is tha~ it h~ closed its markets to our meat products, an1l he is attempting with all the eloquence of his polished and e.xperienced pen to ~how the French Republic that there is great benefit to be derived from 

mtercommerce between nations and their reciprocity in trade. 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE PLEADING FOR OPENING OF SOUTH AMERICAN MARKETS. 

Then, li-~r. -President, the Republican party has another gi·eat exp~n~nt o~ its thought and principle. The premier of the present Admm1strat1on sees at a glance when he picks up this bill that iii does 

not open a foreign market toa single bushel of wheat or a barrel ot pork 

and a~ once ~e turns around to school his Republican bret.hrea who ar~ adopting Chmese principles, and savs there is immense benefit to be 

derived !t'om fo~eign co~merce and from the reciprocities of nations in 

exchangmg ~rt1c:Ies which they best produce, and pleads with them no~ to let this bill go through, as it stands now, without doing someth1~g some~here in it that will open foreign markets to the glutted 

agncultural produce of the United States. 

CONGRESS SUBSIDIZlNG SHIP-OWNERS TO CARRY PRODUCE TO FOREIGN MARKETS 

Al-"'D THEN DENOUNCING THOSE MARKETS. 

This bill, however, is not only absolutely inconsistent with what our 

en;ib:issad?rs ~re teachi~g in Euro\)e and what the premier of this Adn;i1mstrat1on is atte~ptrng t~ teach his fellows, but it is equally incons1sten_t and contradictory with the principle of the measures which 

have JUSt emanl\ted from the brains and the pens of its own creators. 

But a week or two ago and we were called on to subsidize ship-owners. 

Ont of the pockets of the producers of the United States are to be 

ta~en. untold millions. ~f m?ney ~ pour in~ the ever-ready hand of a 

sh1pprng monopoly wmch IS to nse upon the ocean and which is to 

be paid to carry "the old flag with an appropriation." But the moment we tu~n to this bill and say "Now give us a chance to i.:;et to these 

markets _which you are prying open as it were with yoar Secretary of 

State, with your French minister, and with a hired merchant marine " 

tbe Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HAWLEY] gets up and says: "Oh, 

no; we do not care anything about these foreian markets for there our 

a~ricul~ure comes in competition with _the p:uper labo~ of Europe." 

\\by did not the Senator from Connecticut think about that before he 

voted to payout the people's money to hire these ships to take it there~ 

The money is gone now and wedonotwantthemarketthat we paid for l 

G.UEA'.r BRITAIN OUR GREAT FOREIGN MARKET AND SOUTH A:.UERfCA A POOll 

::l:fARKET. 

The Senator from Connecticut does not seem to have read our sta. 

tistical reports. If I were t-0 judge by his speech and not by his well 

known character I should suppose that he was utterly ignorant and 

darkened in his mind as to the condition of our exchanges with for. 

eign nations. Does not the Senator from Connecticut know that Greafl 

Britain pours annually into this country about $200, 000 000 in British 

~old which is chiefly derived from our agricultural p;oduce? Does 

ht not know that our exchange with South America, which is the land 

foreshadowed to be cultivated through shippin~ subsidies in order to 

manufacture an artificial foreign market-that theconsumption of all 

our agricultural produce there is not 5 per cent. of what amounts to the 

balance of trade in our favor with Great Britain? 

Mr. HISCOCK. May I ask the Senator from Virginia what is our balance of trade? 

Mr. DANIEL. With Great Britain? 

Mr. HISCOCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DANIEL. I think it is something like $200,000,000 in ou1 

favor. 

.Mr. HISCOCK. The Senator is mistaken, I think. I believe it k 

less than $70, 000, 000. 

Mr. DANIEL. I could give the Senator the exact figures by a. ref· erence easily accessible. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I think it proper that in this debate the Senator 

should give what would a.ppear to be somewhere near the amount and 

not overatate it. My recollection is that it was a little less than $70. 

000, 000 tbe last year. ' 

Mr. DANIEL. I will answer the Senat-0r in a moment. Be that 

as it may, it is not a matter of a few figures or a few millions one wa:v or the other. ~ 

Mr. HISCOCK. That is not a few millions. There is a great differ• 

ence. l\Ir. DANIEL. I accept the correctness and pertinence of the Senator's suggestion, but I know our favorable trade balance with Great 

Britain is enormous; that it is an immense factor in American prosperity, and that is the fact which I wish to put before the Senator trom 

Connecticut, and all of those gentlemen who are attempting to destroy 

this market for American agriculturists; and the necessary and the 

inevi~a.hle sequence of their course, logically and politically, I also wish 

to pomt out. 

:Poes the Senator from Connecticut [Ur. PLATT] or the Senator from 

Kew York or any Senator who stands here to speak against commerco and to tell us as the senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HAWLEY] 

told us yesterday, that transportation was an evil that everybody 

should try to get rid of? · 

WILL '.rHE FARMEM EVER SUBMIT TO PAYING BOUNTIES AND GETTING XO:\°"E? 

Do they suppose that the greatest body of our workers in the United 

States are forever going to submit to paying bounties to other people 
·. _. - . • .. _. 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8857 

who live on them, without asking some bounty for themselves, when. 

every statement of your position would lead to the giving of bounties tO 

them as well as to others? 

When yon put sagar upon the free-list it is answered upon the other 

side, "Well, sugar is a necessity and we can not here produce enough 

sugar for the American people, therefore protection can not work out its 

}lerfect workin making enough sugar for us, and we will put sugar on t.he 

free-list." Wethensay, "Howisitabontcotton?" "Oh, well, cotton 

is not 'short' like sugar; it is 'long;' you are already making too much 

cotton for the people of the United States." We will not protect sugar 

because there is too little of it, and will not protect cotton because 

there is too much of it! How about hides? If there is not too much 

of them, as there i.s of cotton, there need not be too little of them,_ according to your theory, if you would protect.the beef-owner as you protect others. 

The true reason why you will not protect these interests is because 

the Republican- party is at the beck and call of monopoly, and it will 

shift its posit,ion not once, not twice, not thrice, but a dozen times in 

one schedule, if only monopoly shakes its finget at it and says, "Come 

down." You want to fry the fat out of the manufacturers and you 

must put the fat in first in order that you can get it out when you want 

the fry. That is the principle of protection which governs this bill. 

WHY !>OT PAY TIIE FAR.ll:ER THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF AMERICAN A..."'fl> FOR· 

EIG::i AGRICULTURAL LABOR? • 

ow, one other que tion. You tell the American farmer that he 

comes in competition, if he goes abroad, with the pauper labor of 

Europe. You tell the American manufacturer that he will come in 

competition with the pauper labor of Europe if you let foreign manufactures come here. Now, if you are going to give the manufacturer 

a great bounty over and above the difference in the cost of labor in 

order to protect him against the pauper labor of Europe, why do you 

not put another bounty in the bill so as to pay the American farmer 

the difference in the cost of his farm produce and the cost of the pauper 

labor of Europe? 

I did not expect that the Senator from Connecticut would answer 

that question. I do not expect that any champion of monopoly who is 

attempting to carry through this bill will answer that question. There 

will he a little sham protection put on wheat and oats and rye, and 

great platitudes will be sang to the American agriculturist., and he 

will keep on paying bounties to others and getting none for himself 

just as long as he is willing to be the hewer of wood and the drawer 

of water. OC R TRADE BALA~CES WITH ENGL.U..-i> VERIFIED. 

Mr. President, the Senator from New York [Mr. HISCOCK] asked 

me what was our balance of trade with England. 

M:r. HI COCK. I will say to the Senator that I misunderstood his 

statement. I understood him to make the expression that our foreign 

balance of trade, not with England alone, amounted to so much. 

Mr. DANIEL. I answered in round numbers that according to my 

recollection England was sending to us every year about $2UO,OOO,OOO 

in the balance of trade in favor of our country, and the Sena for replied 

that be thought it was about seventy millions. Now, sir, I have the 

table which I will read. 

?i1r. HISCOCK. The Senator will understand me to state that I 

supposed be,in making his expression, spoke with reference to our foreign balance of trade with all the world. 

Mr. DANIEL. I was speaking of Great Britain only. 

Mr. IIISCOCK. I made my reply having misunderstood the Senator. 

Mr. DANIEL. It is aprcpos to my remarks that I should furnish 

this statement, and from the statement which I have before me it appears that our balance of trade with Great Britain was $204, 712, 607 for 

the year 1889, and that the balance of trade bas been in our favor ever 

siuce 1856 with the exception ofone single year, and yet this tremendous 

item, the greatest single fact in the history of the status of our foreiiin 

commerce, is one that the Republican party entirely ignores in its policies and in its treatment of these questions; and whenever allusion is 

made to anything tha.t is English the American eagle is brought out, 

:ind the British lion, and the two are pitted in an imaginary fight wii.h 

each other, with of course the results, as usual, in favor of the American eagle. 

Here is the table verifying my statement: 

Table showing the value of the export~ of merchandise from tlle United Slates 

to the United Kingd01n and the value of the imports of nierclLandise into 

tlLe United State.'! from the United Kin9d01n during each year endi11g 

June 80 from 1850 to 1889, inclusive. 

Yenr Exports to the United Kingdom. Imports ended from the Excess of Excess of June United exports. i.nports. 

30- Domestic. Foreign. Total. Kingdom. 

1850 ..... gss, 36.5, 073 $2,2il, 115 $70, 636, 188 $74, 632, 158 .. ·~:091·:1·i5' $3, 995 970 

1851 ..... 97, 959,004 2, 887, 930 100, 846, 934 92, 749, 219 . ................. JS."i2 .•••• 78, 615,676 2,592,015 81,267,691 89, 149,855 ···················· 7,8>!2, 164 

l~-3 ...•. 99,872,415 2, 797, !)56 102, 670, 37 L 129, 980, 541 . .................. 27,310, 170 

1854 ..... 112, 849, 988 4,279,588 117I129, 576 H6,3'i3, 381 . ................... 29,223,805 

...-

.- -

Table showing the value of t!ie exports of merchandise from tJie Unitecl States 

to "the United Kingdom, etc.-Continued. 

-

Year Exports to the United Kingdom. Imports 

ended from the Exces.sof Excess of 

June United exports. imports. 

30- Domestic. Foreign. Total. Kingdom. . 

1855 .. ... $:;G, 691, 613 S>,043,241 S9 L, 734. 85-i $106, 435, 716 .................... $14, 700, 862 

1856 .•... 127, 039, 6-'>9 l, 160, 186 128, 199, 745 121. 844, 311 ~.3.55,434 . ................. 18.57 ····· 13"l, 640, 981 2,308. 535 134, 955, 516 126, 734, 039 8, 221,477 ················· 1858 ...•. 121, 417, 055 8,042. 792 129, 459, 847 88, 966,301 40,493,546 ................. 18.59 ..... 131, 6.'>8, 5-31 1,466,271 133, 124, 802 12:;, 607, 038 7,517,764 ... ................ l tiGO .. ... 166, ()2.5, 646 2, 934, 700 168, 960, 846 138, 495, 113 30,465,233 ················ 1861.. ... 105, O.'H, 422 3, 319, 691 103, 37L, 113 104, 917, 910 3,453,203 ······· ......... 1862 ..... 83,227, 782 2,&11,373 85,869, 155 74, 759,710 ll, 109,445 .. ............... 1863 ..... 121, 347, 213 7,090,037 128, 437, 250 112, 898, 201 15,539,04.9 

18G4 .•..• 92,087,193 4,787,248 96,874,441 142, 204, 433 ··45;aii9:w2 1565 '"i:S:'297,'655' ..... 89, 295,877 14, 184,145 103, 480, 022 1!5, 182,367 ················· lil66 ..... 2k3, 644, 365 3,871, 293 287, 515, 668 202, 275, 650 85,240,018 ················· 1867 ..... 219, 9i5, 124 5, 175, 100 225, 090, 224 172, 398, 128 52,692,096 . ................. 1868 ..... lll5,08!'i,084 3,280,406 198, 365, 490 132, 0 L2, 522 66, 3.52, 968 . ................ 1869 ..... 182, 605, 560 2,448, 125 185, ()5:3, 685 158, 890, 015 26, 163,670 . ............... 1870 ..... 243,316,8"...8 4,868,814 248, 185, 642 11l2, 066, 269 96, 119,373 llllOOUlllllltf• 

1871 ..... 270, 116, 075 3,086, 465 273, 202, 540 220, 768,371 52,434, 166 . ................ 1872 ....• 261, 444, !ti>l 4,052,584 265, 496, 835 248, 772, 324 16,72!,511 . ................ 1873 ..... 312, 3-17, 848 4, 514, 0-26 816. 861, 874 Z.'37. 2118, 218 79, 563, 6.56 ................... 1874 ..... 341, 024, 049 4,3.'3.5,535 315,359,584 180,012,813 165,316,m ················· 1875 .•... 313,541,849 3, 569, 293 317, lll.142 15!>, 297, 449 161, 813, 198 . ................ 1876 ..... 3.'U, 387, 126 4,661, 924 336, os2, o:m 123, 373, 281 212, 678. 769 . ................ 1877 .. ... 341,8.51,634 4, 109, 421 345, 961, 055 113, 731, 25S 232, 226, 797 . .................. 1878 ..... 3'i3, 606, 911 3, 823,819 387, 430, 730 107, 290, 677 280, 140, 053 ................. 1879 ..... 346, 485, 881 2,342.558 318. ~28, 439 108, 538, 812 210, 289, 627 . ................ 1880 .. ... 450, 994, 244 2, 802, 2-53 453, 796, 497 210, 613, 694 243, l 'i2, 803 . ................. 1881 .. ... 477,450,619 3,6.'W,4'>9 481, 13.5, ms 174.493, 738 306, 641, 340 . ................ 1882 .. ... 404, 248, 031 4, 099, 124 4fl8, 347, 155 195,5>i8,692 212, 758, 463 ······ ··········· 1S"3 ..... 420, 43.'3, 473 4, 990, 701 425, 424, 174 1-'~8. 622, 619 236, 801, 005 ....... _ .......... 18'U ..... 3~2, 717, 159 3,521, 2.."7 31)6, 23~. 3R6 162, 549, 608 223, 688, 778 ················· lil.85 ..... 391, 925, 925 3, 177, 278 398, 103, 203 136, 701, 780 Z61, 401, 423 ················· 1836 .•... 344, 927' 973 3,525, 727 348, 453, 700 1:>4,254,054 19!, 199, 46 ················· 1887 ..... 353, 101, 143 3, 209,536 366, 310, 679 165,067 443 201, 243, 236 . .............. ,. 1888 ..... 3.'5S, 2-'lB, 790 3,276, 913 361, 515, 703 177, 897, 975 183, 617, 728 . ................ 1889 ..•. . 379, 990, 131 2, 991,543 382, 981, 674 178, 269, 067 20!, 712,f/.J'l . ............ ..... 

S. G. BROCK, Chief of Bureau. 

BcRE AU OF STATISTICS, TREASURY EPARTME~""T. May 9, 1889. 

A GRICULTCRE AND CO~DlERCE HA VE ACHIEVED THIS RESULT. 

What I wish to point out and emphasize in this statement is that 

our balance of trade wit.h Great Britain is the indication of the great 

conquest of America. over Great Britain, and that it is a conquest effected not by your subsidized monopolists, but by your plain people who 

toil in the Western corn-fields and wheat-fields and in the cotton and tobacco fields of the South. If the American eagle is pl urning its wings over 

that "tight little isle" and if the genius ot America is extracting from 

it $200,000,000 a year of gold, a thankless country is utterly i~noring 

the men who are achieving this thing and is ridiculing and denouncing 

in debate the two instrumentalities, agriculture and commerce, which 

almost alone have done it. 

OUI!. TRADE WITH LATIN AMERICA. 

Bow insignificant in comparison is our South American trade. In 

1889 our shipments of breadstuffs to Latin America wero r.s follows: 

?>:Iexico ........................................................................ .. Central America ........... ....... ... ..................................... . Colombia ........................ ... ....................................... .. 

Vene:tuela. .................................................................. .. Brazil ... .......................................... ........................ .. Uraguay .............................................................. ....... .. 

Ecuador ......................... ...... .... : ............................... . Argt>nt.ine Republic .... ............................................... .. Bolivia ..................... ............................... .................... . Chili .................................. _ ....................................... . P a.raguay ................................................ .................... . 

Peru ................ ................. ... ................................... .... .. 

Total. ....................................................... _ ......... . 

Populat-ion. Exports. 

12,000,000 

2,800,000 

3, 900,000 

2,200,000 

14,000, 000 600,000 

I, 000, 000 

3, 900, 000 1,200,000 

2, 500,000 

250,000 

2, 600,000 

46, 950, ooo I 

$345,048 

...821,318 

82l,3l8 

668, 766 2,812,281 

2,033 None. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

46,284 

5,136,528 

Oar shipments of provisions tothe same countries amounted to$2,507,-

375, making in all $7,643,903, of agricultural produce . . At the same time we shipped to them $2,948,149 of refined petrolemu, and $5,039, 886 of wood and the manufactures thereof, an aggregate of $8,088,035. 

NEW ENGLAND NOT AN AGRICULTURAL SECTION. 

I can well understand why the Senator from Connecticut shall attempt to run down and ridicule the men who cultivate the plantations 

of the Ron th and the farms of the West, but I do not exactly appreciate 

tlrn logic with which he does it. He sa..vs that En~land does not feed 

herself, and therefore he ridicules England because she does not grow 

her own breadstuffs. If you would just rub out England and substitute Connecticut in his remarks you would find that his ridicule would 

have abundant occupation if, like charity, it staid at home. The six 

New England States do not produce more than about a million bushels 

of wheat and are not feeding themselves except upon the victimized 

'/ 

.. 

~ 

. .. 

•. i. 

· ..... 

'. 

. . 

·'· 

.-
... 

I• 

,, 

--' • 

.1 

I• 

... , . , .. .. .· -· 

8858 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

bodies of the Western and the Southern plantations, and having fattened 

npon them by getting the cheapest kind of agricultural produce the 

stand here to make laws in order to make it cheaper, and then say cheap- ness is a poor thing and that they nre opposed to all kinds of cheapness 

whatsoever. 

IF HIG H TARIFF LOWERS lll.ANUFACTURING PRICES, AS COh"T:&YDED, WILL IT 

NO'.r ALSO LOWED AGRICULTURAL PRICES? 

One other suggestion. The great argument which is made here in 

behalf of the tin-plate monopoly that is to be created, of the cotton-tie 

monopoly that is to be created, and of all the tribes of monopolies 

which are being generated in this bill, the pleasing se~uctive idea _:with 

which it is attempted to humbug the present generat10n of Amer1cans 

is that if you will put on these high taxes you will lower the price of 

the manufactured products, and that as the result of this protection 

manufactured products will get cheaper and cheaper. Now, gentlemen, just stand to that theory until you get to the next schedule of 

this bill. 

With a :flourish of banners and blow of trumpets, it is announced 

to the American farmer that you propose to protect him in the same way that yon have been protecting the manufacturer, and you are going 

to hnve a high tariff on his products, so that even the few grains of foreign wheat that come here can come no longer, and so that the triviality of corn and oats and barley and other farm products that come 

here can come no lon"'er. If your theory that these high taxes cheapen 

the manufactured pr~dncts is true, are you not trying to cheapen the agricultural products by applying a schedule to them of which you 

prophesy the same result? It is because you can not hold the same face on any two schedules of this bill; it is because yon are all things 

to all men and not much to any man except a monopolist, who is ~etting rich and richer every day and being better prepared to return your 

compliments to him by getting up a handsome campaign fund for yon. 

WHY NO MILLIONAIRE F A.Rll.ERS ? 

While Senators are explaining, too, the different clauses of this bill, 

will they please explain to me another feat_nre in our sociology? If 

they are the friends of agriculture, which constitutes our chief industrial class, if they have been for the last twenty-five years, during which 

period they have had the sole control and direction of the fiscal affairs 

of the Government, its friends, will they please inform me how it is 

that, while America. would be the paradise of agriculture but for the 

oppressions upon the toiling millions engaged in it, none of the millionaires and ·monopolists who have turned up have tamed up in that 

line? If their policy has been equal and exact justice to all men, how 

is it that the rich men continuously come to the front with their countless millions in their plethoric purses out of the other classes, and that 

you do not hear of a plantation cotton king, or of a western wheat 

king, or of a western corn king, or of an oat king, or of a tobacco 

king, or of any other kind of a king who has won his kingship by toil, 

but only kingships won out of those classes which you have protected 

in manipulating the articles after labor had parted with them and had 

no longer opportunity to profit by them? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator kindly allow mea single remark 

there? 

Mr. DANIEL. Certainly. 

Mr.HAWLEY. Thereare-rnriouscurionsstatistical books to be found 

in the Congressional Library and elsewhere, biographical books and so on. Now, I invite the Senator to look a little into that matter which 

he has been talking so confidently about~ and I tell him that the men who get to be millionaires outside of manufacturing a.re ten or fifteen 

to one. Where did Y anderbilt,.uake his money? Where did Jay Gould 

make hia money? Not in man~acturing of any kind. 

l\Ir. DANIEL. Is the Senator through? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I beg pardon. That is enough. I just took that 

point. I want you to get over it. . 11r. DANIEL. I am perfectly well aware of that, and rn my statement I included it. Yet the millionaires did not come from those 

classes who were engaged in primary toil, but those who bad manipulated the fruits of toil afterward. Lord Bacon says that the sciences 

dwell sociably together. So do the monopolies. 

l\fr. HAWLEY. I understood the Senator--

Mr. DANIEL. Let me get through with my sentence, if the Senator pleases. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I understood the Senator to say that manufactures 

made the millionaires of the country. 

Mr. DANIEL. Largely, but not altogether; they have their allies. 

For instance, they have the shipping monopoly which you have just 

created to hie to the foreign market which the honorable Senator in· 

formed us yesterday be did not want to go to. The shipping monopoly can get rich, and yon have railroad monopolies and bank monopolies. 

Why. sir, this Government has given to the railroads of this country 

many times tbe whole s!ze of the State of Connecticut in order that we might do what the Senator from Connecticut says is a hateful thing to 

be done. Transportation is a very injurious thing, he says; but the 

Republican party did not discovel' that it was very injurious until it 

had given empires away to monopoly in order to create it. Having 

•I 

.. , 

created it, it tells the farmer now, when it has given the people's money 

nd the people's domain to furnish transportation, that this thing of 

transportation li1 a very poor thing after all, and the real thing is to 

stay at home and get rich there. That is the idea, and if they have to 

burn a little corn, why it is perfectly legitimate, and nobody complains 

of it who is not burning it! 

DIVIDE BOUXTIES 'YITH THE FARMEBS, IF X:OUNTY IS TO DE GIVEN. 

Mr. President, one thing is as clear t-0 my humble comprehension as any proposition can be, and that is that the toiling millions of the 

United States who are engaged in agricu1~nreare not going to submit, 

and ought not to submit, to the perpetual paying of rich bounties to 

other people without getting some of the bountiP.s thelllSelves. And I 

shall put the question to yon again and a3ain, as long as I shall have 

the honor to occupy a seat upon this floor, why is it that you get up 

and argue that every American workman ought to b::i.ve a bounty in 

the shape of tariff or otherwise to the extent of the difference between 

the American labor and the pauper labor of Europe and yet never once propose to apply your principle after you get out of the workshops of 

your own community. 

Why not give these Western corn-burners a little bounty on their 

corn? Why not give to the men of the Dakotas and Nebraska.and Iowa 

and Wisconsin 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 cents bounty per bushel on their production of wheat and corn and other articles, the difference in the 

cost of their labor and the labor of the ryot in India and of the peon 

in Mexico and of the Indian of South .America? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BLAIR in the chair). Does the 

Senator from Virginia yield to the Senator from Rhode Island? 

Mr. DANIEL. Oh, yes. 

Mr. ALDRICH. That, as I understand and believe, is exactly the 

purpose of a protective tariff, to give to the corn-burners and other agriculturists of the West a bounty upon their products . 

Mr. DANIEL. Mr. President, that maybe the very purporn of this 

bill, but like other purposes of this bill it gives no indication of its 

existence in the text. 

Mr. HISCOCK. May I ask a single question? Have yon ever investigated to find out the difference between the rates of wages pa.id to 

agricultural laborers and the manufacturing operatives in the same neighborhood, where they work side by side or within a few miles of 

each other, in any manutactnring State? I will take Iowa, though it 

is not a large manufacturing State. Are you aware of the difference 

and how slight a difference there is between the wages paid to the agricultural laborers and the la.borers of the shop? The labor there 

equalizes itself, and the effect of increasing the price of labor in the 

shop is to apprecin.te it on the farm. Have yon ever investigated that 

question? 

l\'Ir. DANIEL. Yes, sir. I have investigated those subjects, but I 

.do not think it necessary for me to tell the Senate every subject I have 

investigated when I am speaking upon a certain point. 

Mr. HISCOCK. The line of your argument was that there was a discrimination in favor of one class as against another in re pect of protecting labor. The theory of a tariff bill, or the theory of establishing 

manufactures, is that wherever you establish them the result is to appreciate all forms of labor to the same value so far as wages are con- cerned. That is the effect. 

Mr. DANIEL. I understand the various theories--

Mr. HISCOCK. That is the effect. 

Mr. DANIEL. I understand the pretended effect; but I should like 

to suggest a little change in the way of bringing about that effect, 

which, appreciating it as ihe Senator does, I should look for him to 

jump at,, that is t<~ say, if ever those gentlemen of the peculiar theories 

which he advances fol low logic to its legitimate conclusion. The proposition which the Senator makes is this: That if out of the people's 

Treasury directly, as it is proposed to do with respect to sagar, as it was done as to shipping lines, and it bas been suggested to do to other 

things, you increase the wages of the manufacturing laborer, the wages 

of the man who is upon the ship, and the profits of the owner of the 

shipping lines: you build up industries of one sort or another, and that 

the e men who get the money spend it in those communities and by so spending it share the benefit with those engaged in other occupations. That is the theory, is it not? 

.Mr. HISCOCK. That is a part of it. 

SUPPOSE YOU GIVE :COUNTIES TO THE FAn: E RS AND '.l"llt;S DUILD 'CP A HOJllE 

JIIARKET FOR THE MA : UFACT'l'REr..S. 

:Mr. DANIEL. The Senator from Rhode Island [ fr . .ALDRICH] as- sents thatthat is the theory. Well, now I want to show the honorable 

Senators who assent that that is the theGry bow they can c:ury out their 

theory and have a little left of it. Let us take the e bonuses off the 

manufacturers and let us give them to the largest class of our industrial 

people, who have not been getting them, and let the prod acer of wheat 

get his direct bonus in his band of 10 cents a bushel; let the producer 

of corn get his bonus in his band of 10 cents a bushel; let the beef mun and sheep man have his bonu:i direct ot so much per bead for the sheep 

and for the beef, and then, gf'ntlemen, you take the indirect benefits of 
: . . ' ; \ . 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8859 

}laving him spend his money amongst the manufacturers. Why not 

do that? 

I would say, then, with theSenatorfromNewYorkthetheoryofthis 

bounty is that I am going to elevate all the manufacturcl'S to the same level upon which I have put the sheep man, the beef man, the wheat 

man, the oat man, and the barley man. Now, why will the Senator 

from New York resist this proffer of Democratic aid to elevate the cl as 

for which he speaks so ably and so logically? ''Turn about is fair play," 

gentlemen, and you have been having the direct bounty all the time 

and telling us that the indirect benefits were a magnificent thing for the 

American agriculturist. Now, they are suffering and you are not suffering; so give them the direct bounty for a little while and enjoy yourselves in the delights of the indirect. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President--

Mr. DANIEL. One moment, if you please. 

You tell us that these agriculturists come in competition with the 

pauper lahor of Europe. That is the argument which you have been 

using to get a bounty for yourselves. Now, take our argument and 

give them a little bounty for themselves. 

Now I will hear the Senator. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Do I understand that the Senat-or from Virginia 

is makinga plea in favor of increased duties upon agricultural products? 

Mr. DANIEL. I can not tell how the Senator from Rhode Island 

understands me. l\Ir. ALDRICH. What does the Senator mean by bounty? 

Mr. DANIEL. Give to each wheat producer 10 -eents a bushel for 

the wheat he produces or 5 cents a bushel. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Does any manufacturer get any such bounty? 

Mr. DANIEL. Yes, sir, and much more. Mr. ALDRICH. In a direct form? 

Mr. DANIEL. Not in a direct form; but, if you are doing the 

thing indirectly, why not do it directly? A straight line is the shortest between two points. 

Mr. ALDRICH. But there is no analogy in the Senator's statement. 

The Senator says because we have a protective duty it is therefore a bounty to manufacturers. If that is true and he desires to have a 

bounty upon agricultural products, why not follow the same reason- ing and give an increased duty to agricultural products? 

Mr. DANIEL. Simply because there are four points to the compass, 

and not one. There is a north, and a south, and an east, and a weet, 

and you can not locate manufacturing or agricultural industries at the 

center of gravity. If you have more than you want and want to sell 

without a home market, you must be given a bounty on the ship going 

out.. If you like to keep out what is coming in, the bounty must 

work the other way, in the form of duty on the thing coming in. You 

must lock your gate while the horse is in the stable and not after he 

is out. 

Your protection works in the wrong direction for the agriculturist. 

Would the Senator from Rhode Island pretend that it was protection 

to the American wheat-grower to put a. protective tariff on foreign 

wheat when our barns are bursting and we are vainly .seeking to get 

out and sell? Does he 'Propose to play upon the American farmer with 

this trick of words, and after he has filled the plates of monopoly with 

the rich viands of bounty upon which they are fattening and battening, bring up the empty plate and say, "Here, Mr. Farmer, we will 

give you the same sort of thing?'' 

A REPORT WHICH IS FRAMED SO AS TO FOOL THE FARMERS. _ 

Mr. President, while I am upon my feet I will give the Senator 

from Connecticut another question to answer. There is no report with 

this blll. The committee which sent it in to the Senate bas not honored 

the Senate by an explanation of its provisions. I find, however, a re- port which came along with this bill when it emanated from the House 

of Representatives. Of all the shallow devices to deceive the people, 

I venture to say that the archives of this Government from the time it was founded to the present day do not contain a device so shallow and 

preposterous as that which appears in that report. 

We have had various discussions upon the floor of the Senate as to 

what was the matter with American agriculture. That something was the matter nobody seemed to question. With the beautiful virgin 

West p!astered over with mortgages and the yeomanry of that fair land 

wearing the yokes of 12 per cent. interest to Eastern capital--

Mr. ALDRICH. Will the Senator yield to me a moment to allow me to say what I think is the matter with the farmers of Virginia? 

Mr. DANIEL. I shall be very glad to hear it. 

Mr. ALDRICH. It is that there are too many people engaged in 

farming in proportion to the few engaged in the development of your 

mines and of your magnificent mineral resources. 

l\lr. DANIEL. Now, would the Senator be kind enoui:i;h to tell me 

what is the matter with those of Connecticut and Pennsylvauia.? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Nothing is the matter with the farmers of Connecticut and Pennsylvania that I am aware of. 

Mr. HAWLEY. When the Senator from Virginia gets through I 

will show him what is the matter with the farms of Connecticut. The 

land is worth four times as much an acre as Virginia. land now, and 

here are the tables. It is worth four times as much. 

Mr. DANIEL. One at a time. Mr. President. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think that.is enough. 

Mr. DANIEL. Yes, 8ir; I have no doubt yon do. I will examine 

the prescriptions of the doctors as they give them. There may be 

nothing the matter with the farmers of Connecticut, and I think one 

rea.son is that they have been pretty much killed out; they have been 

cured of their disease, and all New England to-day is not producing 

enough wheat to sustain the city of Hartford. Yon are not an agricultural community, but "because thou art virtuous, shall there be 

no more cakes and ale?'' Are the people who are agriculturists to be 

brought in to make a Connecticut holiday? I do not envy the people 

of Connecticut. I am glad they are so well off. I wish their lands were worth ten-fold what they are now. But because they are rich 

and prosperous and are holding Wes tern mortgages and collecting their 

12 per cent. interest, is that any reason why they should not give the man who has got the mortgage on his place a chance to earn enough 

to pay it? 

I can well understand, too, why the Senator from Connecticut, who 

stands as the representative of this capitalistic class which bas got its 

golden yoke upon the shoulders of the clod-hoppers, as he would call 

them, does not want to see the agricultural land rise in price, for if 

they can foreclose their mortgages again, as they did when the Republican party once contracted the currency, they can buy them up at a cheap price, and if they have bought them then they can come out with 

their new evangel of protection to the American farmer. 

ALLEGED CAGSES OF AGRICULTURAL DECLINE. 

Mr. President, I was discussing what bas been alleged here as the cause of the decline of American agriculture. There is no man who 

will not acknowledge that it bas declined. One tells us that it is the 

building of railroads; another tells us that it is the trust and combine; 

another tells us that it is the dealing in options in the gambling-houses 

and stock exchanges of the country. More frequently we hear from 

the other side that it is overproduction. 

Now, gentlemen, so far as wheat and corn are concerned I have the 

mathematical demonstration that it is not overproduction. 

The following table shows the total production, area, and value of the 

wheat crop of the United States from 1880 to 1889, with the average 

value per bushel, yield per acre, and value per acre for each successive 

year. 

Table showing p1·oduction, area, etc. 

Years. Total pro- Total area. Total value A•""""' I A vemge Average 

duct.ion. o! crop. of crop. valueper yieldper value per bushel. acre. acre, 

Bushels. Acres. Cents. Bu.shels. 1880 ............ 498, 549, 868 37,!186,n7 $i74, 201, 850 95.l 13.1 $12.48 

1881 ............ 383, 280, 090 37, 709,020 456, 880, 4'n 119.3 10.2 12.12 1882 ............ 504, 185, 470 37,067,194 444, 602, 125 88.2 L1.6 11.99 1883 ............ '21,086,160 36,455,5!:13 383, 649, 272 91.0 ll.6 10.52 

1884 ............ 512, 765, ()()() 39,475,885 3'30,862,260 64.5 13.0 8.38 

1885 ............ 357, 112, ()()() 34, 189, 24.6 275, 320, 390 77.1 10.4 8.0:S 

lMG ............ 457, 218, ()()() 36,806, 184 314, 226, 020 68.7 12.4 8.M 

1887 ............ 456, 329, ()()() 37,641, 783 310, 612. 960 68.l 12.1 8.2.5 1888 ............ 4t5,868,000 37,336,138 385, 248, 030 92.6 11. l 10.32 

1889 ............ 490, 560, ()()() 38, 12-3, 859 3'2, 491, 7fYT 69.8 12.9 8.98 

Total ... 4,496,953,588 1 372, 791, 619 13,n8,095,041 1 ............... ==1=:= 

Annual 1n-- erage ....... 449, 695, 359 37, 279, 162 371, 809, 504 

~ 12.1 9.97 Annual av- erage for prece~ng 

t.en years .. 312, 152, 728 2.5, 187, 414 3'.!7, 4G7, 258 104. 9 12.4 13.00 

Here the tale is told. 

FIFTY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PRODUCED MORE WHEAT IN 1880 THAN SIXTY-FIVE 

MILLIONS PRODUCE NOW. 

In 1880 yre had only 50,000,000 ofpeople in the United States; now we have 65, 000, 000. The 50, 000, 000 of people then produced 498, 549,-

868 bushels of wheat, or about 10 bushels per capita; whereas now 65,000,000 of people produce hut 490,560,000 bushels of wheat, or ahou t 8 bushels per capita. Here, in ten years, there are an increase of 

15,000,000 in population and a decrease of 8,000,000 bushels of wheat 

product. NO OVERPRODUCTION OF CORN. 

Neither is it the overproduction of corn. Th_ere are not ~ many 

bushels of corn per man produced to-day in the United States as there were ten years ago. There is a decrease in the number of bushels of corn per capita, and with all the vast resources of this country, with 

all the favorable conditions under which man earns his bread in the 

sweat of his brow, your corn production and your wheat production 

have not kept pace with the increruie of population. So you can not 

rely upon that figment of your brain upon which to delude these toilers 

of tbe land. 

fo 1888 the United States produced 1,987,790,000 bushels of corn worth $677,561,580. In 1889 they produced 2,112,892,000 bushels, 

worth $597,918,829, a loss of over $80,000,000 to our farmers on corn 

('' 

-. 

,• 

- ( . ) 

... 

'., 

-. 

r-

...... . ·, 

.. 

-. 

: 
• 

:... 

.~· 

.. 

. ' ' 

, -· 

8860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

alone. In 1888 corn was worth 34.1 cents per bushel; in 1889, 28.3, a 

loss of over 5 cents a bushel. 

I Bushe1" Years. Population.* Corn crop. per 

capita. 

Bushels. 1880 .......................................... 50, 155, 783 1, 717, 434, 543 34.2 

1881 ......................................... 51, 728,018 1, 194. 916, 000 23.1 

1882 ......................................... 53,448, 114 1, 617, 025, 100 30.3 1883 .......................................... 55,013,002 1, 551, 066, 895 ?1!. 2 

1884 ................. ......................... 56,522,847 1, 795, 528, 000 31.8 

1885 .................. ....................... 57, 935,095 1, 936, 176, 000 33.4 

1886 .......................................... 59, 312, 130 1, 66.5. 441, 000 28.1 1887 ......................................... 00,860,&58 1, 456, 161, 000 23.9 1888 .......................................... 62,512,404 1, 987, 790, 000 31.8 

1869 .......................................... 64, 082, 054 2, ll2, 892, 000 33.0 

*The population is estimated except for 1880. 

lllSSTATEME1'"TS OF THE CAUSE OF TROUBLE. 

Price 

per 

bushel. 

----

Cents. 

39.6 

63.6 

48.4 

42.4 

35. i 32.8 

36.6 

44.4 

34.1 

28.3 

Mr. President, I have hi~b Republican authority for eta.ting what is 

the trouble. If you will read the report upon which this bill was based when it emanated from the committee of the House of Representatives you will find that you gentlemen of the Senate differ in 

some degr~e from the learned doctors who preceded you in compounding this prescdption as a cure. Yon may be amazed at the stateme~t 

when you see it, but take up the report that came from the committee of the House and you will find a startling proposition announced. 

I will read it that I may be sure of quoting it accurately. Here it is: A critical examination of the subject will show tha.t agriculture i::1 suffering 

chiefly from a most damaging foreign competition in our home market. The increase in importations of agricultural products since 18JO has been enormous, mounting from~ 000 000 to more than S35ti,OU0,000 in 1889. This is an increase of nearly 900 per c~nt.: while the population increased for the same period less than 300 per cent. During the past ten years ~hi~ growth in iwportati~ns has been most rapid, and has been marked by a s1gmficant and corrospondrng de- cline in prices of the home-grown product. (See page 14 of the House report.) 

Let the Senator from Connecticut croS8 his fingers and he will have an emblem before him of the contradiction of positions occupied by 

the advocates of monopoly upon this floor and by those who stood spon- sor at the bapti m of this great child ot monopoiy which you are attempting here to clothe with the cloak of manh~od. Why~ sir, in.stead 

of bein~ overproduction at home that bas occasloned the distress of the 

American agriculturist, you have it from those able defenders of the 

faith that it is the importation into our country, and that it is not onr home product that bas exceeded the growth of our population. But 

you have the statement here for you to ponder upon gentlemen, when 

you take their work inyourhandsandadoptitasyourown. that while our population has increased 300 per cent. our importation of foreign 

agricultural products has increased 900 per cent. 

Mr. President, that is a tale which is told to the American farmer 

in a state paper that is the shibboleth under which the Republican 

party is going forth into the devastated corn-fields and wheat-fields of 

the Western and the Southern couutry and of all these Middle States, 

and saying to the farmers, "Gentlemen, we know what is the matter 

with you; you are suffering chiefly from the importation into America 

of 900 per cent. increase .af agricultural products, amounting to $356,-

000,000 in 1890, and in order to relieve this ache and pain which has 

given you a sort of social neuralgia or rheumatism, we are going to put 

up a high protective tariff wall and say to these imports, 'You shall 

c9me no longer,'" and then these farmers, who, like Wellington at 

Waterloo as we have been told, have been standing so firmly against 

the char~es of the allied monopolies of the Republican party, will find 

scarcity and happiness together in America. 

BOGUS PARADE OF IMPORTED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. 

The truth of the business is that this production of the committee 

to be palmed off upon the ears of the American farmers is as misleadin(J' a statement. as the wit of man could possibly concoct. What do yo~ suppose. sir, these $356,000,000of agricultural products consist of 

which, pourin~ into America, have prostrated the American farmer? 

Why, $93,000,000 of the $356,000,000 is sugar and molasses, and instead of applying to that item the principle of protection which yon 

say ie a remedy, you say sugar and mola.c;ses go to the free-list, and you 

takeoff all duty. Eighty· nine million dollars consists of cocoa, t.ea, and 

coffee. The importation to America of$~9,000,000 worth of coffee, tea., 

and cocoa is the great thing that is distressing the American farmer, it 

is said, and you have put them upon the free-list a.ad have had them 

there many, many years. Hides come in as one of these agricultural 

products t-0 the extent, I believe, of some $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, 

and you have placed hides upon the free-list. 

I would like to ask you Senators, and especially the Senator from 

Connecticut, who yesterday wanted to know what manner of men we are, to tell us what manner of men you are and what manner of men your compatriots are when, through their state papers, they tell the 

American farmer that the chief cause of his suffering is the importation of $356,000,000 worth of agricultural products, and that a high 

tariff upon them is the remedy, when you take, in three items, more than half of these products and put them upon the free-list, and when 

a large portion of them are articles which we do not produce at all. 

; ... 

Mr. HAWLEY. I should like to ask the Senator whetheritis any 

body's doctrine that there should be a duty upon coffee, an articl~ we do not expect to be able to produce, and whether it is anybody's doc· 

trine but the free-trader of Great Britain, and he does it because in that 

way he can catch the poor man and the rich man alike and make him 

pay a per capita tax. 

Mr. DANIEL. Oh, let us have "a free ballot and a fair count." 

:Mr. HAWLEY. That is what I say. 

Mr. DANIEL. Do not count coffee and tea, $89,000,000, as the imports that are ruining the farmer on one page of your political philosophy and then tell us on the next that nobody wants a duty on i~. 

Stand long enough in one place to be counted yourselves [applause in 

the galleries], and do not be running about making another point when 

your party is exposed in the false pretenses which it has engraved 

upon a state paper and sent forth for the delusion and deceit of the 

American people. 

REPUBLICAN EXPOS"UllE OF' REPUBLICAN PRETENSES FOR FOOLING THE FARM 

EBS. 

Mr. President, let me read a piece from a Republican paper, and then 

perhaps the Senator from Connecticut can tell us better what sort of 

people those are he is training with. 

Of all the silly things Mr. McK.Th"LEYI beg pardon, sir; I ought not to call the name. Mr. ALDRICH. What paper? 

Mr. DANIEL. The Philadelphia. Evening Telegraph of April 18. 

I beg to withdraw the name referred to, because I am in earnest in say 

ing that I do not think the name of a i;i:entleman in one House ou~ht 

ever to be called in the other, and I will say-being allowed the privilege-'' the Republican tariff bill.' ' 

Mr. PADDOCK. Say "somebody somewhere else." 

Mr. DANIEL: 

Of all the silly tbinirs Mr. - hns yet done in connection with t?e ta.r~ff9uestion, bis report to the House in favoroftbeWaysand Means Committee b1ll IBthe most grotesque. \Vb at possible sense is there in trying t-0 fool the farmers of the vnited States by the statement that their industry is being prostrated on ac- count of the crowding of American markets with foreign agricultuml products? In order to back up this utterly absurd declaration Mr. - is driven to quote the Importations of sugar, tea., coffee, fruits, tobacco, animals, and fibers, the lat ter including wool, hemp.jute, etc. \".hatdo~s the sugar indu~try in nin.e-tenths of the United States amount to? It ts practlco.lly unknown m thirty-six of the forty-two St1ttes. How much tea. and coffee are raised in this country? The importation of animals, as everybody knows, is chiefly confined to first-c!R.Ss breedinJt"·stock brought in by fancy farmers. The carpet men have clearly 

-shown that the class of wool most needed in this country is not and can not be grown here profitably. 

The next thing I shall expect to hear from the Senator from Connecticut is that the wooden nutme(J' is the great agricultural production of the Western farmers [appla~se in the gallery], and that unlimited protection on that would be a panacea for all the ills that agricultural flesh is heir to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. 

The Chair will admonish the galleries that silence most be preserved. 

The Sergeant-at-Arms will see that this order is complied with. 

Mr. DANIEL: The fact. of the matter isContin ues the Republican editor- and no man knowe the truth more clearly than Mr. --himself-that when he puts our total agricultural imports at nearly $3M,000,000-

I do not know that this language is exactly parliamentaryMr. HAWLEY. I think the Senator is under no necessity of refrain 

ing from saying anything now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator trom Virginia will please 

suspend a moment. The Chair will remind Senators that under the 

rules of the Senate, when a Senator desires to interrupt another he must 

address the Chair and be recognized in his right ot interrupt.ion before 

proceeding. The Chair will further state to the Senator speaking that 

when addressed by the Chair to know if he yields to an interruption 

he should respond. 

Mr. DANIEL. I beg the Chair's pardon. I responded, sir, and 

yielded with pleasure. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. 

Mr. DANIEL. I continue the quotation: 

that when be puts our total agricultural imports at nearly 8356,000,000 he is guilty of the most idiotic deception. 

"Idiotic deception "-that is the language of Republican compli 

ment one to another. When the Senator has studied out what sort of peopl~ the Democrats are, I hope he 'will expla.in to us what sort o 

people these are: This statement is made for the purpose of c..·urying with it a false impression 

Until .Mr. --'s report appeared, the friends of the so-called" farmers' tariff' bill were quite content in speaking of agricultural imports coming into compe tition with American productions in p lacing the amount in the neighborhood of$75 000 000. This, too, is nn outside figure, and is at lea t very largely the re- sult of tr;_de wilh Canada. When this argument was quickly met and demol iehed in these columns and elsewnere, l\lr. --and his friends shifted their grou~d and made a. bold Rdvnnce that must make them ridiculous in the sight of intelligent men everywhere. It being clearly shown that this $i5.000,000 even if the farmers got the full benefit of it, would be more than swallow~d up under this tariff bill, in the increased cost of clothing and other necessa.nes of Hie it became necessary to swell the figures and to pull the wool, if possible, stili further over the eyes of the doubting a.griculturi ts .. Mr. --'s report in this respect will prove a boomerang of the most destructn·e sort. 

... 
"1 , ........ -

.-... "' . --

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8861 

It doe.ci not pav to indnl~e in this kind of deception at any time. The bill is now before the House a.nd before the country, and it must stand or fall upo_n }ts 

merits. What the people want is the facts. T~ey wan~ to know how .the1!° m- dustries are going to be affected, for good or ill, by this proposed legislation, 

and it is the duty of the Republican leaders not to juggle with the figures, nor to misrepresent the facts in any particular. 

COMPLAINTS OF FOREIGN RESTRICTIO~"S. 

One other item, Mr. President, and then I shall close. There is an allusion here in this same report which shows tbefaintontcropping of the 

free-trade disposition when it turns its face away from the monopolists of 

America. This same report from which I have read has the following: 

r With the foreign grain market under the sway of such oppressive competition, with the foreign cattle and :;>ork market depressed and obstructed by vari· ous ruinous measures of restriction, with foreign agricultural products crowding our home market, your committee have recommended an increase of rates upon agricultural products. 

Here is a complaint of the various restrictions of foreign nations. 

Germ?ny bas got a protective tariff which is denying to you a market 

for your meat. France is co tting off a. market for some portion ot this 

agricultural produce. And the Republican party, which the Senator 

from Connecticut describes a.s standing for something clear-defined and 

distinct, bas got its embassadors at the courts of Europe pleading for commerce and tor trade and attempting to argue into the heads of 

those old dynasties and nations that if they will just let down the wall 

and let us trade a little, what a happy thing it would be for them and 

how happy it would be for us! 

Furthermore, M:.r. President, it is a conspicuous and leading fact in 

the present political situation which I do not wonder that the Senator 

from Connecticut does not care now to discuss--

Mr. HAWLEY. I should like to know--

Mr. DANIEL. I am speaking of the junior Senator from Connecticut 

now. Mr. HAWLEY. I am not aware of anything that I am not ready 

to discuss anywhere. 

Mr. DANIEL. I never suspected the Senator of not being willing 

to discuss anything, but I heard him yesterday denounce the commerce and transportation idea which his minister is indoctrinating Europe 

with, and I wondered what manner of man he was to be pretending 

to hit at his Democratic brethren on this side of the Chamber when he was stabbing his own Administration with sach fell blows. I wonder 

if the Senator bas not got an idea of coming back to the Democratic party 

when he hits the Republican Administration over the head with such 

a powerful club as he wielded yesterday. 

Your Secretary of State, however men have differed about him, is 

known to be one of the most brilliant men in America, and is the man of all others who bas achieved reputation as a defender of the protective tariff. It is no matter of hearsay from committee-rooms, and it is no matter of mere rumor on the streets, but it is a fact, that there is the 

first epistle of James G. Blaine to the people of Connecticut and Maine 

in which be holds up this bill to the denunciation of the American producers and, with a single sentence of light let in upon its darkness, 

utterly exposes the false pretenses of the report which brought it into 

being and the false theories under which it is attempted to be supported. LO S OF OUR FOREIGN MARKETS. 

Eu~, Mr. President, to crown all, you need not dic:::pute with the 

House of Representatives as to what is the cause of that decline of 

American agriculture. You need not call in a dozen different doctors 

from a dozen different directions, to give you a diagnosis. Your own Administration has diagnosed it for you, and the Department of Agriculture bas told you tbat the cause does not remain in doubt. It not 

only assigns a cause as its own diagnosis, but it te1ls yon that that cause 

exists without adonbt, and that that cause is the loss of your foreign 

markets. 

Do yon know how yon have lost them? Yon have lost them by do· 

ing that thing which your forefathers a hundred years ago complained 

of against the British Crown, the cutting off of our trade with all parts 

of the world. The magnificent market which we had in Great Britain 

for corn and wheat, which was bringing to this land British wealth 

and which was pouring the gold from the mouth of the British lion at 

the feet of the American eagle, you have cut off. It is you who have 

built up the pauper labor of India by stimulating this production of 

wheat. It is your policy to-day that is building up the Argentine Confederation and making it the rival of our American producers. Your 

protected manufacturers are selling their improved machinery cheaper 

than it can be bought in Dakota and Nebraska. ·And, to complete the 

work of the devastation, rui~ and impoverishment of the people who 

have giv~n to it its stamina and character from the foundation of this 

Government to the present day, you have now got a bill to hermetically 

seal your ports against foreign trade, to cut off farther those foreign 

markets, and to turn monopoly loose to plunder and fatten upon these 

producers of our country. 

Mr. ·ALDRICH. Will the Senator from Virginia yield to me a mo- ment? · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield 

to the Senator from Rhode Island ? 

!-Ir. DANIEL. With pleasure. 

. , 

. -. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Will the Senator be kind enough to tell the Senate how we are stimulating the product of wheat in India and the 

.Argentine Republic? 

Mr. DA.NIEL. With pleasure. The Republican policy has done it 

in three ways: First, by demonetization of silver; second, by your bo~us protective tariff; and, third, by making monopolistic tariff duties so nigh that you cut off the competition of foreign manufacturers, which 

Garfield taught yon was a most unwholesome thing and left the Ameri- can farmer to pay higher prices at home, while he could not get the 

high prices abroad to which he was accustomed for his products. 

Mr. HIGGINS rose. Mr. DA.NIEL. In one minute. You built up India because when 

Great Britain could not find the same advantages of reciprocal trade 

with America which she would ot.herwise have derived, she looked to 

India for cotton and for wheat; and, if you will look at a table which 

I have here, from that record you will find thatjnst in proportion as - the American wheat ceased to flow to Great Britain India wheat went 

in in its stead. 

Mr. President, so far as that demonetization of silver is concerned, I 

congratulate the honorable Senator from Rhode Island that, either under the indoctrination of Democratic speeches or some other things 

that transpired after he made his own and notable and able speech 

upon the currency, he himselt became a COll\plete convert, and that 

that very distinct measure of currency which he denounced and dissected in his able speech was the one to which he gave the most cordial 

support before this session was more than three-fourths expended. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator from Virginia allow me to-ask 

him a question? 

Mr. DANIEL. In one moment, with pleasure. ~Ir. President, I do not despair of yet seeing the Senator from Rhode 

Island a convert, perhaps, to a little more Democratic doctrine if he 

learns as rapidly as be did recently between the speech he delivered 

against the bill that the Republican party, himself co-operating, passed, 

and the taking of the vote referred to. 

Why, Mr. President, that Republican demonetization of sif ver and 

its stern adherence to the single gold standard for many ·years was one of the causes of the devastation of American agriculture is no longer the 

speculative opinion of one man or one party; and that monopoly will 

finally go down before the determined effort of a free people, who know 

their rights and dare maintain them, was never more splendidly illustrated than during this very session of the United States Congress. 

REPUBLICAN LEADERS FALLIYG L"{TO DIDJ:OCRATIC NOTIO:l<S. 

Why, Mr. President, a few months ago we saw the distinguished 

leaders of the Republican party upon that side of the Chamber denouncing silver men in polite and parliamentary phrase as lunatics. 

We bad all manner of derision showered upon our beads, and were 

called '' 80-per-cent.-dollar-men, '' 11 75-per-cent.-dollar-men,'' and all 

the cheap things which the Senator from Connecticut so much despises; we were scooted and were condemned by that same coterie who are now pleading for monopoly in another form. 

TIIE "WEST AND TUE SOUTH RESCUED SILVER. 

But a few wise and earnest men from the Western country, joined 

with the bulk of the Democratic party who were here their friends and 

allies, stood up just as long as there ·was any hope; and now these very 

m~n, including the Senator from Rhode Island, are boasting of that 

which they did, with Democratic coals of fire on their backs, as the 

great financial achievement of the Republican party. I wish yon well, 

gentlemen, of all such achievement& 

And when, a little later, you who stand in the solid phalanx ot 

monopoly to-day shall be clamoring for tariff reform with the angry 

voices of your constituents at yonr backs, we will welcome you once 

more upon the same lines with your Democratic brothers, and yon may 

again put their plumes in yoar hats and boast loudly of the renewed 

achievements of the grand old party of the country. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator from Virginia now yield? 

Mr. DANIEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like the Senat-0r from Virginia to ex- p1ain to the Senate how it is that a protective tariff on wool-I believe 

he referred to that a few moments ago-has had a tendency to develop 

the wool industry in the Argentine Republic. 

Mr. DANIEL. I did not say that it had developed the wool industry in the Argentine Republic. I said it had developed the wheat indastry in the Argentine Republic. 

Mr . .MITCHELL. How? 

Mr. DA.NIEL. I will tell how. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I understood the Senator to refer to the wool industry; he certainly referred to the wool industry. 

Mr. DANIEL. I did. 

Mr. MITCHELL. He spoke of the sham protective tariff on wool. 

Mr. DANIEL. I did. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And referred to the development of the industries 

of the Argentine Republic in connection with the policy of the Republican party of the United States. 

Mr. DANIEL. I did. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That being so, I should like to know how it is 

. \ 

... ·" ,• 

. \ 

.. ~ ... "" ~ : . 

i • ·:.· I•. 

~ . 

: 

... ·: 

.. 

.- . . r: . 
.· 

·. 

1, 

..,. .. 

.· ., ,·._ .. c.. . . ' .I:·. '' ,-

8862 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

that our ta.ri1i has bad a tendency to develop the wool industry or any 

other indnst.ry there. 

l\Ir. DANIEL. Wheat I said. I will explain to the Senator. 

We imported wool from the Ar_gentine Republic to mix with our 

"wools, but your tarift got so high that to a degree it depreciated the 1 wool production, and they·then turned their lands to wheat-growing. 

:Ur . .MITCHELL. Why, Mr. Pre8ident--

Mr. DANIEL. One moment. And that competition which disappeared in one shape appeared in another. · Mr. MITCHELL. Does not the Senator know that the wool industry of the Argentine Republic, instead of having been diminished, 

is gradually increasing all the while, and that they ha ve nearly 100,-

000,000 sheep now in the Argentine Republic, whereas they had but 

30, 000, 000 a few years ago? 

Mr. DANIEL. That industry there may still increase, Mr. Presiden~ and be prosperous; and yet when you lose a portion of your wheat 

market and make it less beneficial as a wool market, to that degree you 

give an impulse to the beginning of the building up of that other industry there. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If there had been no tariff a~ all on wool, would 

not the market have been still better for the people of the Argentine 

Republic, and would not that have had a tendency to build up a wool 

indnstry in that Republic? 

Mr. DANIEL. I think it would have been better for all, both for 

America and for the Argentine Republic, as well as for all nations. 

Ml'. MITCHELL. It would have been better for them, there is· no 

doubt about that. 

Mr. DANIEL. I think better for us also. 

Mr. President, I had not risen for the purpose of speaking upon the 

wool tariff, which has manifold ramifications and would take a long 

argument to expound. But, in my judgment, the wool ta.riff bas been 

against the people of the Unitro States, and I will briefly explain why 

I think so. Mr. ALLIRON. Mr. President--

Mr. DANIEL. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. ALLISON. I was about to ask the Senator whether, in his 

judgment, the people of the Argentine Confederation are obliged to pay 

the amount of our duty on the wool they sell to us or whether the 

consumers of wool, the manufacturers of our own country, pay the 

duty. 

Mr. DAJ\TJEL. I think our people pay the duty. 

Mr. ALLISON. Then our tariff does not affect the wool industry 

of the Argentine Confederation one way or the other. 

Mr. DANIEL. It checks importation. 

Mr. ALLISON. Now, I would like t-0 ask the Senator another 

question. 

.Mr. DANIEL. The Senator knows as well as I do that it checks 

importation. 

Mr. ALLISON. I would be glad to know why it is tha.t Great Britain, that lets all wool come in free, is the small~ purchaser of Argentine wool of all the European countries. • Mr. DANIEL. Because she get.d an abundant supply of wool that 

snits her better from other places, no doubt; from Australia. and some 

other countries. · I have not gone into the minutire of that, and do not know that I 

COtl.ld explain to the entire satisfaction of the Senator. But we need 

wools to .mix with our wools in order to make perfect fabrics. The 

Sena.tor knows that, and I think be has made some observations in 

past years, if I mistake me not, on the wool tariff, very much in the 

line of thought which I am now less ably presenting. I refer the 

Senator from Iowa. of to-day to the Senator from Iowa. of yesterday for 

rather more satisfactory explanations than I would like now to under-

. take to consume time to give. 

FOR MEN OR SHEEP? 

One word more, l\Ir. President, since I have been interrogated upon 

the wool tariff. There are 44,000,000 sheep in the United States and 

there are 65,000,000 people. Each of those 65,000,000 people wants 

abont 10 pounds of wool for his clothing, and the 44,000,000 sheep do 

not produce half enough wool for the 65,000,000 people. Mr. President, if yon could arrange human heads on one side and sheep heads 

on the other side, and if all the sheep's heads were to vote for high 

wool on sheep's backs, and all the human heads were to vote for cheap 

wool on the human backs, human suffrage would beat sheep suffrage 

by 20,000,000 majority. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Pre ·ident, when I am consulting the interests of animated nature I prefer the sentiment of the Roman poet of centuries ago-that 

"I am a man und am not indifferent to what is human;" and Jleave 

it to those who think more of sheep to take sides accordingly. 

Why, Mr. President, when yon make the simple analysis of this case you prove utterly the falJacy, the absurdity of it, and yon insult the 

understanding of the human race with the idea that it is a benefit to the 

65, 000, 000 of people to make them pay high prices for ten pounds ot 

wool apiece in order to enhance the price of wool on the backs of 44,-

000,000 sheep which belong only to some 1,000,000 of people. . 

lilr. President, your tariff laws have utterly failed to achieve that 

·. 

benefit, even if it were a benefit. Look at the State of Vermont, whence 

comes the great champion of the wool tariff. and you will find that the 

number of sheep is decreasing and the value of wool is decreasing. You 

have not benefited the sheep men and you have extorted doubly out 

of the human men. 

In order to keep up this hop.el~ proteclive tariff on wool you have 

got to extort from the great body of the people, to extort from your 

manufacturers, and to make a complicated system of tariff laws which 

keep the commerce and manufactnres of the United States in continuous hot water. Have you ever seen the day when either the manufacturers or the prod ncers were satisfied with the wool tariff? l tis utterly impossible to satisfy them. If you make it one thing to-day, they 

want it auother thing to-morrow; and it is simply and only a perpetual 

triangular game of battledore and shuttlecock between the people, the 

manufacturers, and the sheep-men. If yon put a high tariff on the 

raw-wool produc~ your manufacturer says, " ·why, here, you have got 

to protect me upon the cloth." 

The woolen manufacturers of Great Britain can draw their wool supply from all the quarters of the earth free and ca.n clothe their people 

with the best goods at the cheapest rate. Having put this high tariff 

upon wool, to the crippling of the New England and Middle States 

woolen manufacturers and to the detrim€nt of your carpet industries, 

the men who make those things say, ''Here, yon must now put another 

tariff upon the ready-made cl-0thes and the textiles that produce them 

in order to protect us." 

.l\Ir. President, for the sake of the 44,000,000sheep, owned by about 

1, 000, 000 men, 65, OUO; 000 people are paying annually for their woolen 

clothes and outfits just about the value of the whole number of sheep in 

the United States. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, yesterday I made some feeble observations concerning the curse of labor, and had occasion afterwards 

to explain them, and now I must explain them again. When I speak 

of the curse of labor I refer to transportation as one of the curses, the 

particular curse in question. 

Thinking men have been trying by every process imaginable to reduce the quantity of labor to be put in any product. That is legitimate. That is the work of civilization. The part of labor that in one 

sense is absolutely useless is the lugging of things about from one part 

of the world to another. Now I think I have made that clear so far 

to the Senator from Virginia. I want to make it plain and clear to the 

comprehension of any farmer in the United States. 

Take the case ot the farmer who used to carry his wheat 40 miles 

to a grist-mill. The neighbors ~et together and get up a subscription 

to buy him water-power, and tell him that now he has a protected interest, having the mill in their particular neighborhood, and instead 

of having to haul their wheat 40 miles to mill they now only have 

to haul 5 miles on the average. That is where transportation was injur:ous. That is where transportation was measurably a calamity. 

On the other hand, by not having to carry the wheat 40 miles, if they 

find that they can easily make a great improvement in the roads, by 

running around certain hills and getting through certain swamps easily, 

that will be a good thing. 

If I have to transport my prod uctB all over the world, I want to carry 

them in the easiest and quickest way possible. But my general principle remains perrectly correct. 

.Mr. President, I say that carrying things around is no particular 

blessing of itself; but if you can get the producer and consumer tolerably close to each other it is a good thing. That is my doctrine, and 

that i"I one of the things at the bottom of the whole protective policy, 

to bring producer and consumer near together; and then, if you have 

not consumers enough, and you have produced enormously, it is a very good way to help the producers to bring in some more consumers. 

That is perfectly clear to the meanest comprehension, and I do not 

think I shall ever explain that again to the Senate if I sit here ten 

years. 

The Senator from Virginia says that I was inconsistent, that the Republican party was inconsistent in various ways, by giving large quantities of public lands to railroad companies-in some way inconsistent, · 

I suppose, because we were helping transportation, and that transportation was a calamity. But by bringing two places a band red miles 

apart closer together in time by railroad, so that the products of the 

country could be carried more easily than by carrying them in Conestoga. wagons, we were reducing the burden and cost of transportation. 

But we were doing another thing. We were protecting the great 

agricultural interests by practically enormous bounties. By every hundred miles of railroad that was opene<l we opened a wide area of agricultural land and blessed the people in that way. And we protected 

ourselves in another direction. We enormously increased the value of 

the pulilic lands that we held. There never ha.s been an interest in 

the United States protected us bas agriculture, nothing approaching it. 

For a long generation we have given every man a farm who would 

go West and locate, and stay upon a farm of a hundred and sixty acres for five years, and he might take out of that period of fivo years the 

time he had served in the Army. These lands were granted to people 

who had not washed themselves from the voyage coming here, if they 

would only declare that they were going to be American citizens. The 

·' 
I·' . -. ....... · 

-~ · .... .- .... 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8863 

people of Virginia. had only to leave their pines an(j go out West and 

get a farm for $15, which was only the amount of the surveyor's fee, 

and no more. Is not that protecting an interest? 

Thetarms in Connecticut, on an average, are worth $50 an acre. If 

a farmer there bas a 100-acre farm, that is worth $5,000. But he can go West and get a 160-acre farm, as I said, simply by locating upon it 

and paying the surveyor's fee. Does not that bring up an extraordinary competition between Connecticut farming and ~hat out West? 

And when yon ha\e reduced the cost of transportation from 2 cents a mile down to less than half a cent a mile on the products of the 

western farms goin~ eastward, do you suppose that the Connecticut 

farmers can compe.te with the Western farmers in raising wheat and corn and the great staples? Not at all. We have had to turn our ingenuity in another direction. But we have been growing, and growing, and growing. We have had to find a great and extraordinary 

range for a small number of people in our State in productive industries in order that we might live. 

We furnish a market for some 5, 000, 000 bushels of wheat, for we eat 

bread made of flour there and live well. We pay for that by our manufactures. I do not know of 10 acres of wheat in my State. We can not raise it there cheaply. We are furnishing a market, however, 

for the produce of the Western farms. If Connecticut were set down 

between three or four of these great agricultural States, with just the 

proportion of industrial and agricultural classes that she now has, we would get all our agricultural products more cheaply than we can at 

present and the producers would get more for them than at present, 

and they would pay less for what we produce in our factories. It 

wonld be a splendid bargain all around. 

Now, a protective policy tends to develop manufacturing in certain 

secUons of these great States, in portiono of the great West, and in 

that way truly and beyond all question no class of men in the United 

States have so much to expect from a reasonable, philosophical, and 

protective policy as the Western farmer. 

'Yhat is the matter with farming? says the Senator from Virginia. 

I do not think there is anything especially the matter with farming. 

Temporary troubles that come from drought, the temporary troubles 

that come from the depression of the prices of the great staples, can be 

cured neither by a protective tariff nor by free trade. Those are things 

that affect the whole world; they do not know states; they do not 

know kings; they do not know republies. The great ocean of industry lms its fluctuations. We must all take our chances. I do not 

know that there ie anything very serious the matter with agricult- ure. 

Men have rushed into it. How they crowded into the Dakotas and 

others of the Western States! Men dropped their professions in the 

East; tM doctor, the lawyer, the preacher, the teacher, dropped their 

professions and became farmers. Is it at all unnatural that there should 

be something like overproduction there? Is it at all unnatural that 

the market for wheat in that region generally should drop for a time? 

The remedy is not a discouragement of the manofacturin~ industries, 

because that makes more farmers and still fewer consumers, and aggravates the very difficulty ot which the gentleman complains. 

Mr. BUTLER. !fr. President--

Tl.le l:'RESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut 

yield to the Senator from South Carolina? 

Mr. HAWLEY. With pleasure. 

Mr. BUTLER. I was going to suggest to the Senator that the line 

of remarks indulged in by him in regard to the depression of the agricultural interest reminds me of a statement made by his colleague 

yesterday when he was referring to the depression in the cutlery incerest, the manufacture of pocket-knives, I believe, and he proposed as a remedy for that a higher protective tariff. Now, if that is good for 

that particular line of industry, it would seem to me that the farmers 

would have j nst the same rignt to come to the Government and ask 

relief when this temporary depression meets them. Where is the in- consi..~tency of it? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I see the point precisely. The Government has 

been exerting all its ima~inable power to relieve the agricultural interest, and there never will be a government on tnis continent that 

will not do it, for agriculture is the controlling and dominating interest. It is done, as I have shown yon, by running great railways to 

that country and opening up empires of fertile lands and inviting agriculture to come in there. The interests of manufactures and of agriculture will sway back and forth, to and fro. No tariftwill help that. 

Now, the Senator from South Carolina is one of the most courteous 

and chivalrous gentlemen in the world, but why did he refer to the 

clod-hoppers, as be would call them? I never used a aisparaging epithet with reference to the agricultural interests from the time Samuel 

Hawley settled at Stratford, in Connecticut, in the year 1639, to this 

day, Our people have tilled the soil, and no one of them ever went to 

jail and no one of them ever had a mortgage on his farm, to the best 

of my know ledge and belief. 

I am tempted to spend just about five minutes more on this matter, 

not because I intended to attempt to go into any full argument upon 

any one branch of the subject. I understand the object of the gentle- men on the other side; it is to aggravate us.. [Laughter.] 

-, •. 

Mr. BUTLER. The Senator is mistaken. 

Mr. HAWLEY. You know we are full of whole volumes of facts. 

You gentlemen on the other side know that we believe from the bot- ~ 

tom of our souls in the truth of our cause. You know we can prove 

it. The gentlemen on the other side do not care for being beaten in 

argument if they can defeat the bill by talking about it until next 

March. 

Now, let us go out to Iowa or Minnesota, or any one of these States, 

and then come back to Pennsylvania, and we shall not consume more than five minutes in the journey. Three or four or half a dozen coun- ties raise com and wheat and beef and pork, and nothing else. There 

you meet young men who find no :field for their taste. The farmers 

have many idle months. Their surplus products do not go to Europe; 

do not even go down to Connecticut. They are idle people. 

The statistics, if I were to take time to prove it, would show that su~ a country does not produce per capita anything like what it produced in a country where there is a mixture of manufacturing and 

other general industries so that the people are more uniformly and 

continuously employed. The statement of that demonstrates itself, 

and the census is loaded with the figures that prove it. Precisely in 

proportion to the prevalence of manuJacturingin the United States, in 

States or counties, is the higher price of farming lands. The more the 

manufacturing in a State, the higher the farmer's land stands in price. 

It is all tabulated. I have it here, classified by States in four different groups. I am not going to bother you with statistics, however. 

I know the distaste that gentlemen have to listeninjt to them. The 

percentage in the different classes is 18 and under, 42 and under, 58 

and under, and 77 and under. Here is a small class of manufactur- ' 

ing States, from eight to twelve, where agriculture is 18 per cent. or less. The lands there are worth $38. 65 an acre. The precentage of 

people engaged in agriculture is small. The:-e is much manufacturing 

there. 

In the next class, where there is a large percentage of agriculture, 

between 18 and 42, the lands drop to $30. 55 an acre. The third class 

of States, where the percentage of people engaged in agriculture ranges 

between 42 and 58 per cent., the lands are worth $13.53 per acre. In 

the States, of which there are several, where the percentage runs up 

to 77 and under the lands average $5.18 an acre. Mr. GRAY. Will not the Senator from Connecticut, for our learning, tell us in which class the States of Vermont and New Hampshire are grouped? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. I have gone over the list. I touched on Connecticut :first because I have a big black mark against that. In 

Connecticut there is 18 per cent. engaged in agriculture, and the resL 

of us are by no means idJe. We have to work in that rocky country, 

and our lands are worth $49. 34 an acre. There is a market right close 

by for all that we produce. 

Mr. BUTLER. My friend will remember, of course, that Connecticut is a very small State and that lands are scarce there. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Oh, yes; it is a small State, but it is pretty well 

settled; I know that. Take a big State and not very well settled, and see how that goes. 

Mr. VANCE. Mr. PresidentMr. HAWLEY. The Senator from North Carolina is the last man to attempt to bring up this subject. 

Mr. VANCE. I wanted to ask the Senator if be had any statistics 

about pauperism in Connecticut. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Oh, yes; I have got them pretty near all in the 

library. We are not ashamed. We take good c;ire of our paupers. 

Mr. BUTLER. Bear in mind another condition, that cbeap lands are where the people go to buy homes. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Land that is worth $2 an acre where you can not 

sell your products at all is very costly land; that laud worth $5 an acre may be enormously high, while land at $200 an acre or $500 an acre, close by a city where you can sell everything you raise, every 

chicken, every egg, and all your corn and fruit, is not high-priced land. 

Mr. BUTLER. Oh, yes; if we had large cities all over the country 

that might be true. 

Mr. HAWLEY. How can you nave profitable agriculture without 

having 'large cities? 

Now I will turn to Virginia. Virginia ha..'1 51 per cent. en.gaged in 

agriculture. We know she is just le;uoing to manufacture just going 

to school, begging Northern capital to come down and open up her 

bountifully rich treasures; and her lands are worth $10.89 an acre by 

the census. Connecticut lands are worth $49.34, nearly five times as much as Virginia lands. Our stony lands, with strips of fertil~ valleys between, are worth in Connecticut nearly five times as much as in 

Virginia because you can not fire a rifle without danger of hitting some manufacturer, and you can not travel 10 miles anywhere without en- countering a manufacturing village, little or big. 

Mr. GRAY. Has the Senator forgotten the question I asked him 

awhile ago? 

Mr. HAWLEY. What was it? · Mr. GRAY. In which group were the States of Vermont and New 

Hampshire included? 

Mr:HAWLEY. Now ihe Senator will be surprised. [Laughter.] 

C' ' ' . . . .· , 

. , 

.. ;· 

. :.J 

.-

· . .: 

·~ .. 

..... 

'· t• 

'I 

: 

·. 

: , . 
' '• 

.. 

- . 

-· 

--

; . 

--

.. _: ... -

... . 

. - .. 

8864 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

I have Vermont and Virginia here together-somewhere, and Vermont 

beats Virginia. Here is Vermont with 47 per cent. in agriculture and 

lands worth $22.40 an acre; twice as much as in Vir1tinia. That is up 

in rocky and cold Vermont. Now let us see if I can find New Hampshire. Yes, here is New Hampshire, with 31 per cent. in agriculture, 

less than Vermont has, because she bas some very lively manufacturing regions, and her lands are ~orth $20.38, twice as much as Virginia 

lands--

Mr. GRAY. If it does not interrupt the Senator from Connecticuliand I do not want to ask him the auestion if it does--

Mr. HAWLEY. You are welcome. 

Mr. GRAY. I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut why 

it is that as to the State of New Hampshire and the New England 

manufacturing States generally we were entertained yesterday by the 

Senator from New Hampshire with a long list of abandoned farms for 

sale, some fourteen hundred and odd, ranging from 75 acres to ~00 

acres, as he told us, I think. 

1\IL HAWLEY. It is all a part--

Mr. GRAY. One moment. 

Mr. HAWLEY. It is all a part of the inevitable. 

Mr. GRAY. Why is it that in that State and in the State of Vermont, which are both of them included in a manufacturing region, 

complaint in regard to abandoned farms is more rife than anywhere 

else? 

Mr. HAWLEY. And at the same time we manage, in spit-e of all 

difficulties, to keep our lands more valuable than in States where they 

have no manufactories. Perhaps the Presiding Officer-if he will allow me to ask-being a New England neighbor, can give us some information about that, especially at the southern end of his State. At the 

northern end of New Hampshire, up t.owards Canada, I presume there 

is next to no manufacturing. Is not that so, Mr. President? 

Mr. BLAIR (in the chair). They get rich there from the money 

spent by the summer travelers. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAWLEY. They get rich there out of the summer travel, but 

there is very little manufacturing. 

Now, I will go back to Iowa, because I started there. I was speaking of counties that bad no manufactures, where they were idle for a 

time, or at least a portion of the people were. There is no chance for 

all kiuds of worlr. But if you JtO down to the vicinity of Philadelphia . and seek sorue of the farm lands around there, you will find that they are worth from $50 to :5150 and $200 an acre. Why? Because 10 acres will be enough, perhaps. 

It is not like working in the West, where the husband and the one son can only work six months, on the average, during the year; but in 

the vicinity of Philadelphia everything is raised in those fertile gardens, all the roots, beets, rutabagas, carrots, and so on; and there are 

other things besides those that are raised in the garden~, turkeys and 

chickens, ducks and eggs; every imaginable line of produce is raised 

upon that land and brought down to a great manufacturing city, where 

it finds a ready market. There the feeble man who can not cradle 

grain, the girl or boy who is worth nothing upon the great Western 

farm, every one of the family has something to do, and they are en- gaged nearly every month of the year in some profitable work about 

the house. There a little farm of 10 to 50 acres, upon which a family 

of six or eight can practically be all at work, almost the child in arms, 

will be woPth $200 an acre. But yon go down in the Southern States 

and in some of our Western States, where manufacturing has no_t yet 

come, and you will find laud worth otherwise four times as much as that which will not sell for one-quarter as much. That is all true. 

Now, these gallant, chivalric gentlemen must lug in an old cheap 

joke about the wooden-nutmeg State. Why, Mr. President, I never saw but half a dozen wooden nutmegs in my life, and they were cut 

from the wood of the Charter Oak tree, which is one ofour glories. Even 

if we did make wooden nutmegs there was not a fool in New England 

that would buy them; they were sold elsewhere. [Laughter.] Mr. 

President thU! is an old story. I suspect these wooden-nutmeg stories 

originatea in Virginia or somewhere along down there, because one of 

the citizens bought one ofthewoodenputmegs and cracked it and tasted 

it, thinking it was a walnut, and then got mad and charged the wooden 

nutmegs to us. But the intimation is that we are false in our goods. That is thought 

to be a ,joke, you know, to bring down cheap applause from the gallery. 

Mr. FRYE. It was a joke a hundred years ago. 

Mr. HAWLEY. It may have been a joke the first time it was uttered, but history has no record of that. It is a very old story. The 

wooden nutmeg is a ''chestnut." But the intimation is that we are 

false in our goods. Shall I sit right down here with my colleague and 

in ten minutes give you a long list of mannfactm·ers whose names are known in New York, in Chicago, and the Western country, and who a.re proud to stamp their name and date upon every article they make, and 

if yon make anythlng Jike i1; and attempt to sell it yon will be hauled 

into the courts? 

Their honor is just as dear to them a.s the honor of the knight that 

charged with Charles in England or with Lee in Virginia. They have 

fought for honor. Honor h not found alone among the men w~o live 

upon the unpaid toil of their fellow-citizens. It is found among the men who are proud to be known as the people of Connecticut. Connecticut was never idle by land or by sea from the time of Hull, who 

commanded the Constitution in the war of 1812, down to the time Admiral Foote fought in our late war. We sent sailors who fought for 

the flag and we sent soldiers who marched at the tap of the drum. 

She is lull of chivalry. The recordsof adventure are full of tee names of her men who have gone from one pole t.o the other and all around 

the world. She answers to every call. There is no richer field, as the 

annually published records will show, for the development of industry 

in time of peace, of honor and courage in time of war, and none in the 

world can beat it. 

Mr. DA.NIEL. I am sorry that the Senator from Connecticut thought 

that I meant anything malicious--

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not think the Senator meant anything very 

ugly; it was such an old joke. 

Mr. DANIEL. I acknowledge that there was not any wit in it. and 

perhaps I only used it because I wanted to aggravate the Senator, who 

dislikes cheap things so much. 

Mr. President, I will ask permission, if there be no objection, to 

print with my remarks the tahles which I referred to. I did not like 

to read the figures. I suppose there will be no objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears none. l\fr. DANIEL. And, further: Mr. President,justalittleremarkabout 

Old Virginia. Our lands are not as high in price as those of Connecticut, and there are very good reasons why they should not be. Two 

armies did not live on Connecticut for four years, did not burn down 

all the timber and in many cases the houses, and leave Connecticut to 

start afresh in life. The figures which the Senator gives are how old? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Of course they are ten years old, but the compari- son is just as good; and let me say, since the Senator has kindly asked me the question, that these "l.isclosnres do not apply alone to the Southern States, do not arise there ~one; they arise measurably in all States 

where there is no manufacturing. 

1\Ir. DANIEL. I understand. There is nothing intended as invidi- ous in any of our remarks. 

If the Senator will look at the next census, however, I think he will 

find that perhaps the appreciation of population and values in that section bas been as great as in -many portions of New England. 

We do not "beg" Northern capital to come down our way, but we are exceedingly glad "to see it come, and a great deal gladder when the 

Nortllern man brings it with him, for we find that be makes an excellent addition t.o our population, and that the people from New England 

know the very things that fit into our present condition and situation. 

Furthermore, I would say to the Senator that we are very glad, for 

another reason, to see them, for after they have been down there for 

about three or four weeks, they come to be the worst Democrats in the 

community [lau~hter] and add to the great body of people who do not 

want to pay too much for their whistle. 

Mr. HAWLEY. They are not troubled about paying the debt of 

the State? 

Mr. DANIEL. They are not. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Not seriously troubled. 

Mr. DANIEL. From whom did the Senator get th:lt information? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think there ou~ht to be some change in that re- spect, judging by the reports concerning the scaling down of the debt. 

I think there ought to be some municipal taxation for debt purposes. 

Mr. DANIEL. When the Republican party can scale a State by cutting it in two and setting up two States instead of one, is it not a Jittle 

equitable to scale the debt, too? 

And furthermore, if I am not mistaken, the Senator is one of the 

conspicuous members of lbatorganization that insisted here on having 

it done, and sustained in this Senaw the man who did it. 

Thou canst not say I did it: neV"er shake 

Thy gory locks at me. 

[Laughter.] 

But, as Nathan said to David, I can say, "Thon art the man." 

Why, Mr. President, there was a day in the Senate when the whole 

Republican party here, with all its grand moral ideas, adopted and 

sustained and gave office, power, emolument, and place to the men who 

ditl what the Senator would reproach me or my State for having acquiesced in. What manner of mnn is the Senator that be thus turns back 

upon his own work and holds np to public scoffing the deeds in which 

if wrong he himself bas been particeps c1iminis? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Shall I answer that? 

Mr. DANIEL. If it does not aggravate the Senator. ~fr. HAWLEY. I believe there bas never been a time when I did 

not hold that the repudiation of the debt by Virgina was a disgrace. 

I continue to do so; and the Repnblicans did it anrl the Democrats 

adopted it . .M:r. DA.NIEL. A.nd the Senator continued to uphold the men who 

did it. 

l\Ir. HAWLEY. I voted for somebody. We tried for four months 

to make a Virginia Republican, an ex-Confederate soldier, Sergeant-atArms of the Senate. But I never was identified with those schemes. 

I am very sorry I voted for him in spite of all that, and I never faifod 

to tell him and the others. But it would be instructive to tell the rest 

of the history of that transaction, which was wild. The Democratic 

party, with that unconscious inclination which leads it towards nnlli-

-· 
. .._•: ', 

·~ - .-

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 8865 

fication and treason, forbade us for four months to take even a vote 

upon whom we would have for Sergeant-at-Arms. 

Mc DANIEL. But you were so anxious to vote for a man whom 

yon now tell the Senate was disgracing bis State that you call it 

treason--

Mr. HAWLEY. I hope the Senator will not say I did not venture 

to say disgracing the State, because the Senator himself adopts the old 

rule Riddleberger did. 

Mr. DANIEL. I am answering what you said about him; and 

when you support me I shall look very cautiously to see if I am not 

disgracing my State also. 

Mr. President, the Sena.tor may hate cheap things, but he does not 

hate Cheap John arguments if he can make a fling at a Senator who has 

aggrarnted him by his questions in the tariff discussion. I have made no reflection upon him or upon his people. I have no reasoa to do so. But I will say this about Virginia-and I doubt not that in his heart the 

Senator knows it-there is not a people upon God's green earth who more keenly feel the obligation of honor, be it pecuniary or otherwise; 

and there is not an American State, North, South, East, or West, that 

in the face of powerful opposition bas ever so sternly and so steadily 

maintained the principles which it believed to be ri~ht. If it hrutacquiesced in the result of frequent decisions in which allied powers of 

different parties were opposed to it, it has but done what is right and 

just and moral and honorable among men to-day in submitting to 

those courts of arbitrament which the constitution of a country has 

appointed to decide. 

I am sorry that the Senator should interlard into this debate a thing so foreign to it·. I am sorry that he should be aggravated b~ the thrusts 

which have been made at a theory t.o reply t.o an argument with an innuendo against a State. I am sorry also that he should see fit to de- nounce a thing which he and his own party persistently did, in order, over his own head, to strike momentarily a political opponent; and if 

he would address himself, instead of to these subjects, to explaining to 

the great body of the American people how they who are being impoverished by his theories can remedy it, I humbly think that the 

Senator would be more profitably employed. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I appeal to Senators upon both sides of tbe Chamber t.o let a vote be taken upon the pending proposition. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays having been or- dered on th~ amendment of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Mc- PHERSO~]. is the Senate ready for the question? The Secretary will 

call the roll. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. PASCO (when Mr. CALL's name was called). I wish to state 

that my colleague [Mr. CALL] is absent and is paired with the Senator 

from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW]. 

Mr. CARLISLE (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from North Dakota [Mr. PIERCE]. 

Mr. HARRIS (when his name was called). I am naired with the 

Senator from Vermont [Mr. MoRBILL]. I should vote "yea" if he were here. 

Mr. PASCO (when his name was called}. I am naired with the Senator from Illinois (Mr. FARWELL]. If he were present, I should vote 

''yea.'' 

Mr. SANDERS (when bis name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Indiana [f):t:r. VOORHEES]. If he were present, I should 

vote ''nay.'' 

The roll-call was concluded. . Mr. '!?AULKNER. Idesiretoalatetha.tmycolleague [Mr. KENNA] 18 detained from the Senate by sickness and is paired with the Senator 

from Colorado [Mr. WOLCOTT]. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I desire to announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Gom-IAN] is paired with the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] for the rest of the day. 

Mr. CASEY. My colleague [Mr. PIERCE] is necessarily absent and 

is paired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE]. 

Mr. TELLER. My collea20e (Mr. WOLCOTT] is detained from the 

Senate by sickness. He is paired with tbeSenatorfrom West Virginia 

[Mr. KE~N'A]. 

Mr. DANIEL. I wish to state that I am paired with the Senator 

from Washington [Mr. SQUIRE]. · 

The result was announced-yeas 25, nays 32 ; as follows: 

Barbour, Bate, 

Berry, 

Blackburn, 

Blodgett, 

Butler, 

Cockrell , 

Aldrich, 

Allen, 

Allison, 

Blair, 

Cameron , Casey, 

Cullom, 

Dayis, 

YEA.S-25. 

Coke, McPherson, Colquitt, Morgan, 

Faulkner, Paddock, 

Gibson, Pugh, 

Gray, Ransom, Hampton, Reairan, Jones of Arkansas, Turpie, 

Dixon, Edmunds, Evarts, 

Frye, 

Hale, 

Hawley, 

Higgins, 

Hiscock, 

NAYS-3'.?. 

Hoar, 

Jones of Nevada, 

McMillan, 

Manderson, 

Mitchell, 

Moody, 

Platt, 

Plumb, 

XXI-555 

Vance, Vest, 

Walthall, 

Wilson of Md. 

Power, 

Quay, 

Sawyer. 

Spooner, 

Stockbridge, 

Teller, 

'Vashburn, 

Wilson of Iowa. 

• ABSENT-27. 

Brown, E~stis, Kenna, 

Call, Farwell, :Morrill, 

Carlisle, George, Pasco, 

Chandler, Gorman, Payne, Daniel, Harris, Pettigrew, 

Dawes, Hearst, Pierce, 

Dolph, Ingalls, Sanders. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Sherman, 

Squire, 

Stanford, 

Stewart, 

Voorhees, 

Wolcott. 

Mr. PLUMB. I move, in line 16, page 38~ paragraph 159, to strjke 

on t " 50 " and insert " 35; " so as to read: 

And in addition thereto on all the above, 35 per cent. ad valorem. 

The duties provided by this paragraph are widely varying. If all 

the knives in the first class were worth 50 cents per dozen, the specific 

duty would be practically 25 percent. Adding to that the 50 per cent. 

ad valorem provided for in the clause which I propose to amend would 

make a duty of 75 per cent. But some of the knives in tbia classification are worth as low, I am told, as 17 cents a dozen. As to those 

the specific duty is about 70 per cent. Adding that to the 50 per cent. 

makes a duty of 120 per cent. ad valorem. It seems to me that the 

duty which I propose, which will amount to an average of over 70 per 

cent. on the entire schedule, should be enough, and in saying so I take 

into account the duty now imposed, which is 50 per cent. 

Every one knows that the specific duty is more certain and is on an average larger than what might be called the equivalent ad valorem 

duty, because it is not modified by possible undervaluations. I have 

also been told by a manufacturer, who probably would not want me to quote him, that 20 per cent. added to the duty now imposed would 

be sufficient for the product of his factory and would satisfy him. My 

amendment meets that case. Now, Mr. President, one word in regard to what the senior Senator 

from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] said a few moments ago. He said that 

I complained of the manufacturers, and thought I might complain of 

somebody else. I do not know that I have complained of the manu- facturers in any sense that might be called offensive to them; but I 

think on the whole we may have a right to complain of them. 

If we think a class of people whom we are benefiting directly by the 

imposition of duties do not properly respond to the obligations of the 

situation, we may reasonably complain of them. We give them duties, 

of course not solely for their benefit or not designed to be primarily 

for their benefit, but they get the first benefit in any event; and what- ever the remaining portion of the people of the United States get out 

of it is indirect. The indirect benefit may be as great as the direct 

benefit; in many cases it undoubtedly is. 

I do not except at all to the proposition which the Senator states is 

involved in what would be known as a proper protective policv. In fact ! stated myself in some remarks I made on the last day of laat month, m almost the same language, that I favor such an imposition of duties 

upon articles imported into the United States as will equalize the con- ditions existinir between the manufacturer in this country and his com- petitor abroad; and I take into account everything that goes to make 

up that difference, just as the Senator from Connecticut did. Of coutse 

if there were an offset in the shape of greater advantages on account of 

the greater skill of the laborer, or the cheapness of the raw material in 

this country, or anything else of that kind, I should want to take that 

into aecount also. for t?e purpose of diminishing the rate of duty. 

I have complamed in a measure of the manufacturers of the United 

States, that they did not take possession of the market which we had 

given them when they might readily do so, but have chosen iaa large measure to manufacture those articles which brought them the highest 

profit, and have deliberately abandoned t-0 the importer that class of 

articles which they could manufacture with a reasonable profit and 

have thereby not filled the American market, as they ought to 1bave 

done. ~ think also they have been lacking in enterprise in regard t.o our foreign markets, and that we may reasonably complain in that re· 

gard. . I have before me the report of the Central and South American Commission appointed by the late President Arthur, and I turn to the 

special report on Guatemala and among other things I :find t,he following: 

HeReferring to the minist-er of :financeHe agree_d with others in the intelligent opinion that the chief obstacles in the 

way of an mcreased trade between Guatemala and tbe United States were: I. The lack of knowledge on the part of our merchants and manufactu.re1·s of 

the wants o~the market, and a disinclination to comply with them. 2. The assiduity with which European merchants and manufacturers culti- vate trade, not only here, but in all the Central American States and the fav• 

orable te~s which they a.re willing to offer purchasers. ' ~· The mdift'eren<:6 of the merchants of the United States in pa.eking goods fot sh1pm~nt here, then- carelessness being the conatant source of injury and loss to the lIDporter, a fault of \Vhich their Enropean riYals are not guilty. 

In one '!ay an~ another that is repeawd in a number of special re· ports and is also m the general report. Our people ha.ve had so rich a 

market at home, have been so favored in having this rich market and 

it having been given to them with such a comparatively lavish hand, 

that they have not chosen to extend the trade of the United States out;.. 

side of its limits to foreign countries, as they might and as I think the1 

would have done if they had been a little less generously protected. 

. ' 

. .. ·"'~ 

........ 

_, 

. - . 

·-

-.. 

. . .. 

.. : ... 
.· .,, 

.. .-

' . 

\. 

·. 

; 

. .. -\ .1 ·' 

.. -

8866 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE~ AUGUST 20, 

I have not myself proposed to reduce a single'1utyso far in the consideration of this bill below what it is now established by law; but I 

have resisted increases, because I have a general belief that the law as 

it stands at present gives l>rotection enough, although of course admitting that there may be exceptions; and because I believe that this condition of things having been established, whoever sought to change it, 

upon him was the onus; that when the manufacturer demands more 

than the law gives him-a law framed after a Tariff Commission the 

members of which were all protectionists in the proper sense of the 

term and which, after thorough investigation, recommended substantially the enactment that is now on the statute-book, known as the tariff 

law of 1 83-we might stand upon that unless the manufacturers could 

demonstrate to us that by reason of changed conditions additional duties 

were necessary. If the onus is not upon the manufacturer upon whom 

is it? If the Senator from Connecticut is willing to say that the onus 

is not upon the manufacturers, so fur as he is concerned, and that a mere 

suggestion of the manufacturers is enough for him, I beg him to observe that when he espouses their cause here and asks that these duties 

be increased, the onus is upon him then. 

Mr. PLATT. I think I have met it. 

111r. PLUMB. Very well; suppose the Sena.tor has; that is only in 

response to the demand which I have made that that should be done, 

and in demanding that I can not be said to be complaining of the man- ufacturer; but if I do, as I think I do, at least I intend to do, represent,- to some extent at least, the consumer, I claim that those persons 

for whom I thus speak or assume to speak have a right through me, if 

through nobody else, to demand that if an additional burden is to be 

:put upon them it shall be consistent with the public interest and that 

demonstration shall be made before the additional duties are conceded. 

The Senator spoke about the art with which the importers disguise 

the foreign goods and deceive the alert American purchaaer int.o the 

belief that he is buying an American knife. That did not sound very 

well coming to me from the representative of the keenest of all the 

Yankees on this continent, those of Connecticut. Bnt that, Mr. President, whatever else it may be, is not an argument for the increase of 

duty. That ought to be met by a specific provision here t.o the effect 

that whoever does commit, by labeling or designation of his goods, a 

fraud upon the purchaser shall be prohibited from entering his goods 

at all. 

There are statutes of various States providing against the adnltera.-

tion of food, the deception to purchaset'S by misleading labels and adverti ements, and so on, and a bill is on our Calendar now proposing 

to enact from the standpoint of the Government of the United States 

something similar in regard to articles of food. If th.e American manufacturer of knives is being imposed upon because his more acute adversary on the other side makes goods in the similitude of those of the 

American manufacturer for the purpose of deceiving, and labels them 

in such a W"Y that the American purchaser is deluded into buying the 

German knife when he intended to buy the American knife, that 

ought to be met by something more effective, something more jnst to 

the consumer than tbe imposition of an additional duty. 

I make the -proposition for the modification of the duty as proposed 

by the committee, believing that it is ample, and it certainly is not less 

than 10 and in most cases fully 20 per cent. higher than the existing 

duty. 

Mr. CAB.LISLE. Mr. President, on this subject of having goods 

manufactured abroad and putting the American name upon them or 

manufactured in this country and having the name of a foreign establishment put upon them, I desire to call the attention of the Senator 

from Kansas to the sixth section of this bill as reported, on page 137: 

That no watches, watch-cases, watch-movements, or parts of watch-move-

-ments, or anv other articles of foreign manufacture which eha.11 copy or simulate the name or trade-mark of any domestic manufacture or manufacturer, 

shall be admitted to entry at the custom-house of the United State!! except for 

exportation, unless such domestic manufacturer is the importer ot the same. 

That is to say, all the other people of the United States aret-0 be prohibited by the sixth section of this bill from having any articles manufactured abroad and their names or the names of any American establishments put upon them except oar domestic manufacturers, and they 

may have articles manufactured abroad and have the name put upon 

them to show that they have been manufactured in this country. 

Mr. PLUMB. That is to say, he may not only defraud the American purchaser, but he may defraud himself? 

l\Ir. CARLISLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MORGAN. Tha.t provision has been on the statute-books since 

1871. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Yes, but that does not make it right. 

Mr. MORGAN. No, it only makes it worse. 

Mr . .ALDRICH. The committee will have some modification t-0 offer to that section when it is reached. 

l\Ir. MORGAN. Mr. P.raiident, I have been very much impressed 

with the statement made now the second time by the Senator from 

Kansas [Mr. PLmm]~ He st.ated on the last day, I believe, of last 

month, and has repeated to-day, that the manufe.ctnrerB in the United 

St.ates will select those protected articles out of which the ..greatest 

profit can be made in the manufacturing industry, and will leavo open 

the market to importations -upon other classes of arlicles very _nearly 

I 

. ' ~·· 

allied to them; and the Senator has very justly indeed complained 

that that is a practical fraud upon the law. 

Since he mad~ that statement some days ago I have been trying to 

:find out, if I could, whether this subject had been inquired into, 

whether any report had been made which would indicate particular 

articles that had been subjected to this kind of treatment, and I have 

not been able to make any discovery about i.t of any specific fact at all. 

But everybody says (and I suppose there is no gentleman on the committee who is prepared now to deny iL) that this fraud, for such it is 

in a certain sense, has been committed under several tariff laws, and I 

regret to say that I believe the proposed law we are now considering 

furnishes a number of opportunities for its repetition. 

For instance, take the articles mentioned in paragraph 159, the article of pen-knives, etc., razors, and razor blades, where the differences 

in the articles imported are very slight and where the general rate of 

dnty is put at 50 per cent. ad valorem, but where 12 cents a dozen is 

put upon one class, and 50 cents upon another, and $1 a dozen on 

another, and $2 on anotber, all included, however, in one bracket in 

in this report. It seems to me that an opportunity is here furnished 

to carry out the very evil the Senator from Kansas has several times 

alluded to, and I think tbat the attention of the Senate ought to be 

sharply drawn to this subject, for the manufacturers as a class in the 

United States certainly have not the right to have duties put up upon 

those classes of goods which they them elves manufacture, and no corresponding increase in the rate of duty upon those goods nearly allied 

to them which they do not happen to manufacture, but which they 

leave open to the importer. 

Here are large importations made into tile United States of foreign 

manufactured productions, notwithstanding we have upon the same 

classes of goods what :might be considered a prohibitory tariff, or very 

nearly prohibitory, and the question is, how is it that under the classification, for instance, of para,,,i:rraph 159 there sbould be very large importations from forejgn countries, notwithstanding the average high 

rate of the tariff upon the wliole list of articles emI>raced in that classification and included in this report by a bracket? It must be that th~se 

importations come in precisely in the way the Senator from Kansa.s has 

indicated, by the American manufacturer seizing upon those particular items of protected industry where he can make money and giving 

up the market to the importer as to the others, nevertheless making 

the people of the United States foot the bill. 

Large importations come in here and we are astonished to find that 

that is the case, notwithstanding the high protective tariff that we have, 

notwithstanding the strenuous effort th.at we are making to shut out 

competition. I suppose it is this factwhichaccountsfor the other fact 

that is constantly apparent upon the face of this report and upon tbe 

action taken upon it here in the Senate, where the duty is advanced, as is asserted, for the mere purpose or the mere sake of keeping down competition, which means, of course, when reduced to its true signification, that we are preparing a new market for a new series of manufact· 

nrers to come in and take hold of a subject and make money out of it 

that heretofore has been given up freely to the importer. 

Now, there is no use, it seems to me, of our burdening the people of 

the United States by thus creating new industries in the United States 

which our men have not found sufficiently profitable heretofore to take 

hold of. I think that it is a subject the Senate ought to consider in 

respect of all these schedules. I am told that this fact is more apparent perhaps in the woolen schedule than in any other. 

I trust that the Senators in charge of this bill on both sides will give 

some attention to this subject and be able to inform the Senate whether 

the opinion stated by the Sena tor from Kansas is j ustifi.ed by the facts, 

for, if it is, a great wrong has been perpetrated and is still to be perpetrated under this bill. 

Mr. VEST. .Mr. Pre~ideut, I want t-0 call att-ention to one matter 

which has been alluded to in the debate in connection with this schedule, and tbat is the manner in which the tariff duty is imposed. It is 

not the ad valorem system or the specific system, but a combination ot 

both, so much ad valorem and then so much specific duty, or a com- pound duty. As a matter of course the great object of the Senate 

heretofore, I believe on both sides, ha.s been to prevent frauds by un- dervaluation, and there was no party alignment in regard to that question. The customs-administration bill received the support of both 

Democrats and Republicans. 

It is alleged that, in regard to cutlery, undervaluation is mucn more 

easily carried out than in regard to other articles of imported merchandise. Now. let us look for a minute at the modus operandi of the system which 1s recommended bythe Finance Committee. Take, for instance, ~knife costing a broad 52 cents per dozen. The proposed d nty is 

50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem, ma.king a com pound duty 

or an aggregate duty of 76 cents. Now, suppose the importer invoices 

this knife at 50 cents a dozen instead of 52 cents, being 2 cents less 

than the cost, he pays a duty of 12 cents a dozen and 50 per cent. ad 

valorem, or 37 cents instead 76 cents. My friend from Kentucky [Mr. 

CARLISLE] tells me that the specific duty is four times as great in one 

case as in the other. The dishonest importer by simply lowering 2 

cents upon the cost of the article pays 37 cents, while the honest importer, putting it at its original cost, pays 76 cents. 

.- • • I 
. ' .· . \- . :·: ..... 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE;· 8867 

Now, take another knife in this table, a knife costing $1. 54 a dozen. 

The proposed duty is $1 a dozen and 50 per cent. ad va.lorem, or $1. 77. 

All the dishonest importer need do is to invoice his knife at $1.50 a dozen, or 4 cents less than the actual cost, and he pays a duty of 50 

cents a dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem, or a dollar and a quarter 

duty instead of $1. 77. So you can carry it all through these compound 

duties, and that is the result. It is an invitation to undervaluation; 

it is a. temptation which none but a strictly honest man would be able 

to resist. 

Mr. President, the only fair way to impose a duty is by ad valorem 

rates. If a specific duty be adopted it bears most heavily upon the 

cheaper grades and is, therefore, to that extent unjust; butanad val~ 

rem duty would be an honest, fair imposition, and would operate on all importers alike; whereas under the system adopted by the Finance 

Committee we throw open the door a.nd bring about exactly the state 

of things to prevent which we passed the customs-administration bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon agreeing to 

the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLmm]. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reading of the bill will proceed. 

The Chief Clerk read paragraph 160, as follows: 

160. Swords, sword-blades, and side-arms, 35 per cent. ad valorem. 

Mr. V ANGE. Mr. President, I ha.ve no amendment to propose 

there, but I simply want to call the attention of Senators and of the 

country, as far as I can, to the fact that the sword-blades, side-arms, 

dirks, and things of that sort we let in at 25 per cent. duty, and on the t.race-chains that pull thep1owwechar~e43lper cent. duty, which 

is for the encouragement, I suppose, of agriculture! 

Mr. BLAIR. Our Southern friends do not complain of that, do 

they? 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. BLAIR. I am astonished at that. I supposed they use the former more than they do the latter. 

Mr. BUTLER. .Ah, that is a great mistake. 

The Chief Clerk read paragraph 161, as follows: 161. Table knives, forks, steels, and all butchers', hunting, kitchen, bre11.d, 

butler,vegelable, fruit, cheese, plumbers', pa.inters', palette, a.nd artists' knives, 

of all sizes, finished or unfinished, valued at not more than $1 per dozen pieces, 10 cents per dozen; valued at more than Sl and not more than $2, 35 cents per dozen; valued at more than $2 and not more than $3, 40 cents per dozen; valued at more than $3 and not more than $8, Sl per dozen; valued at more than $8, $2 

per dozeu; and in addition upon a.II the above-named articles 30 per cent. ad 

valorem. All carving and cooks' knives and forks of a.11 sizes, finished or un- finished, valued at not more than 84 per dozen pieces, SI per dozen; valued at more than $4 a.nd not more than $8, 52 per dozen pieces; Yalued at more than SS and not more than Sl2, lf3 per dozen pieces; valued at more than $12, $5 per dozen pieces; and, in addiMon upon all the above-named articles, 30 per cent. ad valorem. 

Mr. l\IcPHERSON. I move to strike out the paragraph a.nd substitute what I send to the desk. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. Strike out the paragraph, being from lines 1 to 

24, inclusive, on page 39, and lines 1 and 2, on page 40, and insert in 

lieu thereof: 

161. Table-knives, forks, steels, and all butchers', hunting, kitchen, bread, 

butter, vegetable, fruit, cheese, plumbers'. painters', palette, and artists' knives or all sizes, finished and unfinished; all carving and cooks' knives and forks or all sizes, finished and unfinished, 85 per cent. a.d valorem. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp'>re, The question i-:; on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Mr. President, my amendment proposes to 

leave the paragraph exactly where the existing law is. I have men.- tioned all of the different kinds of knives used in paragraph 161, and 

have stricken out all which relates to the cost and the specific duty to 

be levied, and simply made a duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem, exactly 

where the existing law leaves it. 

I wish to ca.11 attention to the fact that in the ad valorem column, 

in the total on page 39, they make the existing rate of duty 35 per 

cent., and they carry it out at 35 per cent. in their computation. They 

say in explanation that- · The pro po ed change in this paragraph is made necessary for the reason sug- gested in paragraph 159. 

We turn to paragraph 159 and we find thatTh is is a change from a.d valorem to specific rates. This industry is gradually being destroyed by undervaluations of foreign importations and inadequate 

protection. The lwerage of the proposed ratesSay the committeeis believed to be not greatly in excess or existing ad valorem rates. 

Mr. Pre ident, this requires some explanation. A comparison of the 

present ad valorem rates, as stated here by the committee, with the 

real ad valorem rates, as will be found to exist when you come to dissect the whole paragraph, ns it is printed on page 35, shows no increase 

whatever on the existing rates, and yet the rate on some of the knives 

and forks is as high as 80 per cent. 1md none lower than 40 per cent.; 

and yet the compiler of the comparative statement gives the percentnge of the whole pa.ra.graph s.t 35 per cent., while in reality there is not one article on the whole list that pays less than 40 per cent., and some as high as 80. 

,· 

First we takeKnives andforks. 

Valued at- Duty. 

50 cents per dozen................................... 10 cents and 30 per cent ... 75 cents per dozen ............................. ............... do ........................... . Sl per dozen ............... , ....................................... do ........................... .. 

We come now to the next grade: 

Valued at- Duty. 

lfl.25per dozen ......................................... 35 cents lllld 30 per cent ... $1.50 per dozen. ................................................. do ........................... .. 

g·~~ra.~~~~~~~::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::J~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Now we go to the next grade: 

Valued at- Duty. 

$2.25 per dozen......................................... 4.0 cents and 30 per cent .. . 

Equal toPer cent. 50 

43 

4.0 

Equal to--

Per cent. 58 

53 

50 

471 

Equal toS2.50 per dozen .... m . . ......................................... do ........................... .. $2. 75 per dozen .................................................. do ............................ . 

Per cent. 47 

46 

41 

Now, we will goto the next grade: 

Valued at-- Duty. Equal toPer cent. $3 per dozen.............................................. Sl and 30 per cent ... ......... 63 $4 per dozen ....................................................... do ............ ........ .• ....... 55 

Knives and f<>rks. 

Valued at-- Duty. 

S5 per dozen.......................... ..... ............ ei and 30 per cent ........... . 

~ ~=~ ~~~::::::::::::·.:::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $8.50 per dozen ....................................... ~2 and 30 per cent ........... . 10 per dozen ................................................... do ............................ . $20 per dozen ................................................... do ............................ . 

Equal toPer cent. 50 

47 

44 

53~ 

50 

40 

On carving knives and forks the following table is also of importance: 

Carving-knives and for ks. 

Valued at-- Duty. 

, 

E-~if ~~~~:~::;i::;:;:;::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:~~f ~~:~~~~::f~:::::;;;;::: ~5 per dozen ............... '"""" . . ............ ..•... &2 and 30 per cent .......... . 

f ~:~i:t.~:~:~jJj~~~~~~;::;~\:~~~-:: :~~1;~-~~;~~::i:i::::·: $12.50 per dozen ... ................ ....... ....... ..... 65 and 30 per cent .......... .. $15 per dozeru ................................................... do ........................... .. 

~ ~:~ ~~~:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::J~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

I Equa.l toPer cent. 

80.00 

70.00 

63.33 

55.00 

70.00 

63.33 

58.50 

55.00 

63.33 

60.00 

57.25 

70.00 

63.00 

55.00 

5080 

You go through this whole list and you find here that th"' average rate 

of duty proposed, as I take it from a paragraph that I find in the report of 

the importers who appeared before the committee, upon carving knives 

andforks is 67 percent., whileit iscarriedoutherein the computation 

in the table of the committee at 35 per cent. I find it to be about the same in my computation. In butcher-knives these gentlemen state 

that the average rate of duty is68 per cent., as against the35 percent. 

here given in the computation of the committee, and that nearly agrees 

with my statement, although I will saythatthiscomputation made by 

the importers has been made from actual invoices, while mine has been 

made upon assumed invoices within the range of prices mentioned in 

the bill. 

Mr.VANCE. I wish to ask the Senator from New .Jersey, with his 

permission, if the proper discrimination is preserved in this schedule 

against the cheaper articles. 

r· 

....... .~ .,. ,.· . 

. ' .-,.. ·- - ~ . 

':i.. 

"'. 

I 

·' 

·~. 

. 

-·.· 

_, ·' 

, • I 

: ... -, .. -. 
; 

.. , 

, . ~, 

' 

" __ , .. 

: 

.... 

... · 

........ ,.... __ : I - I 

, - ~ 

CONGRESSIONAL· REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

Mr. McPHERSON. Of course it is. 

Mr.VANCE. They are taxed higher than the higher-priced articles? 

Mr. l\lcPHERSON. Most assuredly. 

1\fr. VANCE. That is all I wanted to know. I am satisfied with that assurance. Mr. McPHERSON. It could not do anything else but happen that 

way. With this high specific rate of duty it will be impossible that 

the lower-priced goods shall not represent the highest ad valorem rate. 

Mr. PLATT. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro temvore. Does the Senator from New Jersey 

yield to the Senator from Connecticut? 

Mr. McPHERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PLATT. The table which the importers present and which the 

Senator is reading from does not claim that. If be will notice in that 

very table the 14-inch knife, which of course is higher priced than the 

4!-inch knife, bas a lower per cent. of duty put upon it; while the 

12-inch has a higher one, and the 10-inch knife has a higher one, and 

the 4~ -inch knife is at practically the lowest duty. 

Mr. McPHERSON. The Senator will find out if he will look at the 

table, if he has it before him, on page 475 of this report, "carving 

knives and forks," that where a knife costs $1.46 per dozen the proposed rate of duty under the bill is 99 per cent., and when you get 

down to where they are $9. 73 per dozen the rate of duty is only 61 per 

cent. As I stated before, this computation made by the importers is 

taken from actual invoices at cost. The Senator will observe that fa 

my computation I go from $2 to $2.25, $2.5'0', $3, $3.50, and $4 cost, 

but I do not take the actual invoic~. 

Now, I turn to the statement of the importer and here we find in the 

actual invoices a cost of $1.46 per dozen, $2.19 per dozen, $3.65 per 

dozen, $5.11 per dozen, and so on, proving that these were actual invoices from which the computation was made. 

1i1r. VEST. If the Senator will permit me, in answer to the inquiry 

of the Senator from Connecticut, he will see that the carving knife and 

fork which costs abroacl $1.46 bears under this bill a duiy of 99 per 

cent., and theduty on the$15 cost is only 63 per cent. 

Mr. McPHER..qON. I stated that, and I have further stated that. 

under the computation made by the importers, butcher-knives! in Table 

J, on the seventy-first page of the hearing before the Committee on Finance, they state in an explanat-0ry liDe at the foot of that table that 

68 per cent. will be the average on the articles found there. They describe these articles by some commercial designation. For instance, 

there are articles known to the trade as 4~-inch, 5-inch, 6-inch, 61-inch, 

and so on, and they give the rate of duty on those pti>rticular knives 

and give the current value. Now, here is the value of a 6-inch knife, 

foreign value $1.22 per dozen, and the duty is 80 per cent. 

Mr. PLATT. Will the Senator permit me right there to state (be- cause of course neither he nor the importer desires to carry any false 

impressions about it) that if he will examine the table he will see that 

they have made a mathematical error there? The duty according to 

their own figures is only 70! per cent. or about 71 per cent, instead of 

80. I call attention to it because it is manifestly nn error and ought 

not to go out in that way. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I want to say to the Senator from Connecticut 

that I have not verified this statement made by the importers. I did 

not think it necessary to do so; but as I intended to put in the RECORD 

a computation which I have verified, and which I will vouch for, it 

will answer all my purposes. I ask leave to put in the RECORD a table 

·n connection with the statements that I have made touching this paragraph. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo;·e. To which the Chair hears no ob-

- jection. 

l\Ir. McPHERSON. The figures do not differ Yery materially from 

the other. 

The table referred to is as follows: 

A Rates of duty under-

~ i~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~- Increasedad ~ valorem rate 

f Existing H. R. 9.u6. from- ~ law. 

f 

161 35 p. ct ... ~ 

I 

l 

Table-1:nfres, etc. 

10 cents per dozen and 30 per cent ..................... .. 85 cents per dozen aud 30 per cent ..................... .. 4.0 cents per do:P:en and 30 per cent ...................... . Sl per dozen and 30 per cent ............................... . t.? per dozen and 30 per cent .............................. .. 

C''.J.rt:ing, etc. 

PC'/' cent. 4.0 to 50 

4.'it t-0 58 4.1 to 47 

44 to 63 

40 to 55 

SI per dozen and 30 per cent.. ......... ...... ............... 55 to 80 

$2 per dozen and 30 per cent................................ 59l to 70 

i3 per dozen and 30 per cent................................ 57. 25 to 63. 33 

$5 per dozen and 30 per cent .. .... ......... ................ 50. 80 to 70 

l\Ir. PLUMB. I wish to move an amendment to the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] on the subject of tin-plate and to have ihe amendment as it would be if my 

amendment to it were adopted printed in this connection in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be received. 

Mr. CULLOM. Let it be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be read. 

The CHIEF CLEEK. It is proposed to add to Mr. SPOONER'S amendment the following additional proviso: 

Provided further, That pending said proclamation by the President all iron or steel sheets or plates, or taggers iron, coated with tin or lead, or with a. mixture 

of which these metals or either of them is a. com~onent part, by the dipping or any other process, and commercially known as tin-plates, terne-plates, and tag- gers tin, shall pay a duty of 1 cent per pound, a.nd in addition there sha.ll be 

paid to the manufacturers of tin-plates, terne-plates, a.nd taggers tin in the 

United States from the Treasury, out of any monev therein not otherwise ap· propriated, a bounty or 1 cent per pound, unde1·such"rules and regulations as the 

Commissioner of Internal ReYenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the 

Treasury, may prescribe; 

So as to make the amendment proposed by Mr. SPOONER read: 

Prodded, That on and after October l, 1896, tin-plates and terne-plates light.er 

i11 weight than 63 pounds per hundred square feet shall be admitted free of duty, 

unless it shall be made t-0 appear to the satisfaction of the President (who shall 

thereupon by proclamation make known the fa.ct) that the aggregate quantity of 

such plates lighlerthan 63pounds per hundred square feet produced in the United 

States d uriug any of the five years preceding .June 30, 1896, has equaled one-third 

the amount of such plates imported and entered for consumption during any fiscal year after the passa.be of this act, and prior to said October l, 1896 : Provided, 

That the amount of such plates manufactured into articles exported, and upon which a drawback shall be paid, shall not be included in ascertaininK the amount of such importations: And provicled further, That wares tinned in the United 

States, and manufactured from black sheets of said weight made in the United 

States, shall be considered tin-plates produced here within the meaning of this 

provision: Providedfm1.lte1·, That pending said proclamation by th" President e.U 

iron or steel sheets or plates,ortaggers irou,coatcd with tin or lead, or 'vith a. mix· tu re of which these metals or either of them is a component part, by the dipping or any other process,and commercially known as tin-plates,terne-plates,and tag- gers tin, shall pay a duty of 1 cent per pound, and in addition there shall be paid to the manuracturers of tin-plates, terne-plates, a.nd taggers t·in in the United 

States from the Treasury, out of any money therein not otherwise appropriated, a. bounty of 1 cent per pound, under such rules and reg:ulations as the Commissione1· of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treas- ury, may prescribe. 

Mr. PLUMB. I ask that my amendment may be printed in con- nection with the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. 

'.rbe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed to be 

ofrered by the Senator from Kansas to the amendment heretofore offered by the Senator from Wisconsin will be printed in the RECORD in 

connection therewith, and it will be separately printed also. The question is on agreeing to tbe amendment proposed by the Senator from 

~ew Jersey [Mr. McPHERSON] as a substitute for paragraph 161. 

1\Ir. PLATT. The manufacturers of table cutlery filed an answer 

to each claim made by the importers, showing, as I think, very decided error and misapprehension, to say the least, in the statement 

made by the importers. I am not going through with that; but with 

regard to the particular table which the Senator from New Jersey last 

alluded to, the answer quotes the t.able (Table "J," butcher-knives) 

as submitted by the importers, where they say "average 68 per cent. agains~. 35 per cent. at present; but the principal knife, 6-inch, will 

have to pay 80 per cent. duty;" and the answer says: 

l tis simply astounding that the aboye should be submitted. Note the errors: Note arithmetical error in line 4, which should be 71 per cent. inslead of 80 per cent.,a.nd which makes average 64 per cent. instead or 68 per cent. This is presuming the duty to be corrootly stated. But in addition to above error the duty is stated incorrectly. 

.Ur. McPHERSON. What is the Senator reading from, may I ask? 

Mr. PLATT. I am reading from an answer submitted to the Fi- nance Committee to this table of the importers, Table J. They say in 

addition: 

The specific duty in the table is the duty originally asked for by the manu• facturers, but which the commiUec reduced on the three lower grades 

That is, they have taken, not the duty which is in the bill, but the 

duty in the paragraph submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means 

in the Housecorrecting simply errors, assuming the estimate of importations to be t:orrect. The average is 55 instead of 68 per cent. The 6-inch is 59 instead of 80 per cent. And, furthermore, the table includes only cheap beech-handle butcher-knives, 

and omits entirely the line of higher-priced butcher-knives, which the very party who presented this table imports by the thousands of dozens. 

brr. CARLISLE. M.r. President, I do not propose to enter at length 

into the discussion of this paragraph, but we have reached a. point of 

this bill which aftects every household in the whole country. These 

articles are used in every mansion, cottage, and cabin from one end of 

this land to the other; and we ought not to increase the duties upon 

them unless some ~ood reason can be given for it. 

I have no information on the subject as to what the present profits 

of the manufacturers of these articles are upon their sale.s made in this 

country; but I do know that they are able to export them and sell 

them abrbad in competition with like wares made elsewhere, and I believe, and think it can be established, that they are selling them 

abroad cheaper than they are selling them at home; that under tho 

protection afforded them by the present rate of duty, 35 per cent. ad 

valorem, they are able to sell to their own fellow-citizens in the United 

States at a higher price, and do sell them at a higher price, thnn they 

sell to foreigners. 

- ... -

... 
• I' 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8869 

I have here the Illustrated Australasian and South American, deYoted to the extension of commerce between the United States and 

Canada and Australasia, South America, South Africa, Mexico, India, 

China, and Japan, and on page 17 of this edition, which is May 1, 

1890. I find the advertisement of the Northampton Cutlery Company, 

which I believe is one of the largest cutlery establishments in the United 

States, with illustrations of their goods and the prices at which they 

propose to sell them for export. I furnished this paper to an expert, 

a dealer in these articles, and asked him to take these prices and compare them with the prices at which these articles are sold here to our 

own people. 

He procured through a friend from the Northampton Cutlery Company their own price-list for the home market and the catalogue which 

I hold in my hand, and which the Senator is at liberty to examine 

(handing the paper to Mr. Pr .. ATT], and made the comparison which I 

have here, and to which I call the attention of the Senate, remarking, 

in the first place, however, that there is a discount of 4 per cent. from 

these prices, both at home and abroad, so that that makes no difference 

when we come to compare them, there being exactly the same discount 

in each case. These knives are known to the trade by their numbers and by the 

character of the handles which they have upon them, bone, ebony, 

iron, etc. No. 942, which the Senator from Connecticut will find on 

that list, is advertised to be sold abroad for $14 per gross. It is sold 

here at $16 per gross, less 4 per cent. discount in each case, making a 

difference of 15 per cent. against the American purchaser and in favor 

of the foreigner. No. 742, which the Senator will find on the list, is 

sold abroad at $14.50 per gross and here at $17 per gross, a difference 

of 17 per cent. No. 542, which the Senator will also find there, is sold 

abroad at $19 per gross and here for $22 per gross, bein!? a difference of 

16 per cent. 

I will not consume the time of the Senate in reading all these items 

but will take a few only for illustration. I desire to say once for all 

that all these numbers are contained in this price-list and illustrations 

of the wares are given in the catalogue. No. 802 is sold abroadfor$4 

per gross and here for $4.50, a difference of 12 per cent. No. 402 is 

sold abroad for $5. 75 per gross and here at home for St).75 per gross, a difference of 18 per cent. No. 802 C is ~ld abroad for $4.50 per gross 

and here for $5.25, a difference of 17 percent. No. 402 C is sold abroad 

for $6. 25 per gross and for $7. 25 here, a difference of 16 per cent., and 

so on all through the list of these articles. 

That price-list came directly from the company, accompanied by a 

letter which I have here upon my desk, showing a difference between 

the price at which they sell these articles to their own fellow-citizens 

and the price at which they sell them abroad, ranging from 10 to 20 

:rnd 25 per cent. I believe as high as that in some cases. · 

Mr. McPHERSON. I wish simply to supplement what the Senator 

is saying by asking him a question, if be knows anything about the 

fact, which is alleged to be a fact, that nobody could get these prices 

from the borne producers of the articles unless he is known to be en- gaged in the foreign trade; that no member of this Senate can go to 

that producer of these knives and get an option upon a certain number 

of knives for a forei~n market, unless be is known personally or vouched 

for by somebody who was known, before the price-list would be given 

him, so secret are they keeping it. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I am not advised upon that subject, and of course 

I am not prepared to make any statement about it. When we come 

to butcher-knives, No. 890, the knives being known to the trade as I 

stated, by their number, we find that the home price upon one size, 

oue length of blade (it is not necessary for me to read the various 

lengths), is $1. 20, and for export $1, a difterence of 20 per cent., and 

running up to another size where the home price is $4.25 and the price 

for export is 52.80, or a difference of 52 per cent. in favor of the foreign purchaser against the American purchaser. In No. 955 the discrimin~tion against the domestic purchaser and in favor of the foreign 

one ranges from 30 per cent. up to 70 per cent. in one case, 58 per cent. 

in another, 53 in another, 55 in another, 41 in another, 38 in another, 

etc. 

Ur. President, as I said, without having any knowledge upon the 

subject as to what profits these gentlemen are making upon their sales 

to our own people, I think it is a fair conclusion that if they can ship 

these goods abroad and sell them at the prices advertised in this paper 

they do not need any additional protection to say the least, and might; 

for the benefit of the American consumer, submit to at least a reason- nblc reduction in the rates of duty. 

If there be no objection, l\Ir. President, I will ask to have these 

tables1 although they are somewhat Jong, printed in the RECORD, so 

that not only Senators, but other gentlemen outside who feel interested 

in this subject and who may desire to examine them and controvert 

them may have an opportunity to do so, because if these statements 

are not true I want the facts to be known. All we want here, or at 

least all we want in the discussion of this question, is the actual facts 

a.s they exist; and when the Congress of the United States is called 

upon to legislate concerning a private business of the people I insist 

that we have a right to know what the condition of that private busi- ness is; and that no man bas a right to screen himself from investigaI • -

tion when he comes here and asks an increase in the rates of duty by 

saying'' this is a private matter and relates to my private affairs." If 

he asks us to legislate for the purpose of increasing his private profits, 

we have a right to know what his private profits now are before we 

comply with bis demands. I will send th_ese tables to the desk and 

ask that they be printed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection to the 

printing of the tables in the RECORD. 

The tables referred to are as follows: 

Comparison of home and e.1.port prices of Northampton Cutlery Company 

(see the Australasian, May 1, 1890, page 17). 

[Both home and export prices are subject to cash discount of 4 per cent. This 

is not reckoned in the following calculation, as it does not affect the com- parison.] · TABLE-K.l!<J:VES. 

No.942. No.'742. No.542, 

Home price ............................. ...................... per gross ... $16.00 317.00 $22.00 

Export price .......................................................... do...... 14. 00 14. 50 19. 00 

Home price higher than export price* .............. pe1· cent ... =rs1=17 - 16 

--- -------------+N_o_._soo_. No.4.02. No. 802 c.\No.4.02 C 

Home price ................................... per gross.. $4. 50 lf6. 75 

Export price ....................................... do...... 4.00 5. i5 

Home price higher than export price* .. per ct .. 12 18 

*Average, 16 per cent. 

$5.25 

4.60 

17 

$7.2& 

G.25 

1G 

No.877. No.677. No.477. No.877C. No.6770. No, ,77C. 

Home price, per gi:oss .................... . Export price, per gross .................... . 

======= ====== ~======l========l======= :======= Home price higher 

than export price, per cent.• ............ .. 

•A ver~e, 19t per cent. 

No.885. No.685. No.~. No.885C. No.685C. No.485C 

--------1-------------1-----1-----1-----" 

Home price, per gross ... .. . ............... 810. 50 811. 50 813. 50 

Export price, p e r gro!!9 ..... ......... ....... 8. 50 9. 00 11. 00 

Home price higher 

than export price, per cent.• ............ .. 23 

•A veralire, 23t per cent. 

$11.50 

9.50 

I 

812.50 

10.00 

25 

$14..50 

12.00 

No.855. No.6M. No.455 

--------------------1-------~ 

~~~~r:r~~- ::::::: :: : :::::::·:::: :::::::::::::::. ::::::::~~~ ~d~~~ ::: s1~: ~ 'if:~ 

Home price higher than export price* ....... per cent ... ~ 16 1 

•Average, 14! per cent. 

$16.50 

14.25 

16 

No.822. No.622. No.422. No.822C. No.622C. No.422C. 

Home price, p e r ll2. jO'OS9 ..... • •• ............. Sll. z:5 812. 25 $15. 25 25 $13. 25 $16. 25 

Export price, per gross . .. .•• .. ....... ...... 10. 25 10. 75 13. 50 ll. 25 11. 75 14. 50 

====-=----=====·= Home price higher I . I than export price, , per cent.* ........ ...... 10 14 13 9 13 12 

*Average 12 per cent. 

No. 940. No. 74.0. No. 540. 

¥~~erf~~~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~.~-~~-~:::'==~1_~_:_~_, __ 

1

_k_5:=bo=5 ... ~~'~i_?:_ig Home price higher than expo:rt* ......... per cent.... 18 • 21 j 13 

•Average 17 per cent. 

' . \ 

~. 

. ... 

'· 

·. 

.. , 

..... 

,.·. 

t • _. 

• • : - ;r. : 

. \.- ~. 
•. 

,.. 

- ~. \ .. -... 

,•. \ 8870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE.· .AUGUST 20, 

.. · 

I • 

'. 

.· 

:... -. 

BREAD KNIVES. 

No.895. No.989. 

~~o~tp~r~~;;::::::::: :::::::::.: :::·::.::: ::·:·:.'.'.'.·:::::.::::·:.::·.·::.:.~. ~~7:_~::: ~: gg ~: ~ 

Home ]>rice higher than export .................. , .......... per cent ... =-=zo=1~ 

BUTCHER•KNIVES. 

No. 013. 

------------i-""•_' _in_c_h_. -5-_i_n_c_h. 5Hnch. 6-ll>ch. 1•Hnch.17-inch. 

llome price ............ per dozen... SL 45 $1. 45 $1. 55 SL 65 $2. 00 $2.40 

Exportprice ................... do...... J.10 1.10 ~ 1.45 1.55 I 1.80 

Home price higher tba.n export, I I 

per cen~• ......... .................... .... . 33 33 30 15 30 33 

8-inch. 9-inch. 10-inch. 12-inch. 14-inch. 

-----------·----1---1------------

Home price .......... ............... per dozen... $3.15 $3. 90 $4. 90 ~. 90 $9. 50 

Export price ................................. do...... 2.10 2. 45 3.15 4.15 6. 50 

H~:t.z~~~~ .. ~~~.~~ .. ~~~~ .. ~~-~~~·~ .... ~~~-- =:r=:= == ~:=----: *.Average. 4.1 per cent·. 

No. 890. 

41-inch. 5-inch. 5l-inch. 6-inch. 6l-inch. 7-inch. 

------------·---- ------------

Home price ............ per dozen... Sl.10 

Export price ................... do...... . 90 

Home price higher than ex- port* ...... ~ ............... per cent .. . 22 

Sl.20 

1.00 

20 

$1.30 

1.10 

20 

$1.40 

1.20 

17 

$1. 75 1.35 

30 

82.00 

1.60 

25 

8-incb. 9-incb. 10-inch. 12-inch. 14-inch. 

---------------1---1------------

Home price .......................... per dozen .. . Export price ..................... ............ do .... . $2.50 

1.90 

S3.25 

2.35 $!.25 2.80 

$6.25 

4.30 

$8. 75 

5.75 

H~°:i~. P.~~~ .. ~~~~--~-~~ .. ~.~~~ .... ~~-· ==3=l=i===4=0:;1===5=2~==45=1;: ==52= 

*.Average, 32 per cent. 

No. 955. 

4Hnch. 5-inch. 5t-inch. 6-inch. 61-inch. 7-inch. 

------------1----1--------------

Home price ............ per dozen... $1. 80 

Export price .................... do...... L 30 

$1.80 

1.40 

$1.90 

1.50 

$2.00 

1.55 82.35 

1.70 

$2.75 

1.95 

sell to Americans for. I think that statement refutes itself, and that 

nobody will d-0ubt that there is some mistake either about the foreign 

price or the price in the United States. 

I know that very many of these cases where it is said that American 

goods have been advertised to foreign customers at cheaper rates than 

they were advertised to American customers have come about in this 

way, that the American manufacturer or American dealer has a pricelist, and from that price-list he makes certain discounts to wholesale 

dealers, and indeed very often to smaller dealers, so that large pur 

chasers like the Simmons Hardware Company in St. Louis, and Hibbard, Spencer & Co. in Chicago, get a considerable discount upon their 

large purchases over what small dealers do. That is a part of trade 

everywhere. 

l\ir. VEST. Will the Senat.or permit mejust there? 

Mr. PLATT. .Allow me just to finish the ideas I have in my mind. 

I know that is the custom with regard to a good many articles and 

with regard to some cutlery establishments. 

Mr. VEST. "Mr. President, I have in myhand The Engineering and 

Mining Journal with the following statement : 

?.""EW YORK PRICES-CURRENT. 

May 3, 1890.-Discounts are for export only. 

Discounts are not to the American purchaser, but '' for export only.'' 

Then follow all these different articles. In connection with what has 

Just been said by the Senator about axes,· here is the Collins ax, with 

the price to the AmeriC'.an purchaser and with the discount to the foreign purchaser. Here is the statement: 

In the interest of the extension of the markets for American manufactures The 

Engineering a.nd Mining Journal hR.S secured the services of gentlemen thoroughly acquainted with the export trade and with foreign markets, a.nd it of· 

fers its services to foreign buyers who may desire information concerning any 

article whatever of American manufacture. No charge will be made for these 

services, either directly or indirectly through commissions on goods purcha.."ed. The proprietors of The Enitineering and Mining Journal are neither commission 

merchants nor exporters, but they have many sourceR of information, both at home and in foreign countries, and place these a.t the service of manufacturers 

and exporters here, and of importers and consumers in other countries. 

Here are photographs Of the Collins ax:, of the adze, of the shingling 

hatchet, and a number of other articles of that kind, together with 

butcher-knives, table-cutlery, spoons, bellows, claw-hatchets, etc. 

Mr. PLATT. Who puts out that advertisement? 

Mr. VEST. Who puts it out? 

Mr. PLATT. Who is responsible for it, the manufacturer or the 

dealer? 

Mr. VEST. I suppose the manufacturer. I do not take it that these 

people are doing this for love, for nothing. Here is a reputable paper, 

as reputable as there isin the United Stat~, the Engineering and Mining Journal. I have got two more papers here. Here is a copy of the 

American Mail, a journal containing the American prices, togethe~with 

photographs of the identical articles, agricultural implements and three 

hundred and fifty-odd other articles, together with the foreign edition 

of the same paper, published in Spanish, which I got in Buenos Ayres, 

and they are identical-the same numbers, the same photographs-with 

discounts of from 25 to 75 per cent. in favor of the foreign purchaser. 

Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, I will proceed now with the statement 

I was about to make. It is a. well known habit of the trade in all articles to have a list price from which discounts are made to customers. 

I know manufacturers who have list prices from which they make 20, 

30, 40, or 50 per cent. discount, and sometimes even greater. They rep- Home price higher than ex- port* ....................... per cent ... 38 30 28 30 38 41 resent what the prices were once, and the discount represents the prices 

8-inch. 9-inch. 10-inch. t.i'inch. 14-inch. 

----------------1---------------

Home price ........................ per dozen... $3.50 $4.50 $5.50 $7.50 Sl0.00 

Export price ................................. do...... 2. 25 2. 95 3. ~ 4. 75 6. 00 

H~:i.*~~~~~ .. ~-i.:~~.~ .. ~~~~ .. ~:::.~~~'..~~- =:r=:='=: ~ ==: 

•.Average, 46 per cent. 

Mr. PLATT. To show that there is not a. great deal of this busin~s done, it may be well to refer to the amount of cutlery that has been 

exported from the United States dnrin~ the past fiscal year ending 

June 30, 1890. The entire exportation of cutlery of all kinds was 

$102,851, and no more. For the year previous it was practically the 

same, $102,252. That includes, I suppose, axes and edged tools, which 

it is known we export in considerable quantities, the Collins Company 

having established such a reputation for their axeB and edged tools as 

that they have quit.ea market abroad fo:r them. So the whole exportation of cutlery, including, as I suppose, edged tools, has been only a 

trifle over $100, 000 in the past year. That answers the suggestion that 

the manufacturers here were able to export cutlery to a considerable 

ex.tent. 

Now, it is impossible for tne to answer~n the moment the statements 

made by the Senator from Kentucky with reference to the discounts 

allowed by this concern irr Massachusetts, which! know nothing about, 

to foreign purchasers; but I submit that it is simply ridiculous to say 

that they propose to sell to a foreigner at one-half what they actually 

.•. 

,. 

to which the article have fallen, but the list price has been continued 

the same. 

Mr. VEST. That will not do. These are of the same date. 

Mr. PLATT. That is a habit well known and well understood in 

the trade. I do not say that it accounts for the advertisements that 

occur in these papers, because I do not know anything about them. I 

have never yet in any of these papers found such an advertisement 

which had a responsible name attached to it. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Is not the Northampton Cutlery Company a re 

sponsible institution? 

Mr. PLATT. I have not seen that statement, but the papers which 

I have seen have been the prices at which the papers stated these ar ticles could be sold to foreigners. I understand the advertisement of 

the Northampton Cutlery Company does not speak of discounts to for 

eign purchasers, but that is gathered by getting the American price. I 

only know that I have seen the statement made that this discount was 

given to foreign purchasers of articles manufactured by different manu 

facturers with whom I was acquainted, and I sent to them and asked 

them whether they llad an thorized any such advertisement OJ," made any 

such difference in prices to foreign and American purchasers, and in 

every instance where I inquired they said that they knew nothing about 

this advertisement, stating that the prices at which the goods were of. 

fered to foreigners were higher than those at which they were sold to 

large wholesale dealers in the United States. I simply know that as to the manufacturer& of whom I have inquired I have received that an 

swer. With regard to the price -ot table-knives to the consumer, knives 

that are used by the'.masses of the people, well known in trade as '' No 

1878, wood handles, 7 'and '' No. 900, iron handles,'' the price per gross in 

t ... 
· .. 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 

~872 WM $9. 75, in 1880 it was $6. 32, and in 1890, $4. 34 per gross. 

These are the common knives, the cheap knives, such as are used by 

the masses of the people, and there was a fall of more than 50 per cent. 

in the price of those articles ma.il.e by American manufacturers since 

1872, or, if yon take it the other way, the price in 1872 was more than 

100 per cent .. higher than is the present price. • 

I have heard a great deal of this talk about discounts made to foreign 

purchasers. So fur as cutlery is concerned, the cutlery establishments 

have only managed to sell abroad $102,000 worth, and that includes 

axes and edge-tools. What the secret is of these offers abroad I do not 

know, but I know that we were just told by one of the Senators, the 

Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB], that the American manufacturer 

ougb t to struggJe for the foreign trade, and then we are told if be offers 

to sell to the foreigner any cheaper than he does to the American be 

is doing a very wicked thin!?. 

It may be possible that, for the purpose of carrying out the advice 

of~be Senator from Kansas and acting upon the theory which has been so often acted upon by foreign manufacturers, the .American manufuctmers have in some instances offered to sell their goods in foreign markets below cost. But I submit that any statement which pretends to 

shoIT tha.t any American manufacturer offers to sell in a foreign market 50 per cent. less than he would sell the same goods in an American market must have something behind it which, if known, would be 

a foll explanation. 

:Mr. BLA.IH. Mr. President--

Mr. HISCOCK. I wish to ask the Senator fromKentncky [l\Ir. CARLISLE] a question. 

Mr. BLAIR. I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PL.A.TT] to a statement which he has just made that in 

1872 the prices of cutlery were more than 100 per cent. greater than at 

the present time. I have here the letter from Governor Goodell, the 

governor of our State, and a practical manufacturer, which I read ye::r 

terday, and in which he says: 

In 1872, when I commenced the manufacture of cutlery, the prices were just abont two and one-half times wha.~ they are to-day. 

Mr. PLATT. That was pocket cutlery and this is table cutlery. 

Mr. BLAIR. Both pocket and table cutlery. He manufactures 

both. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Mr. PresidentMr. HISCOCK. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield to me, I 

beg to ask him a quest.ion or two bearing on the statement he has 

made. 

.Mr. CARLISLE. A question of me? 

Mr. HISCOCK. Yes. I wish to call the Senator's attention tocer- • tain facts and provisions of law. Of course on the question of the discrimination which bas been referred to by theSenatorfromKeutucky, 

I was not acquainted with this advertisement until I saw it here, bot I 

have seen what doubtless other Senators have seen, publications of 

the same character relative to agricultural implements, showing that 

our manufa.ctnrersofagrieultnral implements were disposing of them 

to consumers abroad at quite heavy percentages less than they did to 

consumers here. This is on the same line as that. Now, then, I call 

the Senator's attention to this provision of the law, and I ask him 

deferentially· whether he supposes it may in any way account for these 

differenti:U rates in favor of the foreign consumer. Section 3019 ot 

the Revised Statutes provides: 

There shall be allowed on all a.rticle.s wholly manufactured of materials imported, on which. duties ha.ve been pa.id when exported, a drawback eqt.\al in amount to the duty pa.id on such materials, and no more, to be ascertained 

under such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Seeretsry of the Treasury. 

All this cutlery may be made from steel imported~ Knives may be 

made from imported goods for the purpose of exportation. I do not 

know that they are and I do not know that they are not. I simply 

suggest, if that is the case, whether this la.w would not account for the 

ability on the part of one manufacturer to discriminate in favor of the 

fol'eign purchaser. 

Now, referring a little farther on to the statements which have been 

made with respect to agricultural implements, I see that section 3020 

of the Revised Statutes provides: 

Where fire-arms, scales, balances, shovel.II, spades, axes, hatchets, hammers, 

plows, cultivators, mowing-machines~nd reapers, manufactured with stocks or handles made of wood grown in the united States, are exported for benefit of 

drawback under the preceding section, such articles sbo.11 be entitled to such 

drawback in all cases when the imported mat~rial exceeds one-half of the value 

of the material used. 

I read these two sections as bearing upon the manufacture of agricultnraJ implements here and the sale of them abroad and as bearing 

on the qa.estion of table-cutlery, and I ask whether it would be possible, under the operation of the first section I read, to account for the 

discrimination which has been referred to in favor of the purchaser 

abroad as against the conmmer here. 

. Mr. CARLISLE. Mr. President, the Sena.tor from New York asks me a long question, and, inferentially at least, gives this as an explanation--

.Mr. HISCOCK. No, I did not undertake to give it as an explana- tion. I was stating the law. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Then, why, sir, if it is not an explanation, is the 

·~ 

question pertinent at all? Of course, under the policy which has been 

adopted, and which is to he extended under this bill if it should become a law, our manufactnrer3 who choose to send abroad and import 

into this couII:try the products of pauper labor as materials to be used 

in their factories, may export their product and sell it to the foreigner 

cheaper than they sell it to the American. That is a part of the policy 

of your tariff law as it stands now. 

Mr. HISCOCK. If the Senator will pardon me-- Mr. CARLISLE. Certainly. 

Mr. HISCOCK. It seems to me that he is getting away from the 

suggestion. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I will stick to the suggestion. 

Mr. HISCOCK. The suggestion, or the question, rather, which I 

asked wns to see whether the section which I have read might not account for this remarkabie state of facts that has been developed. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I was coming to that, and I was going to say, if 

that will satisfy the Senator, that these patriotic gentlemen, whose 

representatives on this floor have denounced us on this side as being the 

ad vocate.s of the products of pan per labor from abroad, are themselves 

engaged in the business of bringing to this country the products of pauper labor and then putting them into manufactured articles and selling 

them a broad, and they can sell them to the foreigner che:lper than they 

sell them to the American, and they will do it under your tariff faws, 

under the very policy which you haT"e adopted and which yon propose 

to extend by this bill, because heretofore, under the sections which the 

SenatoT from New York has read, the exporter ofthefinished products 

made from imported raw material received a drawback of only 90 per 

cent., but you propose in this bill to give him 99 per cent. to enable 

him to sell still lower in the foreign market than he can sell now. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I still insist that the Senator from Kentucky does 

not entirely meet the question which I put to him or give me the information which I sought. As I understood him and the Senator from 

Missouri, they were :reading here some advertisements which indicated 

that the manntacturer, making his goods from the same raw material, 

was selling them abroad cheaper than here, thus cheating the American consumer, and that here was something which should be exposed. 

The idea. was, "Are you going to put on this increased duty, this increased protection to these people if they can sell these things abroad 

lower than they can sell them at home; or if they can sell at this low 

price a.broad, why increase this duty, why raise it?" It was in answer to that argument which the Senator from. Kentucky made-and 

the same argument, I think, was made by the Senator from Missouri 

the other day on agricultural implements-that the manufacturers did 

not need this increased protection when they could afford to sell these 

implements abroad 10, 15, and 20 per cent. cheaper than they were selling them for here. I am not now arguing the policy of this provision; 

I simply say it is the law. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I will answer if the Senator will give me an opportunity. 

Mr. HISCOCK. And I want to know whether this provision of law 

does not account for the sales of the!!e goods at a less price abroad than 

the manufacturers are compelled to charge here, by reason of the drawback or on accountof the duties which are imposed upon the materials 

used in the manufacture of goods exported abroad. 

Mr. CARLI8LE. I have answered the Senator once, clearly and 

distinctly, in my judgment, that if these people are importing the 

products of pauper labor and manufacturing them here, they can, under 

this Republican tariff act of 1883, send their finished products abroad 

and sell them to the foreigner cheaper than they sell them to the 

American people. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I askedMr. CARLISLE. I insist now, with all deference to the Senator, 

that I shall be allowed to complete a sentence. 

But there is not a particle of evidence here, and I venture to say 

that ·none can be produced, to show that t.hese kni vts are made from 

imported steel. 

Mr. HISCOCK. Now the Senator is in the re::i.lm of speculation. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Where is the Senator from New York? 

Mr. HISCOCK. I am without it, because I have exhibited to you 

a provision of law, and manufacturing under this the manufacturers are enabled legitimately to sell these goods abroad cheaper than they 

can sell them here. Your argument w::i.s that there was no reason 

why they could sell the goods abroad cheaper than they could sell 

them here, and therefore there should not be this increased duty. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I said there was no reason stated, and I say it 

again. The Senator from New York when he pats the question now based upon section 3019, or whatever the section' is, of the Revised 

Statutes, should accompany that with a statement that they do import 

their materials, and then I could answer him. I have already answered 

that if they import all of their materials, the steel, the bone, if it is 

a bone handle, the ebony, if it is an ebony handle, or the pearl, if it 

is a pearl handle, and all the rivets, and everything that goes into the 

manufacture of the article; if they can do that they can, under this 

law, send their product abroad and sell it cheaper than they can sell it 

here. 

Mr. HISCOCK. That answers my question. 

.-

; 

--

· .. 

.- . 

. , 

I·.• 

-.... . ' 

. ' 

. ' 

~ ·' . '. 

- ,. 

: 
--

' ' 

. . \ 

:' 

-.. 

·-' ·- "'. · , ..... " 

8872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.ATE~ AUGUST 20, 

Mr. CARLISLE. The Senator does not say they have.done that. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I simply say this--

Ur. CARLISLE. I must insist upon being allowed to make a statement. At least I must be allowed to finish a sentence, but I will now 

yield to the SenP.tor from New York entirely, if he desires. 

~Ir. HISCOCK. I beg pardon. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. Does the Senator from Kentucky 

decJine to be interrupted?-

Mr. CARLISLE. For the present. • I was about to say that this bill which we now have before us propose to still further extend this policy and put it still more in the 

power of the domestic producer to export the products of his industry 

and sell them abroad lower than be can sell them at home. 

If it is good policy to allow our manufacturers to import their raw 

material and convert it into the finished article and receive a drawback 

of 99 per cent. of the duties paid, which is almo3t equivalent to the 

whole, it amounts to almost free trade in that article, and why is it 

not good policy for the American people to give them free raw materials to manufacture for sale to our own fellow-citizens, so that they 

can sell them here to our own people as cheaply as they can send them 

abroad and sell them to others? 

But we are told, I will say in further response to the Senator from New 

York, that we are making as good steel in this country as can be made 

anywhere in the world, and the gentlemen who appeared before the 

Committee on Ways and Ueans during the present session of Congress 

stated that the steel made in this country was superior to that made 

abroad. I do not believe, therefore, that the manufacturers of cutlery 

made in this country import either their steel which goes into the knife 

or the bone or the ebony which constitute~ the handle; and they must 

import every part of the ma.terial before they can receive one cent of 

drawback. 

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] states, in response to 

what I said a few moments a.11:0, that the ma.nufacturers of America!l 

cutlery have sold very little abroad, and that, be says, is a complete 

answer t-0 my statement. But, sir, it would make no difference whatever if we bad not sold one dollar s worth abroad and if we never bad 

sold one dollar's worth abroad. I have shown, if this advertisement 

be a gen nine one-and that bas not been disputed-that they are offering to sell abroad at these prices, and they would not offer so to sell 

unless they could afford to do it. The fact that the forei~n purchaser 

has not accepted their offer and has made no purchases from them is 

wholly immaterial. The question here is, for what price can these 

men afford to sell their prod nets? and, as to the question of discount, I 

stated that the discount was 4 per cent. · 

Mr. PLATT. That is for cash. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Four per cent .. -! have the letter here-for ten 

days, and 2 per cent. for thirty or sixty days; and this discount is made 

by them upon the prices stated here in this advertisement and upon 

the prices for the home market. So there is no difterence whatever in 

that respect. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I should like to have the Senator 

furnish the authority for the statement that the same discount is made 

upon sales both at home and abro.id, because that is one of the important elements in this discussion. 

Mr. CARLISLE. l\Iy authority is a gentleman largely engaged in 

the hardware business in the city of New York. I am not authorized 

to state bis name at this moment, but I have no doubt that the gentleman will give me full authority to do so as soon as I can communicate 

with him. He is a gentleman who dAals in those articles, who buys 

them from this very company and other companies in the UnitiedStates, 

and knows, I think, what he is talking about and understands the 

prices and the cour;;e of trade in regard to these articles. That is all, 

Mr. President, that I desire to say. 

Mr. PLATT. I have now The Engineering and :Mining Journal, 

which the Senator from Missouri read from, of May 3, 1890. Thi<; 

journal is responsible for these statements, and nobody else. I will 

read what it say;;: 

Discounts are for export only. 

Then it says: In the int.e1·est of tile extension of the markets for Americnn manllfactm·ers 

The Engineering and Mining Jonrnal ha-'1 secured the services of gentlemen thoroughly a-0que.inted with the export trade and with foreign markets, and it offers its serv ices to foreign buyers who may desire information concerning any article whatever of American manufacture. No charge will be made for these 

services, either directly or indirectly, through commissions on goods purchased. 

The proprietors of The Engineering and l\lining J ourna.l a.re neither commission 

merchants nor exporters. but they have many sources of information, both at home and in fore ign countries, and place these at the service of manufacturers 

and expor!ers here and of importers and consumers in other countries. 

So that the only per.;mns responsible for the statement that "discounts are for export only" are the people who pubiish this journal. 

I am not a merchant, but I think I do know something about some 

of the lines of goods which are advertised here; and here is what is 

called "flat ware,' 1 or silver-plated ware, with a discount of 60. 2 per 

cent. I undertake to say, without speaking accurately, that the prices 

given are the list-prices of the manufacturers, and that the discounts 

:ue the prices which the manufacturers sell for in this country. Take 

another article, which is made near my home-laundry appliance:J, 

·-

wr~gers. The Empire wringer I notice in this publication is put at a discount of 40 per cent. 

I think I am not mistaken in saying that that is the regular discount 

from the list-price which that manutactory makes, and I think, if these 

advertisements were examined, it would be found that the discounts 

here are simply the discounts which the manufacturers offer to Ameri-

<'an purcba.sers, and that neither the manufacturers nor the dealers in 

these articles are responsible for saying that the discounts ''are for export only. '

1 I know as well as I can know anything without being in 

the business that some of the discounts mentioned here are not discounts "for export only." 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, the statement oftbe Senator from New 

York [Mr. HrscocK], that these manufacturers are enabled to sell so much more cheaply abroad by reason of the deduction on account of 

using material from abroad, is simply the expedient of desperation. 

Three weeks ago I made this statement in the Senate, giving the names 

of some of these companies, and I have it in my printed speech now 

before me. I charged these facts then, and there bas been no denial 

and no pretense or attempt at denial. I stated then that there were 

one hundred and sixty-six American manufacturers who were making 

these enormous discounts to the foreign trade and selling for much 

less to the foreigner than to the American consumer. 

Mr. ALLISON. Will the Senator yield to me a moment? 

The PRESIDENT pro fempore. Does the Senator from MiMouri yield 

to the Senator from Iowa.? 

Mr. VEST. Certainly. 

Mr. ALLISON. I beard the Senator from Missouri make the state· 

ment, which he now repeats, and there being a large manufactory in 

my State that exports reapers to the Argentine Republic, I had a friend 

in the House of Representatives, who lives in that district, write to 

that establishment and ascertain the truth of that statement as applied 

to them. I have their letter in my committee-room, in which they 

state that their price to the people in the Argentine Confederation is 

precisely the home price, with freight and commissions added. So 

there is at lea.st one establishment that manufactures agricultural im· 

plementa which does not cbar~e less to foreigners than it does to out own people, and I will say in that connection that this establishment 

has two thousand eight hundred reapers, made in my own State, which are now in use in the Argentine Republic. 

Mr. MORGAN. Do they pay the freight on these goods as they go 

out? 

l\Ir. ALLISON. No, sir; that is paid at the other end. The prices 

are the same to the people who purchase these reapers in the Argen· 

tine Confederatfon as they are to the dealers in this country. I merely 

wanted to state that in connection with the statement of the Senator 

from Missouri that there is no denial of it. 

l\fr. VEST. That is no argument. 

Mr. ALLISON. I know that is no argument. I am stating a fact. 

Mr. VEST. And it is no denial of the f!tatement I made this afternoon or of that which I made three weeks ago. 

Mr. ALLISON. It is an absolute denial, which I repeat, as affect· 

ing one branch of manufacture that deals in a foreign country. 

Mr. COCKRELL. One firm, not one branch. 

Mr. VEST. One firm, and that does not disprove our statements 

any more than one swallow makes a summer. One firm may not do 

iii, bat this discount, as I showed in my speech befol'e and can show 

again, marked '' f. o. b., ''is the discount on board the v~el in the city 

of New York. To put this matter beyond any sort of doubt, so that 

there can not be any quibble about it hereafter, except from the blindest sort of partisan feeling, I propose now to put. in evidence as I did 

before, but more distinctly, the absolute proof upon it. 

I did not choose to bring in anything in the way of extracts from 

newspapers, but calling for the original documents themselves, I procured with very considerable expense and trouble, considering the size 

of the pamphlet, a copy of the " Suplemento " of the American Mail 

and Export Journal, sent to Buenos Ayres and distributed there and 

published in Bpanish, of exactly the same date of the home edition, 

which I have in my hand. This is published in "New York, April, 

1890, whole No. 155," and the foreign edition is published with this 

at the head of it, as the Spaniards write it: "Abril de 1890, Suplemento No.155. TheAmericanMail and Export Journal. PrecioCorriente Ilustrado de Manufactnras y Productos Americanos. Para Ex· 

portacion. '' 

It gives the price-current and is illustrated with the identical pho-

_tographs and the same numbers, of the Ann Arbor Agricultural Company, and not only the same numbers and the identical photographs, 

but the same patent marks upon the representations of the implements. 

Of coarse, they could not change the pa.tent marks into Spanish, and 

with that exception they are identical in the two publications. Here, 

for instance-and any Senator can see for himself, if he wan ta the truthis ''No. 30, instrumentos de agricultura., Ann Arbor Agricultural Company, $4." This is the export priceof "The Advance plow, No. 30," 

and by the home edition it is shown that the same plow is sold to the 

American farmer at $8, just double. 

Mr . .ALLISON. I wish the Senator would explain what is the situation, because I think this is a very important matter. 
·, 

.. :--.. .,,._-

.......... ·, 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 8873 

Mr. VEST. Yes, it is. ing, according to the Senator from Iowa, but they sell by them and 

Mr. ALLISON. Is it true that our manufacturers are so prosperous they are bound by them. 

in this country that they can afford at a profit to manufacture and sell Mr. VEST. Mr. President, here in the foreign edition of the same articles in foreign countries at a less price, and, as stated, a largely less date, this supplement to the same paper published in New York, is a price, than they do at home? If so that is an argument of weight, and note in Spanish, of which I happen to know very little: ''For informal submit that thus far in this statement neither the Senator from Ken- tion apply to Howard Lockwood & Co., New York;" obviously the 

tucky [Mr. CARLISLE] nor the Senator from M':is.~ouri [Mr. VEST] now agent of the Ann Arbor Agricultural Company, and they are prepared 

shows that the price to a class of dealers in a foreign country is less to furnish at these prices. No. 34, for i.Q.Stance, is a plow. There is 

than it is to the same class of dealers in this country. Of course where the photograph ofit [exhibiting] sold in Buenos Ayres or anywhere in a manufacturer sells to a great pierchant, who in turn sells to another South America for $9, and here [exhibiting] is a photograph of the 

merchant, and he in turn to a customer, there is a profit upon each identical plow, with the same marks, the same number, and identiof these sales. cally the same in every way, sold in the United States for $18-just 

It seems to me tba.t, in order to establish this difference in price, it double. 

must be shown that the sale is identical in both cases. Now, I say So it is all through the entire list. Here is what is called the "Clipvery frankly to the Senators, if they can show to me an instance where per,'' a celebrated agricultural implement manufactured at Ann Arbor, a manufacturer is so prosperous in this country that be can sell to a which is sold abroad for $9.50, marked" Clipper." I have seen them 

wholesale foreign dealer at a price, and make a profit, largely less than in my State with the metallic mark upon them, and here is the identihe sells to the whol~ale dealer in this country, that then they have cal duplicate of it, a'' Clipper" with the same mark upon it, which 

made an argument which makes against the increase of duties upon sells in the United St.ates for $18. 

that particular article. Mr . . BLAIR. The Senator supposes the United States prices to be the 

I submit to the Senator from Missouri that his statement does not retail prices, does he? 

show that, beeause evidently these sales are made to men who are l\Ir. VEST. It is just the price to anybody who wants to buy. 

great dealers in the Argentine Republic, if you please, or any other Mr. BLAIR. That is the retail price. 

country, and they sell there as they sell here. If the Se.nator can es- Mr. VEST. Yes, I have no doubt it is the retail price there and hertt. 

tablish that the manufacturers sell to the same character and class of Mr. BLAIR. That is the retail price in the United States the Senapersons abroad at a less price t.han they do here, then I think he will tor is giving, and he assumes that. It seems to me that it is a little 

have made an argument that ought to be answered, but I submit that absurd to suppose that in New York they are sending a circular abroad 

the statements thus far do not show that. that is to reach the individual consumer. They can only reach the inMr. VEST. Mr. President, what evidence is there that they are not dividnal consumer throu~h a foreign retail dealer, who knows that inselling t-0 exactly the same sort of people in the Argentine Republic as in dividual and is al:ile to deal with him in his own language. 

the United States? Mr. VEST. I want to anwer that proposition-if you can dignify · Mr. ALLISON. That is what I want the Senator to show. it by calling it a proposition-by reading from the Ann Arbor AgriMr. VEST. Is there anything in the advertisement to show ltat cultural Company's advertisements, and they are published as regular 

they sell t-0 large dealers only? Here is the identical advertisement advertisements in this journal: 

[exhibiting], with photographs of the agricultural implements and Ann Arbor Agricultural Company, manufacturers orthe Advance iron mower with the numbers and patent marks upon them, and a juryman who for one or two horses; Advance chilled plo,vs,Advancemiddle-breaker plows, 

ldh · d d" hi "d h b d" Advancebay-tedders,foroneortwohorses; Idealbalance-dumprakes,forone won es1tate to ren er aver ict upon t S ev1 ence oug t to e IS· or two horses; six Rizes of Improved Cummings' and Clipper cutters, three 

franchised and shut out from jury service for the rem::iinder of his sizes, with or without masticator attachments; horse powers and jacks; twolife. horse cultivators; Neeb's patent Tiger hay ar.d cot.ton presses, which have nc) 

Mr. ALLISO~. As I understand from the statement made by the equal. 

Senator and the argument he produces, be gives the wholesale price in Then follow the prices in the United States attached to each one of one instance and the retail price practically in another. these agricultural implements. 

Mr. VEST. I do no such thing. On the contrary, I give the same Mr. ALLISON. Will the Senator yield to me? 

paper with the foreign and the American edition, with the same arti- Mr. VEST. Certainly. . cles photographed, the same numbers of the same agricultural im- Mr. ALLISON. The Senator quotes this plow company as selling 

plements, and nothing is said about wholesale or retail, and no pre- a plow for $9 to the people of the Argentine Republic, while the home 

tense of it, and it exists alone in the imagination of the Senator from price is $18. I want to ask him if he believes that the mannfacturera 

Iowa. of plows are making an actual profit of 100 per cent. upon agricultural 

The Senator says, and undertakes to make an argument upon it, that implements sold to farmers in this country? 

if the manufacturers can sell so much more cheaply abroad, then it is Mr. VEST. Mr. Presideut, 'here are the facts. Why have not these an argument in favor of the protective system. gentlemen expJained the matter before? These agricultural implements 

Mr. ALLISON. Oh, no. here -

Mr. VEST. The question is not what they can afford to do1 but Mr. ALLISON. I have tried to explain in relation to one factory 

what they are doing. Here we are putting 45 per cent. duty upon ag- that I know of in my State. l.~ultural implements, and then so much upon iron, and so much upon Ur. VEST. But the Senator has not brought one single fact here. 

steel, and~ much upon lumber, that goes into these implements, and He comes here with far-fetched, imaginary things, and says ''Whycan 

yet they are not satisfied with these duties; and they are not only to be not this be so and why can that not be so?" 

continued, but tltey are to be increased, and when we come here and Mr. ALLISON. I ask the Senator if he believes that a.11 the manu- show by proof as ''strong as proofs of Holy Writ" that they are sell- facturers of plows in the United States to-day are making 100 per cent. 

ing in the foreign market for one-half of what they are selling for at upon the plows they sell in the United States, assuming that they are home, that Senator says, "You have not made out the case." selling to these foreign people at cost. 

Take plows. Here is the photograph of plow No. 30 [exhibiting], Mr. VEST. I make no assumption about it. Nor am I required logidentically t.he same as that which is sold in this country, and that ically to answer anysachproposition. I am simply directing myselfplow is sold in Buenos Ayres for $4 and sold in my State for $8. and I do not propose to be switched off from it-to one single assertion 

Mr. ALLISON. To whom in your State? I have made, and which I have proved, and that is that these agricultMr. VEST. To anybody, black, white, or red, anybody who wants oral-implement-manufacturers in the United States charge our people 

it and has got the money to pay for it; and I challenge the Senators to double what they do the foreigner, and they do it to make money, and 

show any distinction as to purchasers. they are able to do it, and yet they say because of this--

Mr. VOORHEES. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri Mr. ALLISON. Very well, then; they make 100 per cent. upon 

whether these adverti.sements say that these implements must be sold every article they sell to the people of this country? 

in any numbers or whether they do not simply designate that one of Mr. VEST. Very good. Let the Senat-0r settle that with them. 

these articles may be bought for that price, with not a. word said about Mr. ALLISON. I want the Senator to settle it. 

wholesale or retail. Mr. VEST. I am not called upon to settle it. Here are their adMr. VEST. There is no limitation. vertisements and they show these prices, and there can be no question 

Mr. VOORHEES. But each article can be bought for that amount in regard to it. 

of money in Buenos Ayres? I Mr. BLAIR. If the Senator will allow me-- Mr. VEST. Certainly. The PRESIDENT pro tcmpore. The Senator from Missouri can only 

Mr. ALLISON. I should like to ask the Senator from Indiana a be interrupted by bis own consent. Does the Senat.or consent? 

question. Does be suppose that these manufacturers go into South Mr. VEST. Certainly. 

America and move around through the int-erior of the country to sell Mr. BLAIR. I was going to make a suggestion to the Senator that 

these plows to the farmers? I believe one reason why these people have never explained this matter, 

Mr. VOORHEES. No, but if they were advert.ising to sell by although brought before the attention of the country three or four 

wholesale they would say so. Who ever heard of anybody advertising weeks ago, was because they thought it was a joke. 

for sale an article at a price that he could not retail it at, without say- Mr. BUTLER. If the Senator from Missouri will permit me one ing so? Such a thing is absurd t.o my mind. Their advertisements moment, I should like to call the attention of the Senator from New 

go all over the country. Their advertisements would have no mean- Hampshire to the circumstance that these facts have beeusubstantia.11y 

'.· 

} . 

.."?. 

. ~ 

_j .... 

·." 

;~. 

1 

; 

: -. ·i 

: \. 

._.,,.i 

-.. 

.- -

·' 

-,. 

.. 

' . ;·~ 

·-

--

... .. -·· ·- . ./ ,. ·. : ... ~ .. 
I ' 

/-

'. . 

'. 

.· 

.· 

'·· 

. ~ 

· .. ., 

.: . ' "' ..... .. I • 

'• .-

8874 C.ONGRESSIONAL R.EOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 20, 

published in The New York World fol' weeks and weeks and weeks at 

a time. 

Mr. VEST. I have just got a paper here that Rhows the same. 

Mr. BUTLER. And! have never heard any denial of them, and it 

seems to me a little late to attempt to meet this proof by mere imaginary and conjectural propositions, such as have fallen from the Senator 

from Iowa and the Senator from New Hampshire. 

:Mr. ALLISON. I have stated as an absolute factasrespectsone important establishment, from most reputable men in my State, who say 

that they charge the same price for the articles they manufacture to the 

people abroad as they do to the people at home. 

Mr. BUTLER. 80 far so good, .M.r. President. 

Mr. ALLISON. That is the only thing I stated here. 

Mr. BUTLER. That relates to but one single establishment in this 

country, and the public press have been advertising for months this 

general proposition, and I have heard no denial of it; and it is so well 

understood that I did not suppose anybody would attempt to deny it. 

I have not the proof here--

Mr. VEST. Here is the proof [exhibiting papers]. 

Mr. BUTLER. I want to make another statement. I think it is 

thoroughly well understood that you can cross the line into Canada 

and buy almost any agricultural implement manufactured in the 

United States cheaper there than you can buy the same implement here. 

I do not think that is questioned by anybody. I have beard it stated, 

and I have uever beard it denied, that you can go to Mexico or go to 

Canada and buy the identical article very much cheaper than it can be 

bought in the Unite:l States. 

Mr. VEST. 1readin1888, in the tariff debate, the testimony of a 

circular-saw-manufacturer, Mr. Emerson, and I have got it here to read 

again when we reach that item in the bill, in which he testified before 

the committee that he exported bis circular saws to Canada and paid 

15per cent. tariff duty and sold them for 15 per cent. less than be did 

in the United States, and he said he made money, that he sold at a profit. The Disston saws, that are made in Philadelphia, are sold in 

England cheaper than in the United States; so are sewing-machines, 

and all those machines in which iron and steel are the largest component 

materials. 

And this is a subterfuge that was not known to these people. I 

hold in my hand The New York World of June 13, 1890, with exactly 

the same photographs and the same charges, making these same statements, and they were sent all over this country, for that is a paper of 

the largest circulation of any in the United· States, and yet we are 

told this is a new thing and these manufacturers have been caught 

unawares. The truth is they are plundering fhe people of the United 

States under the cover of this protective tariff. They come to us.and 

say, "Give us additional duties in order that we may pay better wages 

to American labor and sell more cheaply to the.American collSllIDer," 

and yet they furnish the American consumer at this enormous price, as it turns out to be, and I care not whether it be wholesale or retail, it 

does not change the proposition, and they are able to go abroad and 

sell jn South America at one-half the price and make money, or else 

they would not do it. 

It was said in another branch of Congress that this could be accounted for because they sold old and useless agricultu.ral implements 

nnder patents which had gone out of use, where there had been such 

improvements as to render the implements made at first almost valneIess, but I produce photographs showing the same patents, the same 

implements exactly, and that is exploded, and the naked, bald truth 

in all its enormity Rtands out before the people of the United States 

for their action upon it. 

Mr. HAWLEY am] Mr . .PLATT rose. 

Mr. VEST. A word more and the Senators can both take the floor. 

Returning to this clause of the bill which bas been under debate, ninet.een-twentieths of the table cutlery used in the United States is made 

in this country, and the tables show that, out of $3,000,000 worth for 

consumption, only $200,000 worth wa.s imported, and the American 

manufacturers absolutely control the market, and but for a few brands 

'\vhichare sold upon the brands alone, they are absolute owners of th~ entire market ~or table cutlery. As to the profits they have made, if 

the Senators will turn to the latter part oftheir pamphlet, which was 

furnished by the importers, they will find the following: 

Treasurer's report of the L ainson & Goof~~ ~fan facturing Company, Jamw.1y 1, 

ASSETS. 

~J~~!~f :~:Z:D:/~:Hi~::::;:;;;~:LH~;:;::YiU jj:g · 

Stock, S. Falls, imperfect...................................................... 1, 363. 36 

Stock. S. Falls, in process.......... ........................................... 51, 114. 28 Stock, S. Falls, crude ..... ............... ...... ................................ 28, 820. ~ 

Stock, S. Falls, tools and machinery......... ..... ............ ..... ... 68, 000. 00 

5~~i.itr:~~~:~:::.~:·::::::~;:.:::::;;:~::.~~:;;.~::.::.::~~:::::i::~::::::~:: ~: ~ ~ Tota.I assets....................... .. . ... .. ... ........... .... ... ...... .. .• ..... .. .. .•.. .... SS311 653. 65 

-\ 

LIABILITIE.S, 

Bonds issued .. .......... ....... ... .. ... . ..... ... ...... ...... ... ... $153, 750 Bonds less not used ... ... ... .... ........... ...... $11, 500 

Bonds less paid .......... "'" .............. ~...... 5, 500 

Total liabilities ............................................................................. $155, 863.17 

Netassets,Ja.nuary 1. ..................................................................... 175,790.48 Net assets reported January I, 1889 ....... :................ ............................. 159, 967. 95 

Bala.nee for 1889 .. .... . ..... ... .............. ............ ....... .... .. .. ... . ..... ... ...... ... 15, S?..2. 53 

That is one of the largest establishments in this business in the 

United States. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I will say for the information of the Senntor from 

Missouri that the concern to which he alludes was in bankruptcy at 

the time the statement was made, and this is the statement of the 

assignee or the receiver of that concern. It is not the earnings upon 

the capital of the company, but the earnings upon the debts of the 

company, for they were, at the time the statement was made, in bankruptcy. · 

Mr. VEST. If that is bankruptcy, it would be a good thing for 

every mn.n in the United States to be in debt and in the hands of a re- ceiver. If that is-the sort of bankruptcy that obtains in Rhode Island, 

it is a new phase of that question. This receiver must have been the 

most agile and successful business man ever known on the face of the 

earth, if he could make that exhibit as a receiver and still claim that 

the cestui que trusts were bankrupt. No, Mr. President, that will not 

do. The simple statement of the fact that nineteen-twentieths of all 

the table cutlery used in the country is manufactured in the United 

States shows that no additiona.1 duty is necessary, for the American 

manufacturers have absolute control of the market. 

Mr. PUGIL The hour is approaching when we usu.ally adjourn, 

and I have a bill to which I desire to call the attention of the Senate 

for five minutes. It is purely a local bill, which has once passed the 

Senate, and I ask the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] to 

allow the tariff bill to be temporarily laid aside, in order that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] who reported this bill from the Committee on Commerce may have it passed. It will not take five minutes. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I should like very much if we could have a vote 

upon the pending proposition, as I think the discussion has been ex· 

hausted, and then I will yield to the Senator. 

Mr. PUG.ff. Ifwe can get a vote, I. will not urge the request at 

present. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senate ready for the question 

on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. 

McPHERSON]? 

Mr. PAD DOCK. Let the amendment be again reported. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. The amendment will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out paragraph 161, and 

in lieu thereof to insert: Table knives, forks, steels, a.nd all butchers', hunting, kitchen, bread', bPJ.ter. vegetable, fruit, cheese, plumbers', pa.inters', pa.Jette. and artists' kni~of'ltll 

sizes, finished and uufinished, all carving and cooks' knives and forks of all sizes, finished and unfinished, 35 per cent. ad va.lorem. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment. 

The amendment was rejected. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the Honse of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON 

its Clerk, announced that the House ha:! passed the bill (S. 2594) pro~ viding for an inspection of meats for exportation. prohibiting the importion of adulterated articles of food or drink, and authorizing the President to make proclamation in certain cases, and for other purposes 

withamendmentsin which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.' 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the amendment 

of the House of Representatives to the biU (S. 3714) to apply a portion 

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTBl.AL EDUCATION. r 

of the proceeds of the public lands to t he more complete endowment . · 

and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts established under the provisions of an act of Congress, approved July 2, 1862; which was, on page 1, line 15, after the word 

' 'dollars, " to insert: f I To be applied only to instruction in agricultur e, the mechanic arts, the English 

la.nguage,a.nd the various branches of mathematical, physical, natural, and eco-) nomio science, with special reference to their applications in the- industries of- life, and to the facilities for such instruction. • • 

Mr. BLAIR. I move that the Senate concur in the amendment 0£. 

the House of Representatives. _ The amendment was concurred in. 

ME.AT EXPORTATION il'TI INSPECTION, ETC. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I desire to ask the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 

PUGH] to yield for a moment until a message from the House of Representatives can be la.id hefo.re the Senate • 

. ' 
~. 

-. '· .. ·-.. ,, . 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8875 

Mr. PUGH. I yield for that purpose. TENNESSEE. RIVER BRIDGE AT KNOXVILLE. 

The PRESIDENT pro temporelaid before the Senate the amendments 

of the ffou.se of Representative to the bill (S. 2594) providing for an inspection of meats for exportation, prohibiting the importation of adulterated articJe3 of food or drink, and authorizing the President to make 

proclamation in certain cases, and for other purposes. 

Mr. HARRIS. I ask unanimous consent of the Senate for the con- • 

sideratfon at this time of Senate bill 4278, reported from the Committee on Commerce, a bridge bill that it is important should be pas.sad 

now. 

The amendments of the House of Representative3 were read, as follows: 

Pa. e 2, line 9, after "food," insert " or drug." . . " ,, Pa~e '.!, line 9, after "or " where it appears the second time, insert any. Pag-e 2, line 13, after the word "food," insert "or drug." Pai;e 4, line 17, after the word" importa.tion," insert•: with th~ kn?wl~ge of 

the ma.'lter or owner of said vessel or vehicle that such importation is diseased or ha~ been exposed to infection as herein described." 

Mr.PAD DOCK. I move that the Senate coneur in the amendments 

ot the House of Representatives. 

The amendments were concurred in. 

MOBILE AND DAUPHIN ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY. 

Mr. PUGH. I ask tbat the Senator from Missouri be allowed to call 

up the bill to which I have hererofore referred. 

The PRESIDENT pro tenipore. Has the bill been reported? 

Mr. VEST. The bill is upon the table. 

:Mr. PUGH. It is on the table. It has passed the Senate once and 

went to the House. 

Mr. HARRIS. What is the order of busin~ and what is the bill? 

Mr. PUGH. It is not on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator state the order of 

business? 

Mr. VEST. It is a bill authorizing the construction of a bridge 

across Grant's Pass by the Mobile and Dauphin Island Railroad. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is it on the Calendar? 

Mr. VEST. No, sir; it is on the table. The bill ca.me back from 

the House of Representatives and is lying upoxr the table, to grant to 

the Mobile and Dauphin Island' Railroad and Harbor Company a. right 

to trestle across the shoal water between Cedar Point and Dauphin 

Island. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is it a Senate bill passed with House 

amendments? 

Mr. PUGH. No, sir. 

The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chief Clerk has found the message from the Honse of Representatives returning the bill, which he 

will read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee asks 

unanimous consent that the unfinished business be informally laid aside 

to proceed to the consideration of a bill the title of which will be 

stated. · . 

The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 4278) authorizing the construction of 

a bridge over the Tennessee River at or near Knoxville, Tenn. 

There being no objection, the bill was considered as in Committee of 

the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with amendments. 

The first amendment was, in seetion 2, line 6, after the word '' purposes,'' to strike out '' that'' and insert 0 and ;'' in line 12, after the 

word "upon," to strike out "the;" and in line 13, after the word 

"reasonable," to strike out ''signals" and insert-" signal;" so as to 

make the section reap: 

SEC. 2. That any bridge built under this act, and subject to its limitations, shall be a lawful structure, and shall be recognized and known, and is hereby declared, a post-route, and it shall enjoy the rights and privileges of ot.her post- road11 in the United Slates; and the United St.ates shall have the right of wa.y- across said brida-e for post.al-telegraph purposes; and the said bridge shall be so constructed, either by draw, span, or otherwise, that a free and unobstructed 

passage-way may be secured to all water-craft navigating said river at the point aforesaid: Provided, That if said bridge authorized to be constructed under 

this actshallbeconstruct.edasadraw-bridge the drawsha.ll be opened promptly 

upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats or vessels; and said corporation sha.11 maintain, at its own expense, from sunset to sunrise, such lights or other 

signals on said bridge as the Light-House Board sha.ll prescribe. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in section 4, line 9, after the word "the,'·' 

to strike out 11 topography of" and to insert "high and low water 

lines upon;" in line 10, after the word 1'river," to strike out ''the 

shore lines at high and low water;" in line 12, after the word ''stages," 

t.o strike out the word "and" and insert "with;" in line 13, after the 

word ''stream'' to insert ''and; '' and in the same line, after the word 

"bridges," to insert "such map t.o be sufficiently in detail t.o enable 

the Secretary of War t.o judge of the proper location of said bridge;" 

so as to make the section read: 

SEc.'4. That any bridge authorized to be constructed under this act shall be 

built and located under and subject to such regulations for the security .of navigation of said river a.s the Secretary of Wa.r shall prescribe; and to secure that 

obj.ect the said company or corporation shall submit to the Secretary of War, for 

IN THE HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, July 9, 1890. his examination a.nd approval, a desig:n and drawings of the bridge, and a map 

Ordered, That the Clerk he directed to return to the Senate, in compliance with of the location, giving, for the space of l mile below and I mile above the pro- its request Senate bill 3751, to grant to the Mobile and Dauphin Island Railroad posed location, the high and low water lines upon the ba..nks of the river, the 

and Harbor Company a ri~ht to trestle across the shoal water between Cedar direction and strength of the current at all eta.a-es, with the soundings, accu- Point a.nd Dauphin Island. rately showing the bed of the stream, and the location of any other bridge or bridges, such map to be sufficiently in detail to enable the Secretary of Wal' to M.r. VEST. I offer the amendmentEl which I send to the desk. judge of the proper location of Mid bridge. a.nd shall furnish such other inforThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be necessary first that the mation as maybe required for a full and satisfactory understanding of the sub- votes by which the bill was ordered to a third reading and passed be re- ject; and until the said plan and location of the bridge are t1.pi>roved by the Sec- ,~ retary of War the bridge sha.11 not be built; and should any change be made in 

considered. It will be so ordered, u there be no objection. The Chair the plan of said bridg-e during the progress of construction s.uch change shall 

bears none. The bill is open to amendment in tbe Senate, and the be submitted to a.nd subject to the approval of the Secretary of War. 

amendments offered by the Senator from Missouri will be reported. The amendment was agreed to. 

The Chief" Clerk read the amendments submitted by Mr. VEST. The next amendment was, in section 5, line 2, after the word ''act,'' 

The first amendment was, in section 1,Jine 9, after the word "cross," t.o strike out "so as to prevent or remove all material and substantial 

to insert the words "Grant's Pass and:" in the same line, after the obstruction to the navigation of said river by the construction of the 

word "Herons" to insert "each;" in line 11, after the W(}rd "that/' sai.d bridge" and insert "or any part thereof;" in line 9, after the 

t.o strike out "said" and insert "each such;" in line 14, after the word word "within," to strike out "two " and insert "one year; " and in 

"on :i to insert the word "each," and at the end of the section to in- line 10, after the word "within," to strike out "four" and insert 

sert the following proviso: ;'three;" so as to make the section read: 

.And provided further, That if the United States shalJ at any time acquire the SEC. 5. That the right to alter, &Inend, or repeal this a.ct, or any pa.rt thereof, absolute and satisf!lctory title to Grant's Pass, the Secretary of 'Var shall be au- is hereby expressly reserved; and a.ny a.lteratfons or cha.ng-es tha.t may be re- thorized upon satisfactory proof to him of such investment of t.itle, and if, in quired by Congress in the bridge constructed under this act shall be made by his opinion, the interests of the Government shall not then require a draw- the corporation owning or controlling the sa.me a..t its own expense. Furtherbridge to be constructed or maintained at Pass aux Herons, to relieve said com- more, if the construction of said bridge shall not be commenced within one year 

pany from building or maintaining said draw-bridge, but said company sh.all and completed within three years after the passa..ge of this act, all privileges thereupon maintain a. draw-bridge at Grant's Pass in all respects as hereinbe- conferred hereby, and this act, shall become null and void. 

fore prescribed. The amendment wa.s agreed t.o. 

So as t.o ma~e the sectio~ read: . The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendTh&:t the l\Iob1le ru;i.d D:rnphin Island Railroad and Harbor Company, a cor- ments we:re concurred in. poratlon duly organized under a charter granted by the General Assembly of . . . . the State of Alabama, may extend its line, by means of trestle-work from Cedar I The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the 

Point to Dauphin Island, across the int~rvening shoal water bet~een Mobile third time, and passed. Bay and Mississippi Sound: Provided, That said company shall cross Grant Pass ' 

and Pass aux Herons each with a.draw-bridge of such width, character, and con- SETTLERS ON NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD INDEMNITY LANDS. 

struction as the Secretary of War shall prescribe: f'rovided also, That each such Mr. PLUMB. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to drawshallbeopenedpromptly, uponrea.sona.bles1gnal,forthepassageofboats, h · . f · . · · f and that said company shall maintain at its own expense such lights from sun- t e cons1derat1on o Order of Busmess 1695, belllg a bill for the rehe set to su~rise, on each such draw as the Light-House Board shall 'prescribe: of settlers on Northern Pacific Railroad indemnity lands. The bill has 

.Andprovidedfm·ther, etc. passed the House and has been reported with an amendment.. It is 

The amendment was agreed to. desfrable that it should be passed as early as possible. 

The next amendment was, in section 4, line 3, after the word. "with- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The title of the bill will be stated. 

in,'' to strike out ''one year'' and insert ''two years;'' so as to make The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (H. R. 5839) for the relief of settlers on 

the section read: Northern Pacific Railroad indemnity lands. 

SEC. 4. That this act shall be null and void if a-ctualconstruction of the bridge Ther~ being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

herein authorized be not commenced within two years and completed within proceeded to consider the bill. 

three years from the date hereof. The bill was reported from the Committee on Public Lands with an 

The amendment was agreed to. amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the That those persons who, after the 15th day of August., in the year of our Lo:rd 

third time. and paased. 1887, and before the 1st day of January, in the year 1889, settled upon, improved, 

I ' 

I ,, 

.. :· 

,_, 

.., ,, .. ' .. · :. 

\ . 

'. 

·~ 

-- ' 

. ,.. ·. 

•' 

. ·. 

) . . ~ . 

'J 

. .. 

I.' 

., 

--
. ... 

·. 

. ,,. 

. , __ 

·., 

.. 

. -

' I 

..... 

" 

: ~ 

. ' 

~ 

'I 

.. .. . "I 

-: ,. "· .... ... 

8876 .~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

• and made final proof on lands in the so-called second indemnity belt of the 

Northern Pacific Railroad Company's grant under the homestead and pre- emption laws of the United Statesror their heirs, may transfe.r their said entries 

from said tra.cts to such otJ:ier vacant Government land in compact form and in 

legal subdivisions, subject to entry under the homestead and pre-emption laws, e.s they may select, and receive final certificates and receipts therefor, in lieu of 

the tracls proved up as in said belt by the respective claimants; and the Secretary of the Interior shall, on application, repay to said claimants respectively 

the money wb.ich they have paid on account of said entries: ProV>ided, That no final entry shall be permitted except upon proof of continuous residence upon the land subject of [to] such new entry for a period of not less thaQ six months 

prior thereto. 

SEC. 2. That all persons possessing the requisite qualifications under the pre- emption or homestead laws, who in good faith settled upon and improved land 

in said second indemnity belt, having made filing or entry of the same, and for any reason, other than voluntary abandonment, failed to make proof thereon, may, in lieu thereof. transfer their claims to any vacant Government land suhject to entry under the homestead or pre-emption lawM, and make proof therefor as in other cases provided; and in making such proofcredlt shall be given for the 

period of their bona fide l'esidence and amount or their improvements upon their respective claims in the said indemnity belt, the same as if made upon the tract to which the transfer is ma.de: Pro-vi.ded, That no final entry shall be per- mitted, except upon proof of continuous residence upon the land, the subject 

of such new entry, for a J?0riod of not less than six months prior thereto. Pay· ment for said final selection shall be ma.de as under existing laws. The provisions of this act shall be carried into effect under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The amendment was agreed t-0. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment 

was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 

a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed • 

Mr. PLUMB. This is a House bill_ which has been amended, and I 

move fhat the Senate insist upon its amendment and ask for a conference with the House of Representatives thereon. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is so ordered, if there be no objection. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I move that the Senate do now adjQurn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 8 minutes p. m.) the 

Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, August 21, 1890, at 10 

o'clock a. m. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

WEDNESDAY, .A.ugzf,St 20, 1890. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. 

APPROY AL OF THE JO URN AL. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will cause the Journal of the proceedings of the last session to be read. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a quorum 

}lresent. I make the point of no quomm. 

-The SPEAKER~ The Chair thinks the point is well taken. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House . 

The motfon was agreed to. 

Tbe Clerk proceeded to call the roll; when the following members 

failed to answer to their names: 

Abb.ott, Buttel'worth, Edmunds, Lane, 

Adams, Bynum, Ellis, Laws, 

Alderson, Caldwell, Enloe, Lee, 

Allen, Miss. Campbell, Ewart, Lehlbach, 

.Anderson, Kans. Candler, Ga . Farquhar, Lester, Ga. 

Anderson, Miss. Candler, Mass. Finley, Lind, 

Andrew, Cannon, Fitch, Lodge, 

Arnold, Carlton, Fithian, 1\!agner, 

Atkinson,Pa. Carter, Flood, Ma.ish, 

Atkinson, W. Ya.. Caruth. Flowei:, 1\lansur 

Bankhead, Caswell, Fowler, Martin, Tex. Banks, Catchings, Frank, McAdoo, 

Bat<nes, Cheadle, Funston, McCarthy, Bar tine, Cheatham, Gear, McClellan, 

Be.rwig, Clancy, Geissen hainer, 1\foComas, 

Bayne, Clark, Wis. Gest, ·l\IcOord, Bec~~ith, Clements, Gibson, :McCreary, Belden, Clunie, Gifford, McDuffie, 

Bergen, Cobb, Greenhalge, Mc Kenna, 

Biggs, Coleman, Grimes, Mc Millin, 

Bingham, Comstock, Grout, l\Iiles, 

Blanchard, Connell, Hall, Milliken, 

Bland, Cooper, Ohio Hare, Mills, 

Blount·, Cothran, Harmer, Montgomery, Boatner, Covert, Hatch, l\:lorey, Boothman, Cowles, Ha.yes, l\oiorrow, 

Boutelle, Craig, Haynes, Morse, 

Bowden, Crain, Heard Mudd, 

Breckinridge, Ark. Crisp, Hempbill, Norton, 

Breckinridge, Ky, Culbertson, Pa. Henderson, Iowa Nute, 

Brewer, Cummings, Hill, O'Ferrall, 

Brickner, Cutcheon, Hooker, O'Neall,Ind. 

Brower, Dargan, Hopkins, Osborne, 

Brown, J.B. Dnrlingt-0n, Houk, Outhwaite, 

Browne, T. ?tf. Davidson, Kelley, Owen, Ind. 

Browne, Va. De Haven, Kerr, Iowa Parrett, Brunner, De La.no, Kerr, Pa. Payne, Buchanan, Va. Dibble, Keteham, Penington, Buckalew, Dickerson, Kilgore, Perkins, 

Bullock:, Dingley, Kinsey, Perry, Bunn, Dolliver, Knapp, Peters, 

Burrow.s, Dunnell, Lacey, Phelan, 

Burton, Dunphy, La Follette, Pickler, 

·•. 

Pierce, Sherman, Tarsney, 

Post., Shively, Thompson, 

Price. Skinner, TiUman, 

Pugsley, Smith, Ill. Townsend, Colo. 

Quackenbush, Smith, W. Ya.. Tracey, 

Randall, Snider, Tucker, 

R.a.y, Spinola, Turner, Ga. 

Reyburn, Spooner, Turner, Kans. Richardson, Springer, Turner, N. Y. Robertson, Stahlnecker, Yan Scha.ick, 

Rockwell, Stephenson, Vaux, 

Rusk, Stewart, Ga. \7 enable, 

Russell, Stewart, Vt. Waddill, 

Sanford, Sth-ers, Wade, 

Scranton, St-0ckbridge, Wal lace, l\:lass. 

Scull, Stockdale, W a.shington, 

Seney, Stump, 'Vatson, 

'Vheeler, 1\lich. "Whiting, 

\Vhitthorne, 

Wickham, 

Wike, 

Wiley, 

\Vilkinson, 

Willcox, 

Williams, Ill. 

Williams, Ohio. ·wuson,Ky • \Vilson, Wash. 

\Vilson, W. Va. Wright, 

Yoder. 

During the call of the roll the following members appeared and had 

their names recorded at the Clerk's desk under the rule: 

l\Ir. ADAUS, Mr. CANNON, l\Ir. ANDERSON of Kansas, Mr. BROSIUS, 

Mr. CHEATHAM, Mr. BLAND, Mr. BAYNE, Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Kentucky, Mr. CLE~ENTS, Mr. ENLOE, Mr. CARUTH, Mr. BURTON, Mr. 

FUNSTON, Mr. KINSEY, Mr. LANE, Mr. HENDERSON of Iowa, Mr. 

DINGLEY, Mr.GRil\IES, Mr. BROWER, 1\f.r. SPRINGER, Mr. McCLELLAN, 

Mr. BRICKNER, Mr. LACEY, Mr. BINGII.AM, Mr. COMSTOCK, Mr. 

CLANCY, Mr. MANSUR, Mr. BANKHEAD, Mr. HA YNES, Mr. BYNUM, 

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE, Mr. BOOTHMAN, l\Ir. WIKE, Mr. CHEADLE. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk i·cports 120 members present-not a 

quorum. 

Some time subsequently the following additional members appeared 

at the Clerk's desk alfd had their names recorded under the rule: 

Mr. WILLCOX, Mr. GEAR, Mr. HOUK, Mr. WILLIAMS of Ohio, Mr. 

THO:llPSON, Mr. O'FERRALL, Mr. KERR of Iowa,, Mr. WADDII .. L, Mr. 

FOWLER, l\Ir. CASWELL, l\fr. ROBEIITSOK, Mr. CATCHINGS, Mr. PENINGTON, Mr. C-ONNELL, Mr. BARTINE, Mr. CANDLER of Georgia, Mr. 

MONTGOMERY, Mr. EBLIS, Mr. ATKINSON of Pennsylvania, lifr. WILLIAMS of Illinois, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. QUACKENBUSH, Mr. RAY, Mr. 

BLOUNT, Mr. McCREARY, Mr. ANDREW, l\Ir. ROCKWELL, Mr. GEST, 

Mr. PRICE, Mr. TURNER of Georgia, Mr. TA.RSNEY, Mr. FARQUHAR, 

Mr. CARTER, Mr. DUNNELL, Mr. BERGEN, Mr. McDUFFIE, M:r. TuRNER of Kansas. Mr. MCKENNA, Mr. CRAIN, ~Ir. CARLTON, Mr. DARLINGTON, Mr. RUSSELL. 

Mr. BUCHANAN of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, ?ifr. 

LEHLBACH, is absent to-day, as be has been for several days, on ac- count of illness. 

Mr. YARD LEY. "'ily colleague, 1\Ir. SCULL, was compelled to go 

home this morning on account of illness. 

Mr. McKINLEY. I offer tho following resolution, which I send to 

the Clerk's desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms take into custody and bring to the bar 01 

the House such of its members as are absent without the leave of the House. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania.• M:r. Speaker, may I state during 

this interregnum that it is evident the House does not desire to meet 

at 11 o'clock in the day yet awhile for any purpose? Now, I am desirous to see the pubiic business go along as rapidly as possible, but 12 

o'clock seems to be the hour in the minds of the members at which 

the Honse should meet. [Cries of "Regular order!."] 

The SPEAKER. The desire of any one member to have the public 

business go on is not sufficient. 

Ur. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. That is, I snppose, a.s agi1inst 

the desire of some one member that business should not go on. The SPEAKER. It is not sufficient. 

_ Ur. ENLOE. !llr. Speaker, I would like to make a. motion that the 

door olll"this side be opened, so as to give ventilation. We on this side 

of t~Chamber are not responsible for the absence of a quorum on 

the other side, and we should like to have the air through that door. 

The SPEAKER. That is not in orde1-. 

Mr. ENLOE. If it is not in order, then I move to dispense with all 

further proceedings under the call. 

The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes seemed to have it. 

Mr. ENLOE. Division. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the pres- ence of a quorum is disclosed . 

The SPEAKER. A quorum has not appeared. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Some gentleman mi,ght intimate that there was 

probably a quorum in the vicinity of the Capitol. [Laughter. J 

The SPEAKER. It might be some gentleman in whom the Honse; 

bad confidence, and the House might act upon it. 

?r{r. SPRINGER. Let the Speaker make that intimation, and then we will all believe it-excepting those who do not. [Laughter.] 

The House divided on the motion of Mr. ENLOE to dispense with all 

further proceedings under the call, and there were-ayes 30, noes 64. 

So the motion was reject~d. 

Mr. ENLOE. I make the point of order that the rules of the Honse 

are not being complied with. Paragraph 2 of Rule XV sa.ys: 

2. In the absence of & quorum, fifteen mem hers, including the Speaker, if thero 

.: