• ' 

. ,, 

/ 

- i 

'' 

' . . ...... . 

8776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

The Honse divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 41, noes 21. 

Mr. DOCKERY. No quorum. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman make the point that no quo- rum is present? 

l\fr. DOCKERY. I do. 

l\Ir. CA~XON. As it is now about 5 o'clock and as there seems to 

be no quorum in the House, I move to adjourn. 

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. CANXON, it was agreed to. 

CHARGES AGAINST COl\Il\llSSIONER OF PENSIONS. 

Pending the announcement of the vote on the motion toadjourn, 

The SPEAKER said: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. YODER] declines to serve on the committee to investigate charges against the Commissioner of Pensions. If there be no objection, the gentleman will 

be excused, and the Chair will appoint in his place the gentleman from 

Missis ippi [1\'Ir. LEWIS]. 

mrROLLED BrLLS SIG:NED. 

Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported 

that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the 

following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: A bill (S. 314) for the reliefof Mary B. Le '.Roy; 

A bill (S. 388) to remove the charge of desertion now standing against 

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC. 

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, private bills of the following titles 

were presented and referred as indicated below: 

By Mr. ELLIS: A bill (H. R.11775Jforthereliefof Larkin Harnedto the Committee on War Claims. 

By .Mr. EWART: A bill (H. R. 11776) to place the name of Noah 

Harwood on the muster· rolls of Company B, Second North Carolina 

Mounted Infantry-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. TAYLOR, of Tenne~see: A bill (H. R. 11777) 'granting a 

pension to Alfred T. Moreland, of Johnson County, Tennessee-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. YODER: A bill (H. R. 11778) granting a pension to Joseph 

Barrow, late private Company G, One hundred and ninety:eighth Ohio 

Volunteers-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

SENATE. 

TUESDAY, Attgttst 19, 1~!)0. 

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

The Journal of yesterdav's proceedings was read and approved. the record of Noyes Barber on the rolls of the Navy Department; 

A bill ls. 510) granting a pension to John w. Reynolds; PETITIOXS AND MEMORIALS. 

A bill (S. 775) granting a pension to Andrew J. Foust; Mr. EDMUNDS. I present the petition of J. K. Lewis and 32 other 

A bill (S. 848) granting a pension to Mary J. Eadie; citizens of the Territory of New Mexico, praying for the passage of 

A bill (S. 916) granting a pension to Mary E. Harney; the private land claims court bill. As the bill is pending and has 

A bill (S. 973) granting an increase of pension to Virginia L. M. been under consideration, I move that the petition lie on the table. 

Ewing; The motion was agreed to. 

A bill (S. 1203) granting a pension to Miss Margaret Stafford Worth; Mr. ED!IIDNDS. I present a petition of the heirs, or those who 

A bill (S. 1256) granting a pension to James A. Myers; claim to be the heirs, of Jesse Fish, jr., praying for the confirmation - A bill (S.1732) granting a pension to Nancy A. Thornton; I of an alleged Spanish grant embracing the largest part of Anastasia 

A bill (S.1740) granting a pension to Mary J. Welch, an army nurse Islarnl, at St. Augustine, Fla. I move that the petition be referred 

in the late war; to the Committee on Private Land Claims. 

A bill (S. 2036) granting an increase of pension t;o Mrs. F. Selina The motion was agreed to. 

Buchanan; Mr. CAMERON presented the memorial of John D. Henderson and 

A bill (S. 2043) granting a pension t;o Edgar AI. Cherry; 24 otlter cigar-manufacturers of the :cinth internal-revenue district of 

A bill (S. 2066) placing the name of Elizabeth Domm on the pen- Pennsvlvania; the memorial of H. F. Affelbach and 24 other cigarsion-roll; manufacturers of the ninth internal-revenue district of Pennsylvania; 

A bill (S. 2366) granting a pension to Florida Kennerly; the memorial of J. F. King and 21 other cigar-manufacturers of tho 

A bill (S. 2644) for the recognition of F. A. Patterson as a captain of ninth internal-revenue district of Pennsylvania, and the memorial of 

the Third West Virginia Cavalry; H. D. Frey and 25 other cigar-manufacturers of the ninth internalA bill (S. 2698) granting a pension to Johanna Loewinger; revenue district of Pennsylvania, indorsing the tobacco schedule o! 

A bill (S. 2832) for the relief of Jesse H. Strickland; the pending tariff bill; which were ordered to lie on the talle. 

A bill (S. 2859) for the relief of Caroline Baker Stevens, relict of the He also presented a petition of G. A. Warren and 64 other resi- late Col. Robert J. Stevens, and daughter of the late Col. Edward D. dents of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, praying fot' the prompt pasBaker; saae of House bill 5978, regulating the transportation of liquor in cer· 

A bill (S. 2976) granting a pension to Mary L. Bradley, formerly tafn cases; which was ordered to lie on the table. :Mary L. Smith, who served as a nurse in the war of the rebellion; Mr. HISCOCK presented the petition of Dry Goods Economist, of 

A bill (S. 3101) granting a pension to Anna. Rodgers Macomb; New York City, N. Y., praying for such legislation as will afford proA bill (S. 3177) granting a pension to Ursula Lucretia Haight; I tection to American flax and linen; which was ordered to lie on the 

A bill (S. 3194) granting a pension to Joseph H. Scoopmire; table. 

A bill (S. 3498) granting a pension to G. L. Pease; and REPORTS OF COl\Il\HTTEES. 

t A bill (S. 3840) to remove the charge of desertion against George Fet- Mr. FRYE, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was ree~~~n;esnlt of the vote on the motion to adjourn was then announced. ferred the bill (S. 4312) t? provide Al!leri~an registers for the steamers 

~nd accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m.) the House ad~ j ~[~:f :~~p!;:~c;e;;~~~lia, reported it without amendment, and subiourned. I Mr. YEST, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4279) authorizing the construction of a bridge ove1 

the Tennessee River at or near Knoxville, Tenn., reported it with 

amendments. 

HOUSE BILL WITH SENATE AMENDMENTS REFERRED. 

U oder clause 2 of Rule XXIY, a Honse bill with Senate amendments 

of the following title was taken from the Speaker's table and referred 

as follows: 

A bill (H. R. 94.86) making appropriations for the construction, re- pair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, 

and for other purposes-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Under cla.use 2 of Rule XIII, a report of a committee was delivered 

to the Clerk and disposed of as follows: 

Mr. CARTER, from the Committee on .Mines and Mining, reported 

with amendment the bill of the House (H. R. 8491) to provide for the 

examination and classification of certain mineral lands, and for other 

purposes, accompanied by a report (No. 2984)-to the Committee of 

the Whole House on t.he state of the Union. 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 

Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, a bill of the following title was introduced, read twice, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. COVERT: A bill (H. R.11774) for the establishment of a light-house at Orient Point, on the coast of Long Island, New Yorkto tile Committee on Commerce. 

' . 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. PETTIGREW introduced a bill (S. 4332) t;o prevent the build· 

ing of houses along certain alleys in the city of Washington, and for 

other purposes; which was read twice by its title, and referred t;o the 

Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. BARBOUR (by request) introduced a bill (S. 4333) regulating 

the rate per annum of telephone service in the cities of Washington 

and Georgetown, in the District of Columbia; which was read twice 

by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Colum4 

bia. 

Mr. BERRY introduced a bill (S. 4334) to authorize the building of 

a bridge at Dardanelle, Ark., across the Arkansas River; which was 

read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

llU'3INESS OF THE SESSION. 

The PRESIDENT vro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senato 

the resolution of the Renator from Pennsylvania (Mr. QUAY], which 

will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. 

Qu.a Y, as follows: 

Resolved, That the following orders be adopted for the government of tho 

Senate during the present session of Congress: Ordered, 1, That during the present session of Congress the Senate will no~ 

take up for consideration any legislath·e business other than the pending bill 

. • 

( 

. 

.. ·· . 
' . . ~ 

..... ' • ! 

. ' 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 'I 8777 

{H. R. 9416) ; conference reports; general appropriation bills; 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 concurrentreso- lutious. 

Ordered, 2, That the consideration of all bills other than such a.s 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 amendments then pending, without further 

debate, on the 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, tot.he exclusion 

of all other business, 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, XXII, XX VII, XXVIIJ, XXXV, and XL, a.re modified. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I desire to address the Senate on this 

resolution; but I was engaged on public business yesterday, and I 

wish to be to-day, in regard to matters before a committee of which I am a member. I should prefer to proceed to-morrow morning. I un- derstand that will be agreeable to the mover of the resolutfon. I ask, 

therefore, that the resolution may lie over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? 

Mr. QUAY. I have no objection to the resolution going over unt.il 

to-morrow morning without prejudice, with the understanding that it 

shall be taken up then in the order it stands to-day. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution; then, if there be no objection, will lie over until to-morrow morning, subject to be called 

up in the morning hour. The Chair hears no objection. 

LIQUORS IN THE CAPITOL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a resolution offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLTJMB], coming over from a previous day. The resolution will be read. 

The resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. PLUMB was read, as follows: 

was not in his seat when I made the suggestion, and I of course will 

withdraw the motion until his return to the Chamber. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is satisfactory. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Then, if there be no o~iection, the 

resolution with the amendment will lie over until to-morrow, retaining 

its plac.e, and subject to be called during the morning hour. The Chair 

hears no objection. 

TRIAL OF LIElJTEN .A.NT- GUY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a resolution offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] coming over from a former day. The resolution will be read. 

The following resolution, submitted yesterday by Mr. PLUllB, was read: 

Resolved, That the commissioners of the District of Columbia. are herebv directed to make forthwith to the Senate a full and complete report, containing copies of all charges a.nd complaints, and by whom made, against Lieutenant 

Guy, of the police force, and or all testimony and statements taken by or made to said commissioners, or either of them, concerning such charges, and whether 

said Guy in his trial was informed of all the charges and complaints made 

against him by any and all persons to said commissioners, or either of them, 

and, if not, the reason therefor, and what action haS:been taken in said trial or otherwise concerning said char.i:;e. 

Mr. HARRIS. I think the resolution ought to go to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. TELLER. Let it lie over. 

Mr. HARRIS. Let it lie over, as the Senator from Kansas is not 

present. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I hope the resolution will not go over. It is 

simply a resolution of inquiry. It has been charged very promptly 

here that a lieutenant upon the policeforce has been placed upon trial 

and has heen denied the privilege of seeing or knowing what the charges 

were; in other words, that it was a star-chamber proceeding; and I 

think we ought to have the facts in the case. Resolved, That the Committee on Rules be directed to make such order as shall Mr. SPOONER. I hope the resolution will not be acted upon this 

wholly prevent the sale or drinking of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquurs in the morning. It ought to be sufficient ground for layin!? it over that the Senate wing of the Capitol. ~ 

mover of it is not present. I should be very sorry to see the Senate 

Mr. BUTLER. I offer an amendment as an addition to the resolution. made a court of appeals from the trial court for police officials. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read. Mr. COCKRELL. Not police officials. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add to the resolution the fol- Mr. SPOONER. This trial has been proceeding for a great many 

lowing: days. I know nothing about the merits of the case, but every day-the 

And that the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized newspapers have been filled with testimony the examination of witand directed to make daily inspection and examination of the committee-rooms . d h · t• f •t ' L' te t G · and other apartments of the Senate wing of the Capitol and report to the Com- nesses, an. t e cross-examma ion o Wl nesses, ten .n~n uy ev~-

mittee on Rules after each of said inspections whether he has found any spir- dently bemg represented by counsel before the commISs10ners, testi- it~ous, vinous, or malt liquors in .the same, or any of them, and that said Com- mony given as to various charges, testimony given in rebuttal, argum1ttee on Rules shall preserve said reports for ~he use of the Senate. ment of counsel on both sides, and not yet decided; and I certainly 

Mr. GORMAN. I move the reference of the resolution and t.he should hope the Senate would not interfere with the matter at all in 

amendment to the Committee on Rules. its present status. If after the commissioners shall have passed upon 

Mr. BLAIR. I suggest that the mover of the resolution is not pres- it the occasion seems to exist for a review and the Senate of the United 

ent. He may have some preference as to the course H should take. States is a proper body to review it, it will be time to take it up. 

Mr. BUTLER. Let it lie over until t·he Senator from Kansas comes I shall cert.ainly move, if the resoiution must be taken up to-day and 

in. I am sure he will aecept my amendment. disposed ot to-day, that it be referred to the Committee on the District 

Mr. BLAIR. I should be very sorry to take the time of the Senate of Columbia. I think astandingcommitteeought to consider thesnbwith a set speech of four hours in order that ordinary courtesy might ject before this precedent is established and before the Senate enters 

be shown to the mover of the resolution. upon thi~ matter of reviewing a decision of the commissioners in any 

Mr. SPOONER. It wonld be more regret to the Senate, I think, such c.ase. • 

than it would be to the Senator. [Laughter.] l\Ir. GORMAN. The Senator from Kansas is absent1 and I suggest 

Mr. BLA.IR. I would prefer to listen to the Senator from Wiscon- that the resolution lie over. sin on the subject. [Laughter.] The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the mover The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland moves of the resolution being absent--

that the resolution and the amendment be referred to the Committee Mr. COCKRELL. One moment, :please. The Senator from Wiscon- on Rules. The Senator from New Hampshire suggests the absence of sin is mistaken. This is no appeal from a police court. This is not 

the mover of the resolution. an instruction to a police court. It bas nothing on earth to do with it, 

l\Ir. HARRIS. Let it lie over until the Senator from Kansas comes ItisadirectiontothecommissionersoftheDistrictofColumbia,whoare 

in. acting under the authority of Congress and who constitute practically 

l\Ir. BLAIR. I am sorry Senators should exhibit such fear of an ab- a bureau-such a direction as we have given to them fifty times, a com- sent Senator. Evidently they are determined to kill this resolution mon, almost monthly occurrence, calling upon the District commiswithout a fair hearing and to choke off debate contrary to the rules of sioners for information. Here it iB charged that in this trial they have 

the Senate. I do not understand this anxiety to reach the tariff bill. suppressed the charges and have refused to let the defendant, who is 

It seems to me that the resolution ought to go over until to-morrow placed upon trial, know what they are, and yet they are trying him. 

morning at the least, unless tlle Senator from Kamf.ls should soon come Now, is it right to wait until they have passed a star-chamber judgin1 and then undoubtedly he would be willing to gratify the anxiety ment or is.it right to let the people know and let the Senate know 

of Senators representing the great Democratic party and have an early whether this is a trial or a mockery? 

disposition of this measure. l\Ir. SPOONER. I think in view of the fact that the adjudication 

The PRESIDENT p,-o tempo,-e. The Senator from New Hampshire of the commissioners may result entirely in the acquittal of this official, 

suggests that th~ resolution and amendment lie over until to-morrow, for aught the Senator knows, it would be very wise in any event to 

to be taken up in the morning hour. wait until the trial is concluded . 

.Mr. IlOA\l. I suggest that a reference be made as proposed by the J\Ir. COCKRELL. And then it is beyond the remedy, probably, of 

Senator from Maryland. If the Senator from Kansas shall come into Congress, beyond the reach of Congress; and when it is exposed and it 

the Chamber and say he desires a different disposition and desires itto is known what kind of proceedings are ta.king place, it may be there 

come np to-morrow morning, undoubtedly the Senate would a.t once will be some l~nd of judicial consideration given to the case. 

unanimously reconsider the re1erence. l\Ir. SPOONER. If any wrong is done by the commi5Sioners to any 

Mr. BLAIR. I object. I would rather exercise my voice a little police official, the publicity which will be given to it will in the end 

while than to have this matter so peremptorily disposed of and soun- right the wrong. It would be a very remarkable performance, it seems usually disposed of. to me, while this matter is under judicial investigation, the result of 

Mr. TELLER. Let it lie over. which no one knows or can know, which may result in an acquittal, 

Mr. BLAIR. That is all I ask. that the Senate should adopt a resolution upon such a predicate as this, 

Mr. GORMAN. I did not observe that the Senator from Kansas calling upon thecommissioncrstosendinall the testimony and charges. 

..... 

.. ' . ' 

~ . 'I• 

·. 

. .; 

~· 

.,,,,,.. -.. 

,.: 
: 

I • I 

/ 

,. 

-. 

.· -. 

8778 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE~ AUGUST 19, 

I grant the power of the Senate to pass such a resolution, of course, but 

I hope the resolution will not be passed at this time. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the mover 

of the resolution being absent1 it will lie over without prejudice, to be 

called np in the morning hour to-morrow morning. The Chair hears 

no objection. 

ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR TRAFFIC. 

Mr. BLAIR. I present the minutes of a joint hearing of the House 

and Senate committees upon the alcoholic liquor traffic. I ask that 

the matter be printed, and later, when we see what the doeumentis, I 

shall ask an order for extra copies. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PL.A.TT in the chair). The Senator from New Hampshire presents testimony taken before the Committee on Education and Labor relating to the alcoholic liquor traffic, 

and asks that it be printed. If there be no objection, the usual number 

of copies will be printed. 

Mr. BLAIR. After which, when I see how expensive the document 

is, I shall ask an order for additional copies. 

MARY ELLE~ FITZGERALD. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senr.te the amendment 

of the Honse of Representatives to the bill (S.1502) granting a pension 

to MaryEUen Fitzgerald; which was, in line 5, to strike out "thirty" 

and insert "eighteen" before "dollars." 

Mr. SA WYER. I move that the Senate concur in the amendment. 

The motion was agreed to. 

MESSA.GE FROM THE HOUSE. 

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

it.a Clerk, announced that the House had passed the joint resolution 

(S. I-L 116) extending the privilege of the Library of Congress to the 

members and secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission, with 

an amendment in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. 

The message also announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 

846) for the relief of Nathaniel McKay and the executors of Donald 

McKay. 

PRESIDENTIAL .APPROVALS. 

A message from the President of the UniteJ. States, by Mr. 0. L. 

PRUDEN, one of his secretaries, announced that the President _had on the 

18th instant approved the act (S. 4225) to amend an act aoproved 

August 6, 1888, authorizing the COW'ltrnction of bridges by the Houston, 

Central Arkansas and Nor1ihern Railway Company. 

The message also announced that the President had on this day approved and signed the following acts: 

An act (S. 3787) to amend the laws relative to shipping commissioners; 

Au act (S. 3917) to adopt regulations for preventing collisions at sea; 

An act (S. 4207) extending the time of payment to purchasers of 

lancl of the Omaha tribe of Indians in Nebraska, and for other purposes; and . An act (S. 2644) for the recognition of F. A. Patterson as a captain 

of the Third West Virginia Cavalry. 

EXECUTIVE COl\IMUNICATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro teinpore laid.before the Senate a commnnica-

•tion from the Act~g Attorney-General, transmitting, in further answer 

to a resolution of the Senate of the 1st instant, an appeal from the 

award made by the commissioners for damage growing out of the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers in the case of W. E. 

Goutermont; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, 

and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of the Interior, transmitting, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of 

June 28, 1890, a complete list of all the Spanish and Mexican private 

land claims now pending before the Department of the Interior; which, 

with the accompanying document.a, was referred to the Committee on 

Private Land Claims. 

THE REVENUE BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pro teinpore. Is there further morning business? 

If there be none, that order is closed. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I move that the Senate proceed to thb consideration of House bill 9416. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island, the 

Calendar under Rule VIII being in order, moves that the Sena,te proceed to the consideration of House bill 9416. 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the 

Whole, resumed the considemtion of the bill (H. R. _9416) to reduce 

the revenue and equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes. 

CROW INDIAN RESERVATION. 

Mr. POWER. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of a bill which bas been heretofore partially considered by the 

Senate, House bill No. 526. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana asks 

tlllil.nimous consent that the unfinished business may be informally laid 

aside that he mav ask for the consideration of a bill the title of which 

will be reported.· 

The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (H. R. 526) to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to procure and submit to Congress a proposal for the sale 

to the United States of the western part of the Crow Indian reservation, in Montana. 

Mr. ALDRICH. As this bill has been partially considElred1 I shall 

not make an objection, if it does not lead to discussion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been previously 

read at length, shall it be again read? 

Mr. SPOONER. What is the bill? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be reporteu by title. 

The Chief Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the bill 

having been read at length, the further reading will be waived and 

the pending amendment will be reporred. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 7 of the committee's amendment, after 

the word "portion," it is proposed to insert "of the reservation in 

Montana;" so as to read: 

That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to appoint a commission conaisting of three discreet persons, whose duty it eh~l be to ne- gotiate with the Crow Indians for a surrender to the United States of all that portion of the reserration in Montana, or so mueh thereof as they will consent to surrender, which is situated south of the Yellowstone River and west of Lhe divide between Pryor L'reekand Clark's Fork River in said State, and to report to Congress the resultofanysuchnegotiation. But no agreement for any such surrender shall be valid until ratified by Congress. 

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

The amendment as amended was agreed to. 

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 time1 and passed. 

FORT DOUGLAS RESERV .A.TION. 

Mr. TELLER. I ask unanimous consent of the Senate to have put 

on it.a passage a bill for the right of way across the Fort Douglas military 

reservation in Utah, for a street rail way. It bas the approval of tho 

War Department and it will not lead to any debate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado asks 

unanimous consent that the unfinished business may be informally laid 

aside that he may ask the consideration of a bill the title of which 

will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 4229) granting a right of way through 

certain lands of the United Sta.tea in the Territory of Utah. 

By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as in Committee ot 

the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Military Affaifs with an amendment; which was, at the end of the bill, to insert theiollowing 

proviso: 

Provided, That the location and width of said right of way shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, and that the privileges hereby granted shall be subject to revocation or such changes as may be required by him, and that said changes shall be made at the expense of the said rail way com- pany; also that no stables shall be erected on the reservation, and that no par~ of this laud or right of way shall be used for storage of cai·s. 

So as to make the bill read: 

That a right of way is hereby granted to the Popperton Place and Fort Doug- las Rapid '£ransit Company, a railroad corporation duly organized and now existing under the laws of the Territory of Utah, across the Fort Douglas mili- tary reservation, by a. route surveyed and laid down upon a properly certified map, a copy of which is now on file with the Secretary of War, which location has been submitted to and approved by the post commander and the commander of the department. Sa.id right of way shall not exceed lOOfeetin width through said reservation, except where side-tracks, spurs, turn-tables, or stations a.re located or to be located; and at such points the additionaLright of way shn.ll not exceed 200 feet on each side of the ma.in track and not exceed 1,000 feet in length: Provided, That the location and width of said right of way shall be subject to the approval of the Seci·etary of War, and that the privileges hereby 

granted shall be subject to revocation or such changes as may be required by 

him, and that said changes shall be made at the expense of the said railway company; a.lso that no stables shall be erected on the reservation, and that no part of this land or right of way shall be used for storage of cars. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reperted to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, rea,d the 

third time, and passed. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED, 

A message from the House of Representatives aunounced that the 

Speaker had signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed by the President pro temporc. 

A bill (If. R. 8584) to increase the pension of Edward Healy; 

A bill tH. R.10726) making appropriations for the current and con- tingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty 

stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year endL'lg June 30, 

1891, and for other purpose~; 

A bill (H. R. 11491) for the relief of the estate of Charles F. Bowers; 

and 

A biil (H. R. 6454) to establish a nationalmilitary park at the battlefield of Chickamauga. 

._ 
... ·'""' . , .... : 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8779 

THE REVENUE BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pi·o tempore. House bill 9416 is before the Senate 

as in Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I hope now weshallhave avoteupon the pending 

amendment. The paragraph has been under discussion for several 

days, and I am very anxious that it shall be disposed of. 

Mr. COCKRELL. We can not hear the Senator. 

ThePRESIDENTprotcmpore. TheChair has r.epeatedlyendeavored 

to preserve order and requests that Senators will be seated and refrain 

from conversation. Complaint is made that the proceedings can not 

be heard. 

~fr. ALDRICH. I wa.<J making an appeal to the Senate that the 

vote be taken upon the amendment to the pending paragraph. This 

paragraph has been under consideration for four da.ys, and I am extremely anxious that greater progress shall be made in the consideration of the bill, and I appeal to Senators to abstain from further discussion upon this paragraph at least, and that we may proceed to take 

a vote. 

Mr. MORGAN. What side of the Chamber do you address that request to? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Both sides. 

Mr. BLAIR. After the plaintive appeal of the Senat.or from Rhode 

!eland I shall not ask for the consideration of the army nurses bill 

this morning; but I desire to say that unless the discussion of the tariff 

bill is very soon concluded and final action had I shall feel it my duty 

to move to displace that bill and ask the Senate to proceed t.o the consideration of the army nurses bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The pending amendment will be 

reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 29, paragraph 137, line 6, it is proposed 

t.o strike out the words "2 2.10 cents" and insert in lieu thereof "1 

cent, Hand to insert after the word "pound," in line 7: 

And tliere shall be pa.id to the manufacturers of tin-plate in the United Stat~s, 

from any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, a. bounty of 1 cent per pound, under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner of In- ternal Re'l"enue, with the approval of tL.e Secretary of the Treasury, shall pre- ecribe. 

The PRESIDENT 1n·o t,empore. The question is on agreeing t.o the 

amendment just read proposed by the Senator from Kansas [M:r. 

PLU.lCB]. The yea.s and nays have not been ordered, as the Senator 

from Maryland or some other Senator suggested yesterday afternoon. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. FAULKNER. I desire to ask the Chair whether or not the 

wholo proposition as stated is embraced in the amendment on which 

we are- now asked to vote or whether it only involves the question of 

the insertion of the bounty. 

The 'PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon the proposition 

to change the rate and toprovide for a bounty also. 

Mr. GORMAN. Let it be read. 

Mr. FAULKNER. Can that be divided? If so, I ask for a di vision 

of the question? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 29, in paragraph 137, line 6, after the 

word "pay," it is proposed to strike out ''2.2 cents," and insert" 1 

cent," and after the word ''pound," in line 7, to insert: 

And Utere shall be paid to the manufacturers of tin-plate in the United States, 

from any moneys in the Treasury not o~herwise appropriated, a bounty of 1 cent per pound, under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner ot In- terna l Revenue, with the approval. of the Secreta.ry of the Treasury, shall pre- scribe. 

Mr. ALDlUCH. I was aboutto saytha.tthe:firstpartofthisamendment is identically the same amendment that the Senate has already 

voted upon once. If a division is to be made upon that alone that 

amendment would not be in order. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. The Chair understands the Senator 

from West Virginia. to demand a division oftha question. The Secretary will therefore read the first part of the amendment. 

The CHIEF CLERK. After the word "pay, i' in paragraph 137, line 

6, it is proposed to strike out "2. 2 cents per pound" and insert "1 cent 

per pound;" so as to make the clause read: 

And on and after July l, 1891, 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 component part, by the dipping or any olhe1· proces..'I, and commer- cially known as tin-plates, terne-plates, and taggers tin, shall pay 1 cent per pound. 

The PRESIDENT pro fempore. The Chair would state that this proposition. ha.ving once been voted upon and decirled in the negative, the 

question cannot be again taken upon it in the Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Then the question will be simply on the allowance of the bounty. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes; on the question of bounty. 

The Secretary will report the second clause of the proposed amendment. 

Mr. PLUMB. Does the Chair decide that the question can not be 

taken on the proposition to strike out and must be solely on the insertion of the bounty? 

Tho PRESIDENT pro tmrq)ore. The Chair holds that the amendment is susceptible of the division which has been demanded by the 

Senator from West Virginia, the first part of the proposition being t.o 

reduce the rare and the second to provide for a bounty. The Chair 

further states that the proposition toredttce the rate has once been negatived in Committee of the Whole, and therefore the question can not 

be renewed at this parliamentary stage of the proceedings. 

Mr. PLUMB. It is not renewed, if the Chair will pardon me, but it' 

is renewed in connection with another proposition, a portion of which 

is that which has already been voted upon; and the effect of the two, 

takin~ the two together, is different. Of course, if the Chair holds that 

the bounty alone bas got to be voted upon after we have put up the 

duty, I shall withdraw at once. The Chair will readily see that that 

has the effect of totally preventing the Senate from voting u ~n a. proposition which a number of its members desire to vote upon. 

The PRESIDENT pro tern.pore. The Chair is not responsible for the 

dilemma in which the Senate is placed. He states a. parliamentary 

proposition. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I appeal to the Senator from West Virginia--

Mr. PLUUB. I withdraw the amendment. 

Mr_ PADDOCK. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro i,empore. The amendment of the Senator from 

Kansas can only be withdrawn by unanimous consent, the yeas and 

nays having been ordered. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, 

and the proposition is withdrawn. The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. PAD DOCK. Before the announcement of the withdrawal I 

was about to appeal to the Senator from Kansas to withdraw the 

amendment. 

l\Ir. PLUMB. I think no one wants to vote for a bonnty in addition 

to the already enormous duty proposed by the bill as it stands. 

Mr. PAD DOCK. That is very true. r want to vote for the proposition of the Senator from Kansas exactly as proposed. 

The PRESIDENT pro wmpore. The proposition can be renewed in 

the Senate. 

l\Ir. PADDOCK. Then I givenoticethatin the Senate I shall move 

the amendment if the Senator from. Kansas does not. 

l\!r. DOLPH. I wish to raise the point of order, or at least inquire 

as a point of order, if it is true that the Senate now finds itself in a position that it can not vote upon a part of this proposition. Is the proposition divisible? 

The PRESIDENT pro wmpo1·e. The Chair thinks it is. 

Mr. DOLPH. Then we should be in the situation of being subject 

to a rule by which a proposition is divisible and when once divided 

one part of it can not be voted upon. It seems t.o me that if it be true 

that the Senate is precluded from voting upon a part of the proposition, then it is no longer divisible. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I do not know a thing myself about parliamentary 

law, but as a matter of common sense it would seem to me that it 

ought to be in order. 

Mr. BUTLER. The whole matter can be obviated when the bill 

gets into the Senate. The Senator will not have the sUghtest difficulty 

then in moving the amendment, as I understand the Chair to rule. 

That is the ruling, that the proposition can be renewed in the Senate, 

as I understand. 

The PRE.'3IDENT p1·0 teinpore. Certainly. The Senat.or from Kansas has withdrawn the amendment. 

l'ilr. PLUMB. I wish to make one parliamentary inquiry or suggestion. I underst.and the decision of the Chair is that when once a proposition has been voted upon no other proposition adding to the 

part can be voted upon. 

The P~ESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair makes no such announcement. 

Mr. PLUMB. That seems to be the effect of the decision. 

The PRESIDENT pro temporc. The Chair is merely deciding the 

question before it, and not a hypothetical question that may arise hereafter. 

Mr. PLUMB. That is the effect of the decision of the Cha.ir, it seems 

to me. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npore. The decision was as to the proposition to amend by changing tbe rate of duty. The question of the 

bounty can be voted upon in Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. HARRIS. I desire to suggest to the Senator from Kansas that 

h:is amendment presents the question ofa bounty, pure and simple. It 

is not a proposition to strike out; it is not a proposition to change 

the rate of duty and give a bounty, but it ·is simply a bounty proposition, as I understand it. 

l\Ir. PLUMB. No; it is not. It is a proposition to reduce the rate 

of duty as well as to provide for a bounty. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. One branch of the proposition of the 

Senator from Kansas was to reduce the rate of duty from 2.2 cents to 

1 cent per pound. 

Mr. HARRIS. I had read the printed amendment, and that simply 

proposed a bounty. 

Mr. GOR~IAN. Of course, the Senator from Kansas having withdrawn his amendment, I do not desire to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, but I du desire to enter my dissent publicly from 

the decision as made. 

, . 

.' 

·. 

-· 

.-

.-

-' ,_ 

~ • r 

--I. 

,,,.. ·--· .. .. -. . -,. . 
.· 

•1 

.. 

-. 

·' 

·. ~ 

... ., .. •' · I ' 

.. . , . 

8780 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~SENATE. AUGUST 19, . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is entirely willing, as he 

has no pride of opinion, that the question shall be suhmitted to the 

Senate. It is a matter of entire indifference to the Chair. 

Mr. GORMAN. The Senate a few days since voted upon the proposition to strike out 2. 2 cents and insert 1 cent, which was voted down. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It was de<}ided in the negative. 

unless it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction or the President (who shall thereupon by prnclamation make known the fa.ct) that the aggregate quantity of such plates lighter than 63 pounds per hundred square feet produced in the United States during any of the five years preceding June 30, 1896, has equaled one-third the a.mount of such plates imported and entered for consumption du ling any fiscal year after tLe passage of this act, and prior to said Octouer 1, 1896: Provided, That the amount of such plates manufactured int-0 articles ex- ported, and upon which a dra.wback shall be paid, shall not be included in as• certaining the amount of such importations: .Andprou~ed 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. 

Mr. GOR.l\1AN. Then the Senator from Kansas offered an entirely 

different proposition, thati'\ to strike out 2.2 cents and insert 1 cent, 

and coupled with that the additional provision that a bounty of 1 cent 

should be offered to the manufacturers of tin-plate, That amendment was unquestionably in order, and the yeas and nn.ys were ordered Mr . .McPHERSON. It is almost impossible to understand the amendupon it. ment, as read, in its application to this paragraph. I therefore sugThe PRESIDENTprotempo1·e. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. gest that this amendment or any other which may be offered shall be 

FAULKNER] demanded a division of the question. printed, and that we pass over the paragraph and proceed with the 

l\Ir. GORMAN. Very good. ~he Senator from West Virginia de- reading of the bill. 

manded a division. The question was divisible; and, the amendment Mr. ALDRICH. I have no objection to this amendment going over 

being in order under the rules of the Senate, the Senator from West until to-morrow morning and being printed if desirable, but I do ob· 

Virginia had the right to demand a division; and the Senate has the ject, however, to the whole paragraph being passed over. right in my judgment and by the uniform cruitomofthis body to vote Mr. CULLOM. You do not want us to discuss this paragraph all the 

upon that division. I suggest to the Chair that probably in the hurry week? 

of the moment bis decision was made reversing the universal practice .Mr. ALDRICH. No. 

of this body. Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I think the amendment will be 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has no doubt about the easily understood by Senators who will give it attention. The subcorrectness of his decision. stance of it has been heretofore printed as a proposition intended to be 

Mr. HARRIS. l\fav I ask the Chair if he holds that the amend- moved by me at the proper time. 

ment of the Senator from Kansa-s changing the rate of duty from 2. 2 The Senate has voted on an amendment to reduce the duty on tincents to 1 cent and adding the clause giving the bounty was in order? plate from 2.2 cents per pound to 1 cent. I voted to maintain the 

The PRESIDENT pro tem'f)ore. The Chair thinks it was. duty provided by the bill, on the theory that it was wise public policy, 

Mr. HARRIS. I think that amendment is clearly in order, and I if we could bring it about, to secure the manufacture in the United 

think the Chair is clearly right upon the proposition that we can not States of the tin-plates and terne-plates demanded for use by consum- vote again in Committee of the Whole npon the proposition that the ers in this country. 

Committee of the Whole has once decided, to reduce from 2.2 cents to I voted for that, knowing that for the time being the duty involved 

1 cent, as an isolated proposition. In other words, the question is noti in a sense a tax, though hardly appreciable by individuals, upon the 

divisible so far as that branch of it is concerned. consumers here, and thinking that it was a cheap price to pay if we Mr. REAGAN. Of course I al ways listen to the rulings of the Chair could thereby secure within a reasonable time the manufacture of tinwith the greatest respect; but when a question is presented to strike plates for our own use within onr own borders and by our own labor. 

out the duty of2.2 cents a pound and insert 1 cent and to provide for But there has been expressed, and seems to bea doubt, as to whether we a bounty of 1 cent a pound, and that is the entire proposition, if a can make tin-plates of the finer gauges in this conn try. I am not ab-

. division is demanded I suggest to the Chair with great respect, and solutely certain that we can, in competition with Wales, although I 

always doubting my own judgment when it comes in conflict with that believe it can be done. It has not been done up to this time. Senators 

of the Chair, that the fact that the amendment heretofore offered in a on the other side think the present duty is J"nlly adequate and that 

different form was voted down, the idea of striking out the duty of the.failure to engage in the industry is because of our inability t-0 do 

2.2 cents comes up, but still it is a part of an entire proposition. It it on other grounds. My own impression has been that the failure was seems to me that if a division is demanded, the question would first entirely to be ascribed to the inadequacy of the duty. 

have to be taken upon the first part of the proposition to strike out The fact remains that, notwithstanding the duty for many years, we the 2. 2 cents as a part of the whole proposition. Of course, if stated are not manufacturing tin-plate thinner than No. 28 wire gauge. Now, 

nakedly by itself, I should not doubt the propriety of the ruling of the for one, while entirely willing to give all needed protection to this inChair; but it seems to me that the only effect of a division is to reach dustry and all encouragement that we can give to bring about its inbytwo votesthatwbich is authorized to be reached by one vote; and that auguration and progres.3 in this country, I am not willing to leave it 

the vote must be taken with reference to the whole proposition as in such shape that we may for the next ten, twelve, or fifteen years be 

though a division had not been called for. imposing this duty of 2.2 cents per pound on these grades of tin-plate.!. 

Mr. CULLOM. If there is no appeal pending, I ask for the regular and at the end of that time be told that the duty was inadequate, an<1 

order. so find ourselves in the same position we are to-day, comparatively 

The PRESIDENT p1'o fempore. The reading of the bill will be re- with no domestic manufacture of tin-plate of these gauges. 

sumed. Intending to give all the time that is necessary in order to inauguUr. McPHERSON. I should like to make an inquiry. If I under- rate this industry and carry it forwardt I have here provided that if 

stand aright the committee's amendment in line 7, after the proviso within six years, excluding practically this year, a.sit ought to be, for it 

had been agreed to there has been no vote taken yet in Committee of is too late to do anything in that direction this year-if before October 

the Whole on agreeing to the text of the bill as amended by the com- 1, 1896, there shall not have been manufactured in this country durmittee; that is to say, there has been no vote taken on paragraph 137 ing some one intervening year an amount of tin-plate thinner than what 

fixing the rate of duty at 2.2 cents a pound. is known a-s No. 28 wire gauge, equal to one-third of the importation 

Before we depart from this paragraph, on a question so important of those gauge.~ daring some one year of the five years, thereaftertin- as this, I want to have the decision ot the Committee of the Whole plate of these gauges shall be put upon the free-list. That is all that 

upon this rate; and in order that we may meet it, I intend to strike there is in the proposition. 

out all in the first line on page 29, commencing after the word ''steel 11 I have provided that there shall be excluded from the annual com- in that line and going down to and including the word "pound," in putation tin which is admitted to the country and upon which a drawline 7, the e.ffact of which would be, after July 1, 1891, to put tin-plate back is paid when it shall have been manufactured into some article 

Qn the free-list. of tin for export, thus making it practically free. I have included in 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proposed amendment of the the annual computation only that tin which is imported and withSenntor from New Jersey will be stated. drawn from bonded warehouses for home consumption, to exclude the 

The CIIIEF CLEBK. In paragraph 137, on page 29, line 1, after the l amount of tin which is sometimeslargelyimportedand kept in bonded 

word "steel," it is proposed to strike out: warehouses one year, or two years, or three years, and then a part of 

A:-i<l on And after July l, 1891, all iron or steel sheets, or plates or taggers iron, it exported. I have provided for including in the computation wares coated with tin or lead, or with a mixture of which these metals or either of made of black sheets of such weight made here and tinned here This them is a component part, by the dipping or any other process, and commer- · t All I h · te d d t ' }' h b th" d' t · cially known as tin-plates, terne-plates, and taggers tin, shall pay 2.2 cents per seems J us ·· ave ID n _e o accomp 18 Y . 18 amen ~en 1S pound. to make these people, who cla1m they are ready with great capital to 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment engage in this industry and that they can do so successfully, put up 

of the Senator from New Jersey. t~eir money and go ahea:<l with it, or if, after ~he lapse of a reasonable 

The amendment was rejected. time, they sha~l have failed to do so, to put tin-plate of these gauges 

.Mr. SPOONER. I offer an amendment to come in after the word upon the free-hst. 

"pouml "in the seventh line of page 29. in the one hundred and thirty- I am told, and from my investigation I believe it to be true, that 

seventh paragraph. · tb~e gaug~s thinner than No. 28 wire gauge and those up. to 36 comThe CHIEF CLERK. On page 29, after the word "pound, 11 in line pr~se the t1~ ~and ~he 63 poun?s per h~dred square feet is the same 7, it is proposed to insert the following proviso: thrng, only it 18 easier to ~et at it by ~he msl?ectoi:s th~n by t~e gauges) 

P>-ovided, That on and after October 1, 1896, tin-plates and terne-pla.tes light.er and ~e the gang.es or weights use~ m m~king ti~-dis1:1es, tm-cans for in weight than 63 pounds per hundred square feet shall be admitted free oiduty, packmg and cannmg purposes, and lll makmg the tin-pails and the ma• 

... 
~ . . -· I 

... . ' , ·' 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8781 

nfacture of articles of that character in general domestic use. It excludes, however, generally tin-plate which is made for rooting purposes. 

I do not wish the proposition to be understood as being at all un- friendly to the adequate protection of this industry or the encouragement of it, because I am a protectionist, and I prefer that we shall 

make all we need in this country if we can do so. Mr. VEST. Mr. President, as ii seems Impossible to lower the duty 

upon tin-plate and beyond any conjectural possibility that it will be 

placed upon the free-list, I am disposed to support the amendment of 

the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOOXEB]. If this outrage is to be 

mitigated, even in 1896, it is better than to accept the proposition of 

the Finance Committee with the notification already made to us that 

additional terror is to be imparted t-0 this bill by a duty of 4 cents a 

pound upon block-tin. 

I read the other day, in the absence of the Senator from Wisconsin, an article from The American Economist denouncing this amendment 

and declaring that its effect would be to absolutely put tin-plate upon 

the free-list. If The American Economist, the highest authority in 

this country upon protection, is correct, I am heartily in favor of the 

amendment; but, while, in my judgment, it will not have that effect, 

it is a miti!mtion of what I conceive the most gross and palpable outrage inflicte°d upon the people of the United States in this whole measure. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE] yesterday made it so 

plain tbat there could be no mistake about it that the course pursued 

by the Committee on Finance in regard to this duty is utterly inconsistent and indefensible. They have reported to the Senate an increase 

from 1 to 2.2 cents a pound upon tin-plate without any duty whatever 

upon block-tin. They increased that duty with the facts before them 

in regard to block-tin and declared solemnly to the Senate and to the 

country tha.t this increase of 1. 2 cents a pound was all that was neces- sary. They come in afterwards and put a duty on the raw material 

of 4 cents a pound, and we know where the inspiration for that increase 

came from. It was from no additional facts, but it was from the exigencies that arose for controlling the four votes from the two Dakotas. 

My friend from Maryland [Mr. GORMAN] tells me that I have not 

read the whole of the amendment. I have not read it at all, but I am alludinrr to that feature of it which says-and that was the only point 

discusS:d by the Senator from Wisconsin-that if in 1896 there should 

1Jc not as much of this tin-plate manufactured in the United States as 

is imported. then the duty should be absolutely taken off and tin-plate 

put upon the free-list. 

Mr. SPOONER. The one-third of the importations during any one 

of the five years. · Mr. VEST. One-third of the whole in any one year of the five. That 

is different, but I simply wish to state that any sort of qualification or 

mitigation of this legislation as it is about to be voted by the Senate 

is in my jndO"ment, a relief to the people of the United States, and 

a~y prospect ~f putting tin-plate upon the free-list I shall welcome 

with great avidity, and I fully appreciate what the Senator from Wisconsin has said in regard to the uncertainties that surround this whole 

subject. 

We are now asked to place a, duty of 4 cents a pound upon block-tin, 

and to do it upon the statement of one of the Senators from South Dakota that a large amount of block-tin is already upon the "dump " 

and ready for use, and that a railroad is about to be constructed to 

carry it to market, and the additional fact that a company has been 

organized with $15, 000, 000 of capital to go into this business. If that 

be so Mr. I1resident, if $15,000,000 is ready to he invested by capitalists, it seems to me tllat no additional legislation is necessary upon this 

subject. 

Mr. President, ar>"ainst the assertion of the Senator from South Dakota I put the sta~meut of another Senator of this body, the Senator 

from California [Mr. HEARST], who is recognized as the best expert 

miner upon the face of the earth, not only in this country, but anywhere else-the most successful miner. He visited these mines for 

the purpose of investment, went through them in this very Harney 

Peak district which is spoken of by the Senator from South Dakota, 

and he says now, as I am informed, that there is not tin there in sufficient quantities to justify investment. 

Mr. G.iBSON. Has the Senator seen the opinion of Professor Hall, 

who is professor of geology in the University of Minnesota? 

Mr. VEST. Yes, I have that before me now. Here is that opinion, 

and I was about to read it: 

Professor Hall, professor of geology in lhe Uni\'erdily of Mionesota, visited 

the Harney Peak district in company with a fellow-geologist and made nn ex- amioe.tion for no other purpose than to satisfy himself. Iu e. paper read at the 

December meeting of the Minnesota. Academy of ScieLces he ail.id that-

" The tin ore of granitic area. (i.e., that portion of the Black Hills containing tin at e.11) would never be found to occur in paying quantities sM·e in occasional 

"placers" into which the ore of remo,·ed areas of granite had been collected, or in occasional lumps of granite having a. larger quantity of ore than the av- erage of the granitic mass, this fact (of non-existence in paying quantities) being due to the igneous origin of these rocks a.nd the non-segregated condition 

of the ore in most masses of the carryingrock." • 

And yet we are asked in the face of this testimony from the best ex- pert in the United States or in the world on mining, and also from 

this professor who goes there not in the interest of any company, but 

. , 

to satisfy himself-we are asked to put 4 cents a pound dutyon blocktin, and the people of the United States under this nebulous and uncertain condition of affairs, under this experimental condition, are to 

pay this duty upon tin-plate ofl.2 cents a pound and added to that 

the burden that must come from an increase of 4 cents a pound upoU" 

block-tin. 

Mr. VANCE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. VEST. Certainly. 

Mr. VANCE. I ask the Senator if he has any information-I do not 

find it in the tables presented to us here-as to the amount of blocktin imported into this country and the amount of additional money 

the people of the United States will have to pay if the duty is kept at 

4 cents a pound. 

Mr. VEST. I have the tables here--

1\Ir. CARLISLE. The Senator will permit me to say that, based 

upon the importations of tin in the year 1889, if a duty of 4 cents per 

pound is imposed, as suggested by the Senator from Rhode Island, th~ 

revenue would be one million three hundred and some odd thousancl 

dollars per annum from that source. 

Mr. GIBSON. If tbe importations continue the same? 

Mr. CARLISLE. If the importations continue the same as in the 

year 1889, which is the only basis we can have for caculation upon ibis 

subject. 

Mr. VEST. I have addressed myself so far simply to the salient point 

in the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. As to the details of 

that amendment in regard to galvanized shoot-'iron and the provisions 

contained in the latter part of the amendment, I do not commit myself, 

because I have not read them and I could not catch their full meaning as they were read from the desk. 

I simply want to emphasize what I have said as to the extraordinary course pursued by the Finance Committee in regard to this matter, who, 

after declaring to the Senate and to the country that 1.2 cents pe:r 

pound increase on tin-plate was all that industry demanded, have now 

supplemented that by a duty of 4 cents per pound upon the raw ma- terial, and without any other i·eason except the demands made upon ., 

them, we are warranted in believing, by the Senators from the Dako• 

tas. 

As the Senator from Kentucky said yesterday, and it is absolute!}' 

unanswerable, they have made some mistake in regard to this matt.er; 

either their first proposed legislation of an increase on tin-plate of 1.2 

cents a pound was notsufficientoritwassufficient, and, if not sufficient, an increase of 4 cents per pound upon block-tin is absolutely indefensible. They admit that they must have made this mistake, but they 

give no reason whatever for this extraordinary a-Otion. 

More than that, the facts do not warrant any cautious and prudent 

legislator in entering upon this undiscovered and unexplored domain 

of block-tin and the manufacture of tin-plates in this country npbn 

the facts which are given to the Senate. We know very well that if 

the manufacturers of galvanized iron at Pittsburgh did not demand all 

the profit that they get from the tariff duty upon iron-plates they 

could very easily go into the manufacture of tin-plates. But they • want it all. They want the increased duty upon tin-plate sons to keep 

it out of the country and increase the consumption of their own man- ufacture of iron-plat.es, and in either event, whether this duty upon 

block-tin is placed upon it or not, even with the simple increase ofl.2 

cents a pound on tin-plate they know very well that they will force 

the American people to buy largely of their iron product .. Mr. SPOONER and Mr. BLAIR addressed the Chair. 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President, I rise merely to ask the Senator trom 

Wisconsin a question, and then I shall not detain him fro!Il the :floor. 

I am not sure that I caught the whole of his amendment, bnt I understand it to be to this effect, that if in any one year of the ti.Te years, 

excluding the present year, between now and 1896, the American 

manufacture of tin-plate is not one-third of the foreign importation of 

anyoneyear, then the duty is by the express provision of law to disappear in 1896 and free trade will be substituted for protection upon 

this manufacture. Is that so? 

l'tlr. SPOONER. I will answer the question if the Senator is through 

with it. 

Mr. BLAIR. I want to be assured that I understand the Senator's 

proposition, and then I shall follow it by this suggestion, so that he 

may meet the whole without my troubling him again. If there be a provision of that kind made, i b would seem to me absolutely certain 

that the English trust, with the entire capital and ability to produce 

and import tin, will be concentrated in some one year's effort, whether 

there be consumption corresponding in this country or not, and that 

there will be such an importation in some one of these years aa to utterly drown out the American production; and with a threat of that 

kind hanging over the effort to establish the industry, it would be utterly impossible to obtain the investment of the first dollar, and so the 

entire effort to establish the industry must fail. 

Mr. SPOO:NER. Only a moment. The difference in principle between the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] and myself upon all sub· 

jects connected with the tariff is so marked and irreconcilable that 

I am almost afraid to support the proposition which I make myself if 

it meets his approval; and if this amendment could have th~ effect 

.. · . . -... 

\ ... 

r . 

,. 

r·, 

.i· .. ' 

' I 

.. ' ..... 

' -

... 
·. 

I 

. , 

'• 

·. 

.-• "' 

. : 

/ . , , 

8782 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SE..~ATE . . AUGUST 19, 

which he has suggested, I should vote against itif offered by anybody 

else, and even should repudiate it having offered it myself. 

I did not see the article, to which the Senator referred, in the Economist, though I have seen some criticism of this amendment in several 

so-called protection papers. I think the amendment as I first gave 

notice of its introduction was justly open to the criticism passed upon 

it. It gave a much shorter time and required the domestic manufacture to be equal to one-half of the importation. It was early printed to 

elicit criticism. On reflection there seemed to me to be clearly danger 

that the amendment drawn in that way would encourage and render 

it entirely practicable for the tin-plate-manufacturers abroad, by flooding the country with their products for the requisite years to render 

it impossible for us to make the domestic production equal to one-half 

of the importation. · I have accordingly changed the amendment so as to provide that it 

during any one year of the six years after October 1 there shall be produced in this country one-third of the amount of tin-plate of these 

gauges (none of which are made now) imported and entered for consumption during some one year of the six years, the duty shall remain, 

and I have otherwise so changed it that I believe the interest is entirely protected, and that it can not discourage the investment of money 

in this industry. If longer time is required I shall be entirely satisfied if the time fixed by this amendment is extended. 

I want t.o encourage this industry. I believe, Mr. President, in the 

industrial independence of this country as far as it can be brought 

about. We import yearly millions upon millions in value of tin-plate. 

If through this (luty we can manufacture it all, no matter if for the 

time being we pay a higher price for it, if we can supply in our own 

country our own demand, if we can make our people independent of 

foreign producers, if we can in that way bring down the price t.o our 

people, as we will if we can change the condition which exists to-day 

and has for years, under which the price of tin-plate is maintained 

while the price of block-tin has gone down, I am anxious to do it and 

t.o help to do it. 

But, Mr. President, there is an element of uncertainty about it. 

No mania able to say here with absolute certainty that in two years 

or five years we shall be able to manufacture, I do not say tin-plate, 

but tin-plate of these gauges, thinner than 28. I believe we can; I 

hope we can. If we can not do it on this duty of 2. 2 cents a pound 

and we could certainly do it on 3. 2 cents a pound, I should be willing 

to vote for it. 

The sole object of this amendment is this, that if after a reasonable 

time, five years, six years, or whatever it may be, it shall be found 

impossible to manufacture in this country tin-plate of these gauges, we 

shall give it up. If in six years they can not manufacture one-third of 

the importation for consumption here under the restriction and limitations of this amendment it is an experiment too expensive to be carried farther, and these finer gauges ought to be free. If they can manufacture it1 this amendment can do no harm. 

If the committee, who in the nature of things are able to master the 

details of this subject, and who know more about it than those of us 

who may properly be called laymen in relation to it, are of the opinion 

that the limit fixed in the amendment is such as to discourage the investment of money in the manufacture of tin-plate and longer time is 

needed, I should be quite willing to accept a proposition to extend it. 

I repeat I am a protectionist, and I would do nothing to discourage 

the establishment of this industry in this country. But I am not willing that ten, twelve, or fifteen years shall go by with this duty of 2.2 

cents per pound on the thinner gauges of tin-plate with none of it 

manufactured in the United States. No industry and no interest has 

a right to ask such a thing as that of the people. As I have said before. and that is the object of this amendment, if after giving them a liberal chance and abundant time to start the industry, to put it on its 

feet, we find it can not be done, then I want to stop this duty. 

Mr. BLAIR. If the Senator will allow me, I understand his ex- planation of the amendment to be this, that if there be any one year 

during the five years in which the American manufacture is not onetbfrd of the importation--

Mr. SPOONER. No, sir. 

Mr. BLAIR. Then--

Mr. SPOO:N"ER. If there be in any one year in the six in which the 

American manufacture is equal to the importation during any one year 

of the six. 

Mr. BLAIR. In his explanation to the Senator from Missouri I understooll the Senator from Wisconsin to state it precisely the other way. 

Mr. SPOONER. No; the Senator states it just exactly as it is not. 

The proposition is that if during any one year of the six years the production in the United States equals the importation. for home con- sumption--

Mr. BLAIR. One-third of the importation? 

Mr. SPOONER. One-third of the importation, for home use, during any one year of the six, then the dutyis to continue. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is an entirely different proposition. 

Mr. SPOONER. I am quite willing that the proposition shall be 

printed and should go over until t-0-morrow. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I suggest that that course be taken. The prop-

-, , 

.... 

.. 

osition made by the Senator from Wisconsin is to require a reasonable 

pledge from the manufacturers of the United States of their good faith 

in this matter, and I will say for the members of the committee upon 

this side of the Chamber that in that view they approve of the amendment suggested by the Senator from Wisconsin. I will sa.y further 

thut I have myself no reasonalile doubt that the American producers 

of tin-plate will manufacture a very much larger proportion in every 

one of the five years thau one-third. 

.Mr, CULLOM. In view of the remarks of the Senator, it seems to 

me that the Senate is as well prepared to dispose of this amendment 

now as it will be at any .future time. I submit whether we had not 

better take a vot~ upon it. 

Mr . .ALDRICH. I am quite willing unleS3 it leads to prolonged discussion. 

Mr. VEST. Since I have heard the explanation of the Senator from 

Wisconsin, and especially what is said by the Senator from Rhode 

Island, I want some time to examine this amendment. Timeo Danaos 

et donaferentes. The Senator from Wisconsin has paid me the very high 

<-'Ompliment of saying that his views and mine are utterly irreconcilahle 

upon the tariff. I am very greatly obliged to him for that public declaration. He could pay me no higher compliment than that. 

Mr. SPOON.ER. You are entirely welcome. 

Mr. VEST. I simply wanted, as I said before, to emphasize my conviction of the outrage of this whole increase of duty by saying that I 

will take any sort of modification as a boon compared with the naked 

deformity of the committee bill as it is now urged upon the Senate. 

I want to say further to the Senator from Wisconsin that his modification does not answer the objection made to his amendment in The 

American Economist. He will find that article copied in lo the RECORD 

a few days ago in some remarks I made upon tin-plate. The salient 

point in that attack upon the amendment was that if there was a possibility of tin-plate going upon the free-list, as there would have been 

even if the original amendment had been adhered to, and the American manufacturer could produce in one year one-half of the foreign 

importation, no American manufacturer would enter upon this venture 

at all; in other words, that the manufacturer, and this was unquestionably a manufacturer who was indorsed by The American Economist, 

wanted the absolute increase of 1.2 cents without any condition, and 

I read it in the Senate to show that their object was to put the increase 

upon tin-plate in order to force the American people to buy their galvanized sheet-iron at Pittsburg:b. 

.A.t the same time I read extracts from remarks of the Senator from 

Iowa [Mr. ALLISO~]. who managed the debate in 18 8 upon the tariff 

bill kn.own as the Senate substitute, in which he stated repeatedly 

that if this increase was made there were forty manufacturing establishments ready to go into the manufacture of tin-plate at once. The 

Senator from Wisconsin will find that his modification does not remove 

the objection of these man u.facturers; but since the Senator from Rhode 

Island says it is acceptable to the committee I want time to examine it. 

I ask, therefore, that this amendment may go over and be printed, 

for I was not able to understand all of its provisions. 

Mr. ALDRICH. There is no objection, I think, on the part of the 

Senator from Wisconsin. 

Mr. SPOONER. Not at all. I said I was entirely willing that it 

should be printed and go over. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is ·there any understanding about 

the time when it is to be considered? 

Mr. SPOONER. However, it would be open in the Senate if it 

were adopted now in committee. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The understanding being that the 

amendments of the Committee on Finance should be proceeded with 

seriatim, under that understanding this proposed amendment would not 

be in order until the bill had been gone through with, except by unanimous consent otherwise. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I suggest that it be taken up in the Senate. I 

suppose it may just as well be considered there. 

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Presiden , I do not want ~o detain the Senate 

any more on this proposition, but I ought not to let some of the as- sertions made here in this Chamber go into the RECORD without contradiction. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I suggest to the Senator from South Dakota that 

when the paragraph is reached increasing the duty upon block-tin he 

can then answer the statement whfoh has been made by Senators upon 

the other side. 

Mr. MOODY. Very well; I am perfectly willing: t.o conform with 

the wishes of the Senator having this bill in charge. I want to put 

upon record, and I shall at the proper time, abundant proofs that the 

statements made by Senators here with reference to the production of' 

metallic block pig-tin in this country are not well founded. They have no proof of any kind or character. On the contrary, the proof is abundant here before the Senate, and I have additional proof placing it beyond all sort of question. 

A Senator has been quoted here. Now, I do not believe that that 

Senatoranthorizedanyquota.tionfromhim,becausetomycertainknowledge he ha.s not been in that region of country in five years, during 

which time all these developments of that property and industry have 

_ .. '· .· .... ...... 
. -

-- .-

-, , 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8783 

occurred. Indeed the developments have taken place in much less 

time than five years. The discoveries have existed for many years, but 

the developments of that property have all been made practically within 

the last three years, and most of them within the last two years. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The understanding being that the 

amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin goes over, the Chief Clerk 

will proceed with the reading of the bill. 

Mr. V ANOE. When does the amendment go over to? 

Mr. GIBSON. I should iike very much to hear the Senator from 

South Dakota on this subject. He says there is ample proofher~that 

this tin-block exists. We have had no such proof or evidence placed 

before the Senate. 

Mr. MOODY. If the Senator will permit me to interrupt him, I will 

saythatwhen theparagraph.relatingto block-tin isreached I shall be very 

glad to gi'ite to the Senator and the Senate the information and knowledge that I have upon the subject; and I do not speak merely from information. I do not talk about mining block-tin nor mining tin-plate, 

nor do I confound tin-plate with block-tin: I understand something 

about the production of that materia1. I happen 1\\ live in that immediate vicinity, and I have been conversant with these properties ever 

since they were discovered yea.rs ago, and with all their development. 

I shall be very ~lad indeed, if I can, to furnish the Senator from Louisiana any inforniation upon· the subject either privately or before the 

Senate when the proper time comes; but the Senator having this bill 

in charge prefers that I shall delay nnbl that item is reached, and that 

request of course I willingly comply with. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reading of the bill will proceed. 

The Chief Clerk read paragraph 138. The Committee on Finance 

proposed to amend the paragraph, in line 23, on page 29, by striking out 

after the word ''cold-rolled,'' the words ''smoothed only, not polished;" 

so as to make the paragraph read: 

138. Sheet-iron or sheet-st.eel, polished, planished, or glanced. by whatever name designated, 2k cents per pound: Provi.ded, That plate or sheet or tagge1·s iron or steel, by whatever name designated, other than the polished, planished, OI' glanced herein provided for, which h1tS been pickled or cleaned by acid, or by any other material or process, or which is cold-rolled, shall pay one-quarler 

of 1 cent per pound more duty than the corresponding gauges of common or black sheet ox taggers iron or steel. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I want to call attention to paragraph 138, and 

to the tables that are given here and 1he unit of value in sheet-iron 

and sheet-steel, polished, planished, or glanced, by whatever name 

known. It will be .aeen that the unit of value is 5.9 cents. This is 

upon what is called Russian sheet-iron, a very expensive material. 

The majority of the sheet-iron made in this country which is polished, 

planished, or glanced can be bought to-day for less than 3 cent'> a 

pound. Therefore, the rate of duty is anywhere from 80 to 100 per 

cent. upon this particular character of iron; that is, there is a protection on iron costing from 21 or 2! to 3 cents a pound of from 80 to 100 

per cent., and that is the special object in making this high rate of duty. 

I move to strike out the words "and one-half" in line 18, so as to 

make the duty 2 cents per pound. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated. 

· The CHIEF CLERK. On page 29, paragraph 138, line 18, strike out 

the words "and one-half;" so as to read: 

Sheet-iron or sheet-steel, polished, planished, OI' glanced, by whatever name designated, 2 cents per pound. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from New Je.rsey. 

The amendment was rejected. 

l\Ir. McPHERSON. It will be seen that in line 24 there is an addition of one-quarter of 1 cent a pound pnt upon iron simply because 

of the fact that it has gone through a smoothing process, perhaps preparing it better for the application of tin. It is in reality an addition 

to the sheet-iron which will be used for the purpose of making tinplates and terne-plates, etc. I only call attention to it. It is hardly 

worth while to move to strike out anything in this bill, but it seems 

to me to be extraordinary. 

Mr. VANCE. I observe that this is a very large increase; that the 

iron described in the latter clause of the one hundred and thirty-eighth 

paragraph, cold-rolled, etc., shall pay one-quarter of 1 cent per pound more duty--

.M:r. ALDRICH. In order that the Senate may not be deceived 

about this, I ask tbat the provision of the present law be read. It is 

no increase at all. 1t is the same rate that is provided in existing law. 

l\Ir. VANCE. Then, Mr. President, the committee, or the expert 

Tather-for I suppose it is all the work of the expert of the committeehas misled the Senate, because the report states that the dn.ty is increased from 39.27 to 6l.20per cent., almost double. I think that the 

explanation will be found in the law itself. It requires that plate, or sheet, or taggers iron or steel, by whatever name designated, other 

than the polished, planished, or glanced otherwise provided for, which 

has been pickled or cleaned by acid or by any other material or process, or which is cold-rolled, shall pay one-quarter cent per pound 

more duty than the corresponding gauges of common or black sheet or 

taggers iron or steel; and that common black iron ~r steel sheet taggers 

iron, when thinner than No.10 and not thinner than No. 20 wire 

gauge, shall pay 1 cent per -pound, which makes 2l cents a pound, 

.-

which, according to the table submitted to us by the expert, with the 

tacit assent at least of the commibtee, is an increase of from 39 per cent.. 

to 61 per cent. And a. fraction. I should like to know why that is. 

lli. ALDRICH. I have stated a dozen times in the hearing of the 

Senator from North Ga:rolina that the committee is in no wise responsible for the tabJes annexed to this report, which were prepared by Mr. 

Charles H. Evans, who bas prepared similar tables for every committee, Democratic or Republican, which has prepared a. tariff bill for the 

last twenty years. The text of the law and of the bill which we propose is what governs ia this matter, or should govern, it seems to me 

very c-learly. I will read for the information of the Sena.tor from NorthCarolina the present law: 

Polished, planished, or glanced sheet.iron or sheet-steel, by whatever name designated, 2~ cents per pound: Provided, That plate or sheet or taggers iron, 

by whatever name designated, other than the polished, planished, or glanced 

herein provided for, which has b een pickled or cleaned by acid or by any other m aterial or process, and which is cold-rolled, shall pay ~:.ne-quarter cent per pound more duty than the corresponding gauges of common or black sheet or taggers iron. 

I read from paragraph 152 B of the indexed tariff prepared at the 

Treasury Department. The Senator can see that there is no change 

in the rates of the existing law in this paragraph. 

Mr. VANCE. Then, Mr. President, I think the other Senators over 

here, whose early education has been somewhat neglected, have a right 

to complain that there has been put before us by an expert, or by somebody, a table which is incorrect and which misleads us. The Senate 

ordered this report to be made and the statement of the reasons in every 

case why there was a departure trom the existing law, whether an increase or a red action, and that it should state the fact of au increase or 

a reduction. In accordance with what we supposed was a response to 

this order of the Senate, these tables were submitted to us by the Committee, and being unaccompanied with any report disclaiming resp<.msibility for them, we were authorized to infer that the committee recommended us to a.bide by them and to accept their statements as correct. 

Yet here is a statement which makes the change and the increase that I 

have designated in the face of a foot-note thatthis isa reduction of onetenth of a cent per pound on the various forms to correspond with other 

classes of iron and steel manufactures. If I am wrong I have been led 

wrong by following this report and these tables submitted to me. 

Mr. ALDRICH. In justice to :M:r. Evans and for the further information of the Senator from Norbh Carolina., I will say that I suppose • 

he has reforence to the item of taggers iron at the foot of the tahle on 

page 29. I understand the Senator is referring to that item. 

Mr. VANCE. The explanation there given embi:aces the whole paragraph. 

.Mr. ALDRICH. But the increase to which the Senator refers is 

upon taggers iron, is it not? 

Mr. V ANOE. It is upon taggers iron; that is, upon cold-rolled or 

pickled. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes; that is it exactly. That is one of the items 

alluded to in this table. Now, the present duty upon taggers iron is 

30 per cent. ad valorem. That has been increased by the action of the 

committee and by the action of the Senate in paragraph 136, which has 

already been adopted, to 1.1, or whatever the rate is upon corresponding gauges of common black sheet-iron or sheet-steel. The increase 

which the Senator is finding fault with does not occur in the paragraph 

now under consideration, but was provided for in paragraph 136~ 

Mr. McPHERSON. You made no increase in paragraph 138 above ~he existing law--

Mr. ALDRICH. We put in taggers iron--

Mr. McPHERSON. Except to put taggers iron in. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I suppose the Senator from New Jersey would have 

discovered that we put in taggers iron with other grades of common black sheet-iron. 

Mr. VANCE. That is another ground of complaint that I think we ave a right to make in this case, that the changes come in in a manner 

calculated to a.void observation and to escape detection. The explanation is given on one page and relates to one paragraph, and the figures 

show the increase; but the Senator who has the bill in charge now tells us that the real increase took place in another paragraph, where it does 

not appear at all. Taggers iron was put in, and known to none but 

those who are acquainted with the methods of proceeding of the manu- facturers and of these experts, for the purpose of deluding men whose · 

technical education does not embrace all of these little tricks and contrivances of the trade, in such manner that the ordinary observer can not detect them. 

Mr. ALD R £CH. I suggest to my friend from Nor th Carolina whether 

he is not a. little unreasonable in requesting that the majority of the 

committee should furnish the minority of the committee with observation and understanding about a bill which they are supposed to 

know as much about as any one else. If it came from persons outside 

of the committee a plea of ignorance would certainly be permissible, 

but it seems to me that a member of the minority of the committee 

who bas discussed this question upon this floor conRtantly for the past 

three or four years should have a reasonable amount of knowledge at 

least of what the bill contains. 

Mr. YANCE. Perhaps. Mr. President, the Senator does not ad· 

.- ,- ·, 

. ·. _ ...... ' .. 

. · 

.-~ 

........ ' 
.. . 

• 

.... 

'"t 

,-

_,I 

·- .. . ... 

8784 CONGRESSiONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

vert to the fact that the minority members of the committee were not 

present when this manipulation of the tariff duties was had. It was done in secret, at leMt it was secret so far as the rest of the committee were concerned and all of the outside world except the beneficiaries of 

this taxation, who I presume were on hand and telling how it might 

be done and how it might be done so that it would escape detection. 

The purpose of the Senate in directing what the committee should do was to furnish this very information, the withholding of which I am 

now complaining about. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I move to strike out the words "one-quarter" 

and insert "one-tenth." I see that taggers iron has· been here put 

into the different paragraphs in such a way as to increase the protection on that, leading up all the way until we reach the tin-plate industry; and therefore I think that one-tenth of a cent a pound is a sufficient amount of additional compensation for rolling it through a 

pair of rollers. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed by the 

Senator from New Jersey will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERIC In paragraph 138, line 24, strike out ''onequarter" and insert "one· tenth; " so as to read: 

Shall pay one-tenth of 1 cent per pound more duty than the corresponding 

gauges of common or black sheet or taggers iron or steel. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Rhode 

Island whether he can give th .3enate any information as to the additional cost of cold-rolling this iron? As I understand, it is simply put 

through a i)air of rollers. 

Mr. McPHERSON. It is smoothed. 

Mr. CARLISLE. It is smoothed by passing through n pair of rollers 

which nre run by machinery. Can the Senator give the Senate any 

information upon that subject? It is proposed to add one-fourth of a cent per pound. ~~ 

Mr. McPHERSON. Five dollars and sixty cents per ton for simply 

passing the...~ sheets through rolle1·s by machinery. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The fact that with this rate in the existing law 

considerable importations of cold-rolled and cleaned sheet-iron have 

been made would be a sufficient answer, if no other were required, to 

the suggestion made by the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator 

from Kentucky. I will say that from my information about the cost 

of the processes included in this paragraph-because the Senator from 

Kentucky will understand as well as I that it would not do to select 

the cheapest process of the whole and fix a rate of duty which would be 

applicable to that alone-the cost of the process involved in this paragraph is at least $5.60 a ton greater in this country than in Great 

Britain. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Of course I understand it would not do to select 

the very cheapest process and fix the rate simply upon that; but I un- derstand also that it is not just to put the cheapest process in with the 

most costly process and pub the same duty upon both; and that is what 

is done here. It is for that reason that I wanted the information in 

o.rder that a lower rate of duty migbt be put upon this iron which is 

perfectly finished by the cheaper process than the rate of duty provided 

npon that which is perfected by the more costly process. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I have a table at my residence which was submitted to the committee by the manufacturers and compared with the 

statement of the importers upon this subject, which I will submit to 

the Senate to-morrow morning or at some subsequent time, and which 

I am sure will satisfy the Senator from Kentucky that this rate is not 

unreasonable. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempote. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from New Jersey to strike out "one-quarter" and insert "one-tenth '' in line 24 of page 29. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Chief Clerk read paragraph 139, as follows: 

139. Sheets or plates of iron or steel, or taggera iron or steel, coated with tin or lead or witb. a mixture of which these metals, or either or them, is a com- ponent part, by the dipping or any other process, and commercially known as tin-plates, terne-plates, and taggers tin, 1 cent i>er pound until .July 1, 189L. 

Mr. VANCE. I move to strike out the whole of line 8, the words 

"until July 1, 1891. ' 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the ~mendment 

proposed by the Senator from North Carolina. [Putting the question.] 

By the sound the noes have it. 

Mr. VANCE. I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina 

asks that on this question the yeas and nays may be entered on the 

Journal. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I appeal to my friend from. North Carolina not to 

demand the yeas aucl nays upon this amendment. · If it should be 

adopted we should have then two rates upon tin-plate imposed by this 

bill, one at 1 cent 3' pound and one at 2.2 cents, and unde.r the similitude clause th~ 2. 2 cents duty would be assessed by the customs offi- cers. There would be no escape from it. So it would not effect the 

purpose which the Senator bas in view. It is simply ta.king up the 

time of the Senate in an ineffectual attempt to do something which the 

Senator has had an opportunity of doing by other and more direct 

methods. 

Mr. VANCE. A favorite specimen of logic in this whole scheme is 

to raise the duty on one thing and then say that that necessitates the raisin~ofthe duty on everything else. So in this case, if we have two 

rates of duty here, one at 1 cent a pound and one at 2.2 cents a pound, 

it will necessitate the striking out of the other 2.2. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Not necessarily. 

Mr. VANCE. I withdraw the call for the yeas and nays. 

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

amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Chief Clerk read paragraph 140, as follows: 

140. Steel ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, and slabs, by whatever process made; 

die block!! or blanks; billets and bars a.nd tapered or beveled bars; steamer. crank, a.nd other shafts; shafting; wrist or crank pins; connecting-rods and 

piston-rods; pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes; saw-plat.es, wholly or partially manufactured; hammer-molds or swaged steel; gun-barrel molds not in 

bars ; alloys used as substitutes for steel tools; all descriptions and shapes of 

dry sand, loam, or iron-molded steel ca.stings; sheets a.nd plates not specially provided for in this act; and steel in all forms a.ad shapes not specially proYided for in this act; all of the above valued at 1 cent per pound or less, fivetenths of 1 cent per pound; valued above 1 cent and not above 1.4 cents per pound, six-tenths of 1 cent per pound; valued above 1.4 oents and not above 1.8 cents per pound, eight-tenths of 1 cent per pound; valued above 1.8 cents and not above 2.2 cents per pound, nine-tenths of 1 cent per pound; valued above 

2.2 cents and not above 8 cents per pound, 1.2 cents per pound; valued above 

3 cents and not above 4 cents per pound, 1.6 cents per pound; valued above t cents and not abo,•e7 cents per pound, 2 cents per pound; valued above 7 cents and not above 10 cents per pound, 2.8 cents per pound; valued above 10 cents and not above 13 cents per pound, 3l cents per pound; valued above 13 cents and not above 16 cents per pound, 4.2 cents per pound; valued above 16 cents per pound, 7 cents per pound. 

The Committee on Finance proposed to am.en~ the paragraph, in line 

20, after the word ''less,'' by striking out ''five-tenths'' and inserting 

"four-tenths;" so as to read: 

All of the above valued at 1 cent per pound or less, four-tenths of 1 cent per 

pound. 

'l.'he amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment of the Committee on Finance was, in line 22, 

after the word "pound," to strike out "six-tenths" and insert "fi.vetenths;" so as to read: 

Yalned above 1 cent and not above l. 4 cent.!(per pound,five-tenths of 1 cent per 

pound. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I desire to ofter an amendment to the whole 

paragraph. 

Mr. CULLOM. We had better complete the committee amendments 

first. 

Mr. PLATT. Why not complete the committee amendments? 

Mr. McPHERSON. Very well . 

'l.'he next amendment of the Committee on Finance was, in line 25, 

on page 30, after the word "pound," to strike out "eight-tenths" and 

insert "seven-tenths;" so as to read: 

Valued above 1.4 cents and not above 1.8 cents per pound, seven·tenths of 1 cent per pound. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

l\fr. McPHERSON. It will be noticed that this is a paragraph w bich 

includes a great many difterent varieties of manufactures, a great many 

different shapes and forms of steel and iron. If you will turn to page 

31 you will find that there is a jump, for instance, from 4 cents a pound to 7 cents a pound in value, in which the rate of duty imposed 

there will be equal to $44.80 per ton on steel valued at $95.20 per ton. 

In other words, the stride that they take from 4 cents a pound valuation to 7 cents a pound imposes as great a rate of duty on steel costing 

4! cents a pound as it does upon steel costing 7 cents a pound. 'l.'he duty 

is made specific, and it is a sort of drag-net for the purpose of getting 

the highest rate of duty possible upon the lowest value of goods. 

I move to strike out all in that paragrap!\ after the work "act, n in 

line 19, page 30, which describes the articles, to the end ofline 14, on page 31, and insert in lieu thereof '• 35 per cent. ad valorem.'' 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The amendment will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 19, page 30, paragraph 140, after the 

word ''act," strike out down to and including the word "pound," at 

the end of the paragraph, in the following words: 

.All of the above valued at 1 cent per pound or less, four-tenths of 1 cent per pound; valued above 1 cent and not above 1.4 cents per pound, five-teuths of 1 cent per pound; valued a.hove 1.4 cents a.nd not above 1.8 cents per pound, se,·en-tenths ofl cent per pound; valued a.hove l.8centsand not above 2.2cents 

per pound, nine-tenths of 1 cent per pound; valued above 2.2 cents and not; 

above 3 cents per pound, 1.2 cents per pound; valued above 3 cents and not above 4 cents per pound, 1.6 cents per pound; valued above 4 cents and not above 7 centsperpound,2 cents per pound; valued above7 cents and not above 

10 cents per pound, 2.8 cents per pound; valued above lOcentsa.nd not abovel3 cents per pound, 3l cents per pound; valued above 13 cente and not above 16 cents per pound, 4.2 cents per pound; valued above 16 cents per pound 7 cents per pound; 

And insert in lieu thereofThirty-five per cent. ad valorem. 

Mr. CULLOM. I desire to ask the Senator whether l1e means to 

increase tlie duty on those articles? 

Mr. McPHERSON. It would be an increase of duty, so to speak, on some of the higher grades as they appear here in this table, but taking the whole of paragraph 140, beginning in line 21, five.tenths of a cent a pound, it would be a decrease of duty in the entire paragraph. 

'. 
. -\ .. - ' . _. 

1890. I . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8785 

Mr. CULLOM. According to this table, the percentage would seem 

t.o be 34.36 per cent., 30.41 per cent., 27.09 per cent., and 25.60 per 

cent. in different items. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Very well; I would much rather have it 35per 

cent. ad valorem than to have it as it is now, a specific rate of duty. 

Then we should h9.ve some chance to get recompense for reductions in 

the cost of the articles. 

l\fr. CULLOM. I simply desired to know whether the Senator 

wished to increase the duty. 

Mr. McPHERSON. My amendment does not increase it. 

Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, in support of the amendment of the 

Senator from New Jersey and in confirmation of his statement, I have 

a carefully prepared table showing the effect of the proposed duties 

upon t he n.rticles enumerated in this paragraph, and I find that in every 

instance they are carefully prepared so as to impose the highest duties 

upon the cheaper articles, in conformity, I suppose, with the great 

principle of protection, that ' ' to him that hath shall be given, and from 

him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to 

have." 

I have this statement here, which I ask may be appended to my remarks, but I will not take the trouble or the time of the Senate by 

reading it at length. I will just enumerate that if the articles herein 

specified cost as much as half a cent per pound the duty will be 80 

p er cent. ad valorem. and then increasing until when they get to 1 cent, 

which is the maximum of that clanse, it is 40 per cent., so that the 

one-half cent a pound article would pay just 100 per cent. more duty 

than the cent a pound article. Then in thenextclause, ifit is valued 

a.t 1.1 cents per pound, the duty would be 45.45 per cent.; if valued 

at 1.4 cents per pound, the duty would be 35. 70 per cent. Then, 

again, if the article was valued at I! cents per pound, the duty would 

be 46.66 per cent. If valued at 1.8 cents per pound, the duty would 

be only 38.88 per cent. If valued at nine-tenths of a cent per pound 

the duty would be 47.37 per cent. If valued at 2.2 cents per pound, 

the duty would be only 40.90 per cent. If valued at 2.3 cents per 

pound, the duty would be 52. 78 per cent. If valued at 2. 7 cents 

per pound, the duty would be only 44 per cent.; and if valued at·3 

cents per pound, the duty would be only 40 per cent. If valued at 4 

cents per pound, it would be only 40 per cent. If, on the contrary, it 

was valued at 3} cents per pound, the duty would be 49 per cent. So 

it runs all the way through. The article in most common nsein all of 

the great industries of the country, the blacksmith shops and the sawmills, and the home manufactories, and the farm plantation, the cheaper 

tbe article the more duty it pays, and the higher-priced the article the 

less duty it pays. I ask to have this statement which I have summarized inserted as an appendix to my remarks. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection. 

The statement referred to is as follows: 

Pamgraph 140. 

Duty. Duty. 

If valued at- If valued atPer Ad valo- Per Ad valo- pound. rem. pound. rem. 

---.--

Cents. Percent. Cents. Percent. ! cent per pound ........ . 4 =80 2.8 cents per pound ... 1.2 =42.85 .6 cent per pound ........ .4 =66.66 2.9 cents per pound ... 1.2 =41.38 . 7 cent per pound. ...... . i =57.24 3 cents per pound ...... 1.2 =40 .8 cent per pound ........ .4 =50 3t cents per pound ..... 1.6 =49.23 . 9 cent per pound ........ .4 =44..44. 3l cents per pound ..... 1.6 =45.72 1 cent per pound ......... . 4 =40 3-l cents per pound ..... 1.6 =42.66 1.1 cents per pound ..... . 5 =45.4.5 4 cents per pound ...... 1. 6 =40 

l.2 cents pi)r pound ..... .5 =41.66 5 cents per pound ...... 2 =40 

1.3 cents per pound ..... . 5 =38.4.6 6 cents per pound ...... 2 =33.33 1.4cents per pound ..... . 5 =35.7l 7 cents per pound ...... 2 =28.57 

It cents per pound ...... .7 =46.66 8 cents per pound ...... 2.8 =35 1.6 cents per pound ..... .7 =43.75 9 cents per pound ...... 2.8 =31.11 

l.7 cents per pound ..... . 7 =41.17 10 cents per pound ..... 2.8 =28 

1.8 cents per pound ..... . 7 =38.88 11 cents per pound ..... 3.5 =31.82 1.9 cents per pound ..... . 9 =47.37 12 cents per pound ..... 3.5 =29.16 2 cents per pound ....... .9 =45 13 cents per pound ..... 3.5 =26.92 2.1 cents per pound_ ... . 9 =42.86 14 cents per pound ..... 4.2 =30 

2.2 cents per pound .... . 9 =40.91 15 cents per pound ..... 4.2 =28 2.3 cents per pound ..... L2 

~-17 1 16 cents per pound ..... 4.2 =26.25 2.4 cents per pound ..... 1.2 17 cents per pound .. ... · 7 =41.17 

2.5 cents per pound .. ... 1.2 =48 18 cents per pound ..... 7 =38.88 2.6 cents per pound ..... 1.2 =46.15 19 cents per pound ..... 7 =36.84 2. 7 cents per pound ..... 1.2 =44.44 20 cents per pound ..... 7 =35 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senate ready for the que.stion 

on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. MCPHERSON] ? 

Mr. McPHERSON. This is a very important paragraph, and I am going to call for the yeas and nays on the amendment, because it includes so many articles. It is a sort of drag-net. It sweeps in a. great 

many things here that are coming in at an excessive rate of duty. 

Therefore I shall ask for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. 

XXI-550 

.. 

Mr. CARLISLE (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from North Dakota [Mr. PIERCE]. 

Mr. CULLOM (when Mr. FARWELL's name was called). My colleague [Mr. FARWELL] is detained from the Senate by illness and is 

paired with the Senatu from Florida [rt!r. PAsco]. 

l\Ir. GO R:MAN (when his name was called). I am paired this morning with the Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE]. . 

Mr. PASCO (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. FARWELL]. If he were present, I should vote 

''yea.'' 

Mr. VANCE(whenhisnamewascalled). I am paired with theSenator from Michigan [Mr. McMILLAN]. If he were present, I should 

vote ''yea.'' 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I desire to announce the absence of my colleague [Mr. McMILLAN]. He is paired with the Senator from North 

Carolina [Mr. VANCE] for to-day. 

Mr. TELLER. My colleague [Mr. WALCOTT] is detained from the 

Senate by sickness, and is paired with the Senator from West Virginia 

[Mr. KENNA]. . 

Mr. BLAIR (after having voted in the negative). My colleague 

[Mr. CHANDLER] is detained by sickness, and is paired with the junior 

Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BLODGETT]. I am paired with the 

senior Senator from Mississippi [MY @EORGE], and vote only to make 

a quorum. If my vote is not necessary, I shall withdraw it. 

Mr. GIBSON (after having vot.ed in the affirmative). I am paired 

with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WASHBURN]. I withdraw my 

vote. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The Senator from Louisiana withdraws his vote. 

Mr. TURPIE (after having votPd in the affirmative). I am paired 

with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DAVIS], and therefore withdraw 

my vote. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana withdraws his vote. 

Mr. BATE. I am paired with the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. 

CASEY]. Ifhe were present, I should vote "yea." 

l\Ir. COKE. My colleague [Mr. RE.A.GAN] is paired with the Senator from Montana [l\fr. POWER]. If my colleague were here, he would 

vote ''yea." ·4' 

Mr. DANIEL (after having voted in the affirmative). I beg leave to 

withdraw my vote. I am paired with the s.,nator from Washington 

[Mr. SQUIRE]. 

The PRESIDENT pro te-mpore. The Senator from Virginia withdraws his vote. 

Mr. BLAIR. I transfer my pair to the Senator from Montana [Mr. 

SANDERS] and will let my vote stand. 

Mr. PASCO. I wish to announce that my colleague [Mr. CALL] is 

absent and is paired witb the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW]. ~ 

Mr. MANDER80N. I am paired with the Senator from Kentucky 

[Mr. BLACKBURN.] 

Mr. BATE. My collegaue [Mr. HARRIS] is out for the moment. 

He is paired, however, with the Senator fro,m Vermont [Mr. MORRILL]. I 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am paired with the Senator from ?tiassachusetts 

[Mr. DAWES], but at the instance of his colleague I will vote. I vote 

''yea.'' 

Mr. MANDERSON. My vote seems to be needed to make a quorum 

and I will take the liberty also of voting. I vote 41 nay." 

Mr. PASCO. I suggest to the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. 

PETTIGREW] that by transfer of pairs, so that my colleague (Mr. 

C.A.r.L] and theSenatorfromlllinois [Mr. FARWELL] willstandpaired, 

we can both vote. If that be satisfactory to him, I will vote '•yea.>' 

Mr. PET1.'IGREW. I vote "nay." 

The result was announced-yeas 20, nays 26; as follows: 

YE.A.S-20. 

Barbour, Colquitt, McPherson, Ransom. 

Berry, Eustis, l\:Iorgan, Vest, Butler, Faulkner, Pasco, Voorhees, Cockrell, Gray, Plumb, Wa.ltha.11, Coke, Jones of Arkansas, Pugh, Wilson of l\Id. 

N.A.YS-26. 

Aldrich, Edmunds, l\Ia.nderson, Sa.wyer, Allen, Evarts, l\litchell, sr,ooner, Blair, Bale, Moody, S ockbridge, Cameron, Ha.wley, Paddock, Teller, Cullom, Higgins, Pettigrew, 'Vilson oflo,va. Dixon, Hiscock, Platt, Dolph, Hoar, Quay, 

ABSENT-38. 

Allison, Davis, Ingalls, Sherman, Bate, Dawes, Jones of Nevada, Squire, Blackburn, Farwell, Kenna., Stanford, Blodgett, Frye, l\fcMillan, Stewart, Brown, George, l\lorrilJ, Turpie, Call, G!bson, Payne, Vance, Carlisle, Gorman, Pierce, Washburn, Casey, Hampton, Power, Wolcott. 

OhandJer, Harris, Reagan, Daniel, Hearst, Sanders, 

: 

·-. 

'·' 

,,.. .. 

~. , 

. ... 

1 • 

,. 

. .. ' 
- ,· 

; 

,-

8786 ·- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The next paragraph of the bill was read, as follows: 

141. Wire rods: Rivet, screw, fence.and other iron or steel wire rods and nail rods, whetb.er round, oval. flat., square, or in any other shape, in coils or other- wise, not smaller than No. 6 wire gauge, valued all 31 cen~s or less. pei: pou~d, 

six-tenths of 1 cent per pound; and irou or steel, fiat, with long1tu~rnal nbs for the manufacture of fencing, valued at 3 cents or less per pound, six-tenths of 1 cent per pound~ Provided, That all iron or steel rods, whether rolled o.r dra.wn through dies, smaller than No. 6 wire gauge, shall be.classed and duti- able as wire. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I desire to call the attention of the Senator 

from Rhode Island, who bas charge of the bill, to an invidious distinction, as I think, which he will find in line 20, compared with line 23. 

In speaking of the round wire rods the cost value here is fixed at 3l 

cent.s per pound. In speaking of the &t, with longitudinal ribs for 

fencing, it is valued at 3 cents a pound. That which is manufactured 

flat with longitudinal ribs is the higher cost product of the two, and 

hence should not be limited here to the lowest cost value. Therefore, 

I move to insert in line 23, after the word '' three,'' the words '' and 

one-half;" so as to make the limit of value 3~ cents a pound in each case. I understand that this fiat rod with longitudinal ribs, which is 

manufactured solely for fencing and can be used for no other purpose, 

costs from $10 to $11 per ton more than the round wire rod. The 

round wire rod can be used for all purposes for which wire is used. The 

fiat rod can only be used tor the manufacture of fencing. If the Senator from Rhode Island will consent to insert after the word ''three,'' 

in line 23, the words ''and one-half," it will be nearer a just relation 

of the two products. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp ore. The Chief Clerk will state the amendment. 

The CmEF CLERK. On page 31, line 23, paragraph 141, after the 

word "three," insert the words "and one-half;" so as to read: 

.And iron or steel, flat, with longitudinal ribs for the manufacture of fencing, valued at 31 cents or less per pound, six-tenths of 1 cent per pound. 

Mr. McPHERSON. This amendment makes the limit of cost uniform as to both rods and imposes the same duty. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I hope the amendment of the Senator from New 

Jersey will not be adopted. It will simply be to reduce the duty on 

an article whlch is used bya single concern in the State of New Jersey, 

who have a patent upon their process. 

Mr . .McPHERSON. I am very glad to receive the answer from the 

Senator from Rhode Island exactly in that form. He says it is only used 

in the State of New Jersey. It is true there is an establishment in 

New Jersey manufacturing this fencirig material, which is different 

from the common barbed-wire fence, which I understand to be an industry of the State of Rhode Island very largely, and interested to some extent in competition with that industry. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator is entirely mistaken. There is not a 

pound made in the State of Rhode Island of either. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Very well. There have been during the past 

year imported by these gentlemen engaged in this industry in New 

Jersey something like 2,50l) tons of this material. They have been 

trying for the past five years to secure some manufacturers in this 

country who would manufacture the material, promising to pay the 

foreign price, plus the duty, in case any manufacturer in this country 

would agree to manufacture it. Nobody has und~rtaken to do it. 

Therefore, they have been unable to do anything else except to purchase it abroad. It is their raw material. Now, there is a proviso at 

the end of this paragraph which, if rigidly applied, will really and absolutely prevent this material from coming in at all except at a rate 

of duty of about $50.40 per ton. In other words, I can call it by no 

other name than a conspiracy to stop the manufacture of this particular 

kind of wire fencing. which is used by almost all the farmers of this 

country who desire a less :;avage fence than the barbed-wire fence. 

I have here, furnished me by the parties engaged in this manufacture, a sample of the materiaL [Exhibiting.] That is the material as it is imported. It is taken and split in two in this way [indicating] 

and then twisted. The result is that it offers no very savage barb to 

the animal that comes in contact with it. It is more an admonition 

than anything else in the way of a fence. It is sold in large quantities, as is witnessed by the fact that last year they sold 2, 500 tons of 

it or more. It is sold for a higher price than the barbed-wire fence, and 

therefore it does not come in competition with th~ barbed-wire fence 

at all. It can not be sold for the same price. The material cosf.q $10 

per ton more than the material of the barbed-wire fence. Now let me 

read the proviso to which I b::we referred: 

Prnvided, That all iron or steel rods, whether rolled or drawn through dies smaller than No. G wire gauge, shall be classed and dutiable as wire. 

This sample I have is smaller than No. 6 wire gauge, and under this 

proviso it could be classed and made dutiable as wire. H would come in then at a rate of duty of $50. 40 per ton instead of $13. 44 per ton, as 

would the wire rod which now goes into the manufacture of the barbed 

fence. 

I do not think the Senator from Rhode Island means to absolutely 

destroy this industry, which is one so important to the farming element in this countuA _{)articnlarly those who are raising fine cattla or 

... ., 

fine horses, and who can not afford to ha-ve their animals tied up, as it 

were, in a barbed-wire fence and in that way cut all to pieces. 

I should like to send to the desk and have read a statement made 

to me by a. manufacturer of this fencing which I should like to have 

put in the RECORD as a part of my remarks, a8 he tells the story more plainly than I can. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection. Does 

the Senator desire to have it read? 

Mr. McPHERSON. Yes, sir. 

The PRESIDE.i..~T pro tempore. It will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows; 

TRENTON, N. J., June7, lB90. 

DEAR Sm: The pending tariff bill, section 151-wire rods-i:uiposes a. duty of six-tenths of a. cent per pound on the several kinds of rods mentioned smaller than No.6 wire gauge, valued at 3~ cents per pound or less, while on "iron or steel, fl.at, with longitudinal ribs for the manufacture of fencing," the rate being the same (six-tenths cent), the maximum value is fixed at 3 cents per pound. 

l\Iay I ask you to call tho attention of the Fina.nee Committee of the Senate to this discrimination, and that you use your inftuence to have tlie value fixed at the same rate in both cases? the reasons being as follows: I. "Iron nnd steel with longitudinal ribs" a.re used in this country for the manufacture of fencing, and for no other purpose. The classification was first made in the tariff act of 1883, the rate being fixed at six-tenths of l cent; prior to that. time the duty had been 30 per cent. under the miscellaneous classifica- tion. 

2. Assuming the actual value to be S~ cents per pound in either case1 the duty as proposed on round rods would be 813.44 per ton, while on the fencing strips it would be $35.28 under the miscellaneous clause, at 45 per cent. This, as you will perceive, would be a. very grea.t hardship; in fact, it would probably be fatal to the interests of thiscompany. l\Ioreover, if there is to be discrimination the fencing strips should be fixed at the higher value, beca.use they cost fully 

$10 per ton more than round rods; and while they are used, as before stated, 

solely for the manufa.ctu e of fencing, round rods are used for the manufacture of wire of every description. But a still more serious defect in the section referred to is the proviso, namely, that '"all iron or steel rods, whether rolled or drawn tht'ough dies smaller than No.6 wire gau~.shall be classed and dutiable as wire." It is hardly conceiv&- ble that this proviso could be held to apply to the fencing strips-flat with longi- tudinal ribs,-referred to, for they have a distinct cla.ssification in the same sec- tion. Still, there fa a possibility that confusion and trouble might result from the proviso unless the fencing material with longitudinal ribs is specially ex- empted, for this material is usually of No.18 or 19 wire ga.uge,and should i.t. be held to come within the application of the proviso, it would be taxed as wire "smaller than No.16, and not smaller than No. 26, wire gauge," the rate being 2t cents per pound, or $50. W per ton. I need not asSUTe you that such a construction of the provi&o would entirely annihilate our business; at the same time it could by no possibility be of ad- vantage to any existing interest, beca.W!e the fence strips with ribs are not made in this colllltry. w·e have at o.11 tinies been ready and anxious to have them manufactured here, and to that end have negotiated with many establishments, but none have been willing to undertake it, there being no use fol' the strip • save for fencing, and the demand for that parpose being limited because of the lower price of barb-wire fencing. Our trade is lready at a serious disadvantage because of the higher cost of our material as compared with wire rods from which barb-wire is manufactured, the present cost of wire rods being $41 to $42 per ton, while the ribbed strips cost $)4 to '55-the cost of the finished product, fence, differing accordingly. The discrimination above referred to, in either case, would extinguish it entirely. 

Should there, in your judgment, be any doubt as to the exemption of our strips from the proviso recited, I beg that you will urge an amendment, say by inserting, after the word" rods," the words "other than iron or steel with longitudinal ribs for fencing." 

Respectfully yours, HENRY C. KELSEY. 

Hon . .JOHN R. McP.mmsoN, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. 0. 

Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, whenever I come to a schedule or a paragraph in a scbed ale in this bill whlcb does not make a. discrimination a(J'ainst the articles most in use by the common people and in favor 

of th:'highest priced ar'ticles1 I shall pause and make a note of it and 

let the Senate know. In this case, in the first article enumerated, the 

nnh of cost is L 4 cents per pound and the duty is 39. 38 per cent. The 

amount imported is 180,000,000 pounds and upward. In the next 

item which follows it, the unit of value is 2.4 cents a pound, just 1 

cent more, almost double~ and the amount imported was 723 pounds. 

One hundred and eighty million pounds, used by the common people 

of the country, are taxed 39.38 per cent., and 723pounds, used by some 

few individuals for ornamental purposes perhaps are taxed 25.53 per 

cPnt.; and that is the-way it runs. Whenever I reach a schedule where 

the articles used by the rich are taxed highest, I promise to pause and 

let the Senate and the country know it. 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. I should like to ask the Senator from 

Rhode Island in regard to this item, if the articles provided for in 

this paragraph are the rods from which fencing wire is manufactured. 

Mr. ALD!.{ICH. The wire rods provided for in this paragraph are 

the rods from which fencing wire is drawn or rolled. 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. Are they manufactured at all in the United 

States? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Very largely. 

1\Ir. VEST. I sbonld like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island 

what is the present duty upon No. 6 wire rods? 

Mr. ALDRICH. The present duty upon No. 6wirerods, under the 

construction of Ja,w given by the Treasury Department, is 45 per cent. 

ad valorem. 

Mr. VEST. I thought so. 

Mr. ALDRICH. They are not specified in the existing law a-t all, 

by an omission in the act of 1883. 

.. • 
, ,_; ._, 

J. 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8787 

Mr. CARLISLE. Does that include also all the rods under No. 6 

wire gauge. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, no, only No. 6. By an omission in the act 

of 1883 No. 6 wire gauge wire rods were not named. There was no rate of duty given to them at all, and they have come in as manufactures of steel not otherwise provided for. 

Mr. CARLISLE. This proviso isProvidea, That all iron or steel rods, whether rolled or drawn through dies, smaller than No. 6 wire gauge, shall be classed and dutiable as wire. 

What is the duty now under existing law upon the.se rods? 

Mr. ALDl:UCH. Smaller than No. 6? • Mr. CARLISLE. Smaller than No. 6. I have not the law before me. Mr. ALDRICH. It is a quarter of a cent per pound higher that the 

rate proposed in this bill. They are provided for in the next paragraph 

under the head of wire, and a comparison of the rate.s will be found in 

the table at the top of page 32. 

Mr. CARLISLE. The lowest rate there given is lr cents a ponnd, 

and this is only six-tenths of a cent per pound. 

Mr. ALDRICH. That is on wire; not on wire rods, but on wire. 

Mr. CARLISLE. But if it is smaller than No. 6, it must be classed 

as wire under the bill. 

Mr. ALDRICH. That is the existing law. Under the existing law 

rods smaller than No. 6 pay duty as wire. 

Mr. VEST. But what I want to call attention to is that these tables here show no increase of duties. They show 39.38 and 25.53 per 

cent. under existing law, and the same rates under the House bill and und~r tl.Je Senate bill. As I understand the operation of the amendments ot the clause, No. 6 wire rods now pay by existing law under the 

construction of the Department 45 percent. ad valorem. Under this proposeil legislation they would pay six-tenths of 1 cent a pound, or 54 per 

cent. ad va.lorem, which is an increase. Wire rods smaller than No. 6, 

classed as wire, pay 1t cents per pound under this bill, instead of sixtenths of a cent per pound. In other words, the duty is more than 

doubled. That is my construction of this present legislation, and yet 

to look at these tables there appears to be exactly the same dnty. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Do I understand the Senator to say that the duty 

is doubled on wire rods? 

Mr. VEST. I understand that it is on wire. 

Mr. ALDRICH. On wire? 

Mr. VEST. Yes. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Not by any manner of means. Mr. VEST. I will ask the Senator if wire that is smaller than No. 

6 does not pay under this proposed legislation It cents a pound. 

Mr. ALDRICH. It does. 

Mr. VEST. Does it not pay under existing law six-tenths of a cent 

per pound? 

Mr. ALDRICH. 

under existing law. 

a cent. 

I beg the Sena.tor's pardon, it pays ll cents a pound 

We have reduced the rat.e ofdntyone-quarter of 

Mr. VEST. On less than No. 6? 

Mr. ALDRICH. On wire smaller than No. 6 wire gauge. 

:M:r. VEST. If that is true, of course the Senator is right, and if I am right of course it is not true. If it is six-tenths of a cent a pound un- der existing law, then it is an increase, but, whatever that maybe, the 

Senator certainly does not pretend that there is not any increase on 

No. 6. . Mr. ALDRICH. I have not made any statement of that kind. 

Mr. VEST. That is true, is it not? 

Mr. ALDRICH. It is an increase based on the unit of value of the 

imports of 1888, and possibly of 1889. It depends entirely upon the 

value of importations from Europe whether it is an increase or not. 

Mr. VEST. Of course we have nothing else to go upon except the 

valuation of the imports. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I will furnish the Senator with the quotations of 

the present price in a moment. Of course, if wire rods are worth $30 

per ton in Great Britain, at 45 per cent. ad valorem the duty would 

be $l3.50 a ton. It would be a little more than six-tenths of a cent 

per pound. If less than $30 per ton, the ad va.lorem rate wonld be 

less than the soecilic rate which we fix. 

Mr. VEST. - The Senate ought to understand-and it is hopeless for ns to do anythin~ except to bring the facts before the country-that no industry in the United States has made more rapid progress than that 

of wire rods. I have before me a statement which I used in the last 

tariff debate in 1888 from the New Haven Wire Company, which I 

shall not make any apolo~y for having read at the desk. It contains 

all the facts in regard to the wire-rod manufacture, stated much more accurately and succinctly than I can hope to do, and I will ask the 

Secretary to read it. It brings out in strong relief the fact that the 

number of manufactories in the United States of wire rods has greatly 

increased; that the importation has greatly decreased, and that year 

by year the manufacturero are becomin~ more able to compete with 

the forei~n importers and are to-day absolutely commanding the manufacture. Still we are asked to make this increase, admitted to be an increase, when it has, as I think, protection .enough. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The article r_eferred to will be read, 

if there be no objection. ' 

•' 

.~ 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

ARGUME!."'T OF THE 1'EW HAVE..'f WIRE COMPAXY. 

NEW HAVEN, CONN., August 6, 1838. 

To Ou Ot>mmitlee on FinanC4!, United States Senate: On behalf of the New Ha\"en Wire Company, which is compelled to buy its raw material in the shape of wfre rods either of American or foreign mills, and of about twenty other wire mills similarly situated. I respectfully ask that the duty on fence and rivet wire rods of either iron or steel, when valueda.tll cents per pound or Jess, be fixed at four-tenths cent per pound. The larger wire mills roll their own rods, but prefer to sell the product of their rod trains in the shape rather of finished wire than of rods; so that those wire mills which have no rod trains are forced to pay high prices for their American rods or use the foreign. In either case the price is determined by the cost of the foreign rods here, so that a reduction in duty would inure to the benefit of all these wire mills, 

whether they use foreign or domestic material. These mills employ more labor than all the rod trains in the country, and have a capacity to produce more than half of the wire which the country consumes. Under theta.riff of 1883 their business has continually suffered at the hands of the mills rolling their own rods, and they now need protection.not against foreign competition, but against the high cbarfes of the American rod mills. · By the a.ct o l883 the duty on steel rods was fixed at six-tenths cent per pound on No. 5 and larger sizes. Al though there had been some rods smaller than. No. 5 imported, yet the bulk of the rods were No. 5 and larger, and no specific pro- vision was made for any smaller size. Such sizes, therefore, ca.me in under the "omnibus clause," BB •• nuwufactures of steel not otherwise provided for," at 45 per cent. ad valorem. Prior to the a.ct of 1883 all steel rods had come in under the omnibus clnwie at 30 per cent. The specific duty of r.ix-tenths cent per pound was fixed by Con- gress after a e&reful hearing of all the parties in interest, and waa then the equiv- alent of 35 per cent. Soon after the passage of the act, however, the foreign 

val utS of Bessemer material fell, so that the ad vs.lo rem equivalent of six-tenths has never been less than 45 per cent., but has at times equaled 60 per cent., and is now about 55 per cent. Coincident with this fall in vlllues came an improve- ment in the processes of rolling rods abroad, by which a No. 6 rod could be fur- nished at about the same cost as a No. 5. and the bulk of the importations for the pa.st four years have been of No. 6. These have, as stated above, c.ome in at 45 per cent., which is at the present time about one-half cent per pound. The request of Mr. George T. Oliver. of Pittsburgh, speaking on behalf of his company and other American rod-makers, that the duty on a.II sizes of rods should be fixed at llix·tenths cent per pound is therefore in substance a request that the present rates of duty should be advanced on the bulk of the importa- tions from 45 per cent. to 55 per cent., an increase of about nearly 25 per cent. The consumers of wire rods, on the other hand, maintain that not only is there no propriety of ma.king any such advance, or, indeed. any advance, but that. the present rate of duty mi~ht be reduced without in any way crippling the Ameri- can rod mills. The present cost of American billets in Pittsburgh is S28to$28.50 per ton: of wire rods, UL to il.50. It is not disputed that & modern Garrett train employing twenty-five or thirty men has turned ont 75 tons of rods in 

eleven hours, and at a cost, making all proper a.Uowances, or not exceeding SS per ton. Assuming that its annual production was only half that (or 75 tons daily when running double time), the margin of profit would exceed $100,000 per annum; so that the train would nearly pay for itself during the first year. This clear margin of S5 pe.r ton is due to the present ta.rift; for, while the .American mills now sell the ~reater part of the rods used in the country, they bold the price just below the eost of foreign rods with duty and inland freight 

added, and the cost to the consumer is thus dependent closely on the duty. As the labor cost of ea.ch ton of rods thus rolled is less than $3, the need of any in· crease of the dut.y in order to protect the laborer is not clearly seen. It is not necessary. however, to base a.ny argument on estimates of the cost of rolling rods in this country. While all such eatimates may be disputed, it can not be denied that the great increase in tb.e number and capacity of rod mills in this country since the enactment of the ta.riff of 1883 would not have taken pla.ce if there was not a. handsome margin in the business, and a margin furthermore that was large enough to stand some reduction in the tariff rate. In 1883 steel rods were rolled at not more than five or six mills, and the total capa'City did not greatly exceed 50,000 tons annually. There are now nine rod mills in operation, and another building, with an aggregate capacity of a.bout 

250,000 tons per annum. The proportion of their product to the imports has steadily increased, so t.l.at it to-day is more than half of the entire consumption of the country. (The impor- tations of wire rods during the first six months of 1887 were 69,432 tons; of 1888, 

38,9l6 tons.) Surely an industry that has ma.de such rapid strides under the present ta.riff does not need a.ny further legislative help, nor is it in a position 

where reasonable reduction of the duty will inflict irreparable disa~ter on it. 

If the present duty on wire rods were halved, while the duty on billets is un- changed the Pittsburi&h rod mills could still sell their rods at a profit and keep 

foreign rods out of that market; while at the same time the sea.board wirQ 

mills, which are prevented by inland freights from using American rods and are compelled to pay the present duty on their foreign rods, would have some hope of life. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore. to ask that a. beginning in tbe reduction of duty should be made, and four-tenths of a cent per pound is 

certainly an ample protection for the American rod mill. The fluctuations in the price of rods have resulted in such variations of the ad valorem rate of any specific duty that such a method of fixing the tariff should not be longer followed. No one will pretend to say that Congress, when it fixed the duty in 1883 at the specific equivalent of 35 per cent., contemplated that within four years that specific dut.y would by the mere fall in prices rise to 60 per cent. The market values of these rod<J are well known both abroad and here. There is no cha.nee for any evasion of the tariff, as the records of the custom-houses show; and it is submitted, therefore, that the will of Congress will be better observed throughout all future fluctuations by ma.king the duty ad valorem than by adhering to a speci1ic duty. If the latter method is, howe\"er, preferred, it is suJtgested that ample protection to the American rod mills and some share of the necessary reduction demanded by the condition of the American wire mills will be secured by making the duty four-tenths of a cent per pound on all sizes of wire rods. This is a. higher rate ad valorem than was contemplated by Congress in fixing the act of 1883, and leaves the American rod mills with about one-half of their present margin of profit. All of which is respectfully submitted. THE NEw HAVEN WmE CollPANY, 

By SAMUEL A. GALPIN, Receiver. 

Mr. V.EST. That is a valuable contribution to this debate, for the 

reason that it comes from a New England manufacturer, and not from 

any of the free-trade Western Democrats who have been so often denounced on this floor by the protectionists. If there has been any decline in this industry that statement oaght to be made and substantiated on this floor. On the other hand, I have accurate information 

to the effect that this wire-rod industry is flourishing at the present 

time in the United States. The estatilishment of the Oliver Steel Wow 

·, 

' . 

., 

' .. 

.... ..:.. 

'•' 
\ -

-,, 

---

•. 

8788 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE, AUGUST 19, 

at Pittsburgh now employs 6, 000 bands and is in an exceedingly 

prosperous condition to-day. The articles that are controlled and affected by this tariff daty under the first division of this clause enter 

into the every-day use of nll the farmers in the West. 

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. VANCE] has called attention 

to the enormous disparity between these articles, between the material 

that goes into these articles, as to importation and those mentioned in 

the latter portion of this c1anse, and it therefore becomes of the utmost importance that the Senate should distinctly understand what is 

to be the eftectof this legislation. We have no explanation on the part 

of the Committee on Finance specifically as to any of these provisions, 

and I am compelled, unless evidence is brought to the contrary, to ac- cept the statements of the New Haven Wire Company as absolutely 

true. · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PLATT in the chair). !s the Senate ready for the question on the amendment? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Let it be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLE&K. On p~e 31, line 23, after the word "three," 

it is proposed to insert "and one-half;" so as to read: 

And iron or steel, fiat, with longitudinal ribs for the manufacture of fencing, valued at 3i cents or less per pound, six-tenths or 1 cent per pound. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I had hoped that the Senator from Rhode Island, in view of the fact that the round wire costs from forty-two to 

forty-three dollars a ton and the ribbed wire from fifty-four to fifty-five 

dollars a ton, would allow the limit to be the same in both cases, 3t 

cents a pound. If a trust should be formed and none of the wire with 

longitudinal ribs could be purchased at all except from the trust, it 

would have the effect of closing up the shops; or ifthe appraiser should so decide it would be compelled to pay the increased price and er the proviso which would bring the duty up to over t;50 a ton and which would 

also have the effect of closing .up the establishment. I hope there will 

be no objection ma-Oe by the Senator to inserting the words "and onebalf' ~ after " three." 

Mr. ALDRICH. After all the allusions which have been made on 

• the other side of the Chamber to trusts and monopolies, and the effect 

which these combinations have upon the public interests I am very 

much surprised that the Senator from New .Jersey should appeal to this 

side of the Chamber for a special bounty or relief to an industry which 

is controlled by one party who manufactures goods under a patent. It 

strikes me that there is a slight inconsistency in the ground the Senator is now taking from what he has been taking on other items in this 

bill. 

Mr. McPHERSON. How do I appeal for a bounty? I have stated 

to tbe Senator that this article costs $55 a ton, while the wire costs $42 

a ton. Both of them are for the manufacture of fencing wire, which 

goes into the use of the farmers all over this country. I have stated 

that in a certain condition of circumstances those who manufacture the 

longitudinal wire could not purchase the material unless the limit should 

be increased. 

Mr. ALDRICH. If the Senator's statement is true that wire rods 

only cost $55 a ton on the other side of the water, that is certainly less 

than 3 cents a pound, which is $67 a ton, and his institution is not 

harmed by this change. 

:Mr. McPHERSON. I shall contend no longer, but let the vote be 

taken. 

Mr. P A.DDOCK. I should like to inquire of the Senator having 

charge of the bill how the duty proposed by the committee on fence 

wire compares with that proposed by the l\Iills bill. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The next paragraph fixes the duty upon fencing 

wire, socalled, and the duty which we recommend is $5.60 per ton, or 

a. quarter of a cent a pOU!J.d less than the rate fixed by the Mills bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from New JerRey. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Now, Mr. President, in order that there may 

be no mistake whatever M to the intention of the committee, I want 

to ask the Senator from Rhode Island a single question. If this ma- terial which enters into the manufacture of the longitudinal ribs for 

fencing should be below No. 6 wire-gauge, as it is, would not the effect be to bring it under the dutiable clause of wire between No. 16 and 

No. 26 wire-gauge? 

Mr. ALDRICH. My own impression is that it would not. Being 

specially enumerated under another rate, I think that would be the 

rate which the customs officers and the court.s would decide to be the 

proper rate to be applied t-0 the article. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Then the Senator has no objection to a proviso 

being put in which will make plain exactly what he intends to do. 

Let me ask, then, that after the word "rods," in the last line on page 

31, you insert these words: 

Except flat with longitudinal ribs for the manufacture otfencing. 

That will settle the whole matter. There could bf' no such thin~ 

then as bringing it under a higher tariff rate, but if the Senator will 

look at lines 17and18, page 31, paragraph 141, he will find these words: 

Wire ro<ls: Rivet screw, fence, and other iron or steel wire rods, and nail 

rode, whether round, oval, flat, square, 01· in any other shape, in coils or other- I 

'· -

wise, not smaller than No. 6 wire gauge, valued at 3} cents or less per pound, six-tenths of 1 cent per pound. 

The proviso of course applies to that who1e section. The wire may 

be in any form whatever. Unless, therefore, these words are put in, 

the proviso so qualifies it that this kind of fencing material may be 

kept out unless it pays $iJ0.40 duty per ton. 

Mr. ALDRICH. What is the gauge? 

Mr. McPHERSON. Somewhere between No. 16 and No. 26. It 

would come in then at 2l cents a pound, which would be equal to an 

absolute prohibition, and the industry here mi~ht just as well close up. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Chair understand the Senator from New Jersey to propose an amendment? 

Mr. McPHERSON. I propose to amend the proviso by inserting, 

after the word "rods," "except flat with longitudinal ribs for the 

manufacture of fencing.'' 

Mr. ALDRICH. I am willing that the amendment should be put 

in on page 31, by inserting after the word "fencing," in line 23, the 

words "not thinner than No. 20 wire gauge." 

Mr. McPHERSON. How can we do that? I am informed that 

this ranges anywhere between 16 and 26. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Ifit is thinner than No. 26, it ought not to be admitted here. · 

Mr. McPHERSON. Then let it be manufactured here. The parties who are manufactuing this fencing do not care whether it is imported or manufactured here. They prefer to have it done here, and 

Mr. Kelsey has stated in his letter that he had app1ied to all the manufacturers in this country and a!!ked them to manufacture the product 

here, and that he would give them the foreign quotations of value pltlli 

the duty imposed upon it under the new tariff, and he would take the 

who1e product, but they refused to do it. Therefore he can do nothing else but to import, and if it is the intention of the committee to 

say that this particular kind of fencing shall be kept out you may do 

it by leaving the proviso as it is. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The serious o~jection which I have to the amendment offered by the Senator from New .Jersey, and a very serious one, 

is that under that provision all kinds of flat strips of steel would be 

admitted. How is the customs officer to know whether the thing is 

to be used in the manufacture of fence wire or not? There is no limit as to price. There is no w:ay by which the customs officer can determine as to the natural uses of the wire or of the fiat stri~, and under 

this all sorts of extraordinarily high-priced articles of steel would 

come in. 

Mr. UcPHERSON. You have already done that in the paragraph. 

Mr. ALDRICH. We haye not. 

Mr. McPHERSON. You have used the term ''for the manufacture 

of fencing, 11 and you allow wire to come in at six-tenths of 1 cent per 

pound for the manufacture of fencing. 

Mr. ALDRICH. But we have put a limitation as to price. I think 

myself the whole paragraph ought to be stricken out. I do no1'think 

that this concern for which the Senator from New Jersey is so eloquently pleading ought to be treated differently from anybody else. 

It is an anomaly in the law which ought not to be there, and I shall 

object as strenuously as I can to adding further protection to this one 

establishment in New Jersey. 

Mr. MoPHERSON. Then the Senator proposes to make up a bill 

in which he advertises to the world and to the farmer t~at he proposes 

to give him cheap fence wire, and fixes the rate of duty at six-tenths of 

1 cent a pound. It is proposed that the farmer sha11 take his choice between the barbed fence and that which is less savage; and the Senator 

brings in a proviso which may absolutely remove one of them from 

competition and the one which is the most expensive and most costly. 

I do not believe that side of the Chamber would be willing to destroy 

this industry simply by inserting a proviso which undoes all that is 

done in the body of th~ paragraph, for I take it that that wiU be the 

effect of this proviso. I have made my amendment so that the proviso 

will read: 

Provided, That all iron or steel rods except fiat with longitudinal ribs for the 

manufa-0ture of fencing, etc. 

Upon that question I ask for the yeas and nay!: 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proposed amendment will be 

stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 31, line 25, in paragraph 141, after the 

word "rods," it is proposed to insert "except fiat with longitudinal 

ribs for the manufacture of fencing;" so as to read: 

Provided, '£bat all iron or steel rods except fiat with longitudinal ribs for the 

manufacture of fencing, whether rolled or drawn through dies smaller than 

No. 6 wire gauge, &hall be classed and dutiable as wire. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Upon the proposed amendment the 

Senat-Or from New Jersey asks for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Chief Clerk proceeded tc 

call the ro11. 

Mr. C.ARLI::iLE (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from North Dakota [Mr. PrnHcE]. Ifhe were present, I should 

vote ''yea.,, 

Mr. FAULKNER (when Mr. KENNA'S name was ca11ed). I desire 

to state that my colleague [Mr. KENNA] is necessarily detained from 

, . 
I ., 

~ .. .l 

•, I 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8789 

the Senate by reason of sickness. He is paired with the Senator from 

Colorado [Mr. WOLCOTT). 

l\Ir. P ASOO (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. FARWELL]. If he were present, I should vote 

"yea." 

:Mr. TURPIE (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DAVIS]. If he were present, I should 

vote ''yea.'' 

Mr. VANCE (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Michigan [Mr. l\Icl\frLLAN]. Ifhe were present, I should 

vote "yea." 

Mr. VOORHEES (when his name was called). I inquire whether 

the Senator from Montana [Mr. SANDERS] has voted. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. He is not recorded. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I am paired with him, and consequently withhold my vote. 

Mr. WALTHALL (when his name was called). I am paired with 

the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER]. 

l\Ir. WILSO~, of Iowa (when his name was catled). I am paired 

with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. WILSON]. I do not see him in 

the Chamber and therefore withhold my vote. 

The roll-call wa.s concluded. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am regularly paired with the Senator from 

Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], and he was present at the time the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DA WES] left, and I am paired with him, 

telling him at the same time that I would provide a pair in the event 

that the Senator from Iowa was absent. I forgot this morning that 

the Senator from Iowa was absent, and I will now transfer my pair 

with the Senator from Ma.<>Sachusetts [Mr. DA WES] to the Senator from 

Mai·yland [Mr. GoRllAN], and I will observe my pair with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON]. 

Mr. HOAR. I will take the responsibility of absolving the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Gom.IA~l"] or the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 

CocKRELL] from any pair with my collea.gue [Mr. DAWE.'3] on this 

vote, as I suppose it is necessary that be should vote to make a quorum. 

I am quite sure my colleague would not object. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I should like to bquire if the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. E USTIS] is recoriled. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ile is recorded in the affirmative. 

Mr. PADDOCK. Then I vote " nay." 

Mr. GORMAN. I am usually paired with the Senator from Maine 

[Mr. FRYEl, but, under the arrangement as to the transfer of pairs, I 

am now paired with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] for 

the day, but as bis colleague [ Ir. HOAR] bas desired that I shall vote 

on this question, I will vote, but hereafter will con. ider my pair with 

the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] as standing without an- nouncing it on every vote. 

Mr. BLAIR. I am paired with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 

GEOltGE] and the Senator from Montana [Mr. SANDERS], who is absent, I understand is paired with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES]. We have arranged that the Senator from Montana [Mr. SAXDERS] should stand paired with the ~nator from Mississippi (Mr. 

GEORGE], and the Senator from Indiana and myself will be at liberty 

to vote. I vote "nay." 

So the amendment wa$ rejected. 

l\Ir. VEST. In line 21, on page 31, I move to strike out the word 

''six,'' before the word ''tenths,'' and insert ''five,'' and in line 24, 

the same amendment, to strike out the word ''six," before the word 

"ten tbs," where it occurs in that line, and insert "five." I ask for 

the yeas and nays upon the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 31, line 21, paragraph 141, it is proposed to strike oat" six-tenths" and insert "five-tenths," and in line 

24, to strike out "six-tenths" and insert "five-tenths;" so as to 

make the clause read: 

UJ. Wire rods: Rivet, screw, fence, and other iron or steel wire rods, and 

nail rods, whether round, oval, flat, square, or 'in any other shape, in coils or otherwise, not smaller than No. 6 wire gauge, valued at 3} cents or less per pound, five-tenths of 1 cent per pound; and iron or steel, flat, with longitudinal ribs for the manufacture of fencing, yalued at 3 cents or less per pound, tivetenths of 1 cent per pound. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri asks for 

the yeas and nays on the amendment. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Chief Clerk proceeded to 

call the roJJ. 

Ur. CARLISLE (when bis name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from North Dakota [Mr. PIERCE]. If he were present, I 

should vote ''yea.'' After this I shall simply withhold my vote without making any further announcement of the pair. 

l\Ir. MANDERSON (when bis name was called). I am paired with 

the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BLACKBURN]. 

Mr. VANCE (when bis name was called). I repeat the announcement of my pair with the Sc!tlator Jrorn Michigan [Mr. McMILLAN]. 

If be were present, I should vot-e '•yea.'' 

l\Ir. WILSON, of Iowa (when his name was called). I again announce my pair with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. WILSON] and 

with bold my vote. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. VOORHEES. With the understanding that the pair between 

myself and the Senator from "'Iontana [Mr. SANDERS] may be transferred, so far as he is concerne:i, to the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 

GEORGE], I will vote. I vote ·•yea." 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. I ,,·:is requested by the Senator from 

Mississippi [Mr. W ALTHALr.], who wa"I called from the Senate a few 

moments ago, to announce his pair with the 8enator from Wisconsin 

(Mr. SPOONER]. 

Mr. TURPIE. I am paired with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 

DAVIS]. Ifhe were present, I shon!d vote" yea." 

.Mr. COCKRELL. I will announce my pair with the senior Senator 

from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], who is nec:e--sarily deta.ined from the Senate Chamber by important business. If be were present, I should vote 

"Jean and be would vote "nay." 

The resnlt was announced-yeas 19, nays 16; as follows: 

Harbour, 

B;ite, Berry, 

Butler, 

Coke. 

Colquitt, 

Eustis, 

Faulkner, 

Gibson, 

Gray, 

YEAS-19. 

Hampton, Ransom, Jones of Arkansas, Reagan, McPherson, Yest, Morgan, Voorhees. 

Pugh, 

.NAYS-16. Mr. VOORHEES. I vote "yea." 

Mr. MANDERSON. Is the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BLACK- ~:;~:.ch, BURN] recorded as voting:? I Cast'):, 

Dixon, 

Dolph, 

Evarts, 

Hawley, 

Higgins, 

Hiscock, 

Hoar, 

l\Ioody. 

Platt, 

Sawyer, 

Squire, 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. He Teller. is not recorded. Cullom, 

Mr. l\IANDERSO~. I am paired with that Seuator, and therefore 

withhold my vote. 

Mr. CASEY. I desire to announce that my colleague [Mr. PIERCE] 

is necessarily absent, and is paired with the Senator from Kentucky 

[Mr. CARLTSJ_,E). • 

The result was announced-yeas 21, nays 25; as follows: 

YEAS-21. 

Barbour, Daniel, Hampton, Reagan, Bate, Eustis, Jones of Arkansas, Vest, Berry, Faulkner, 1\lcPherson, Voorhees. 

Butler,· Gil1Eon. :Morgan, Coke, Gorman, Pugh, Colquitt, Gray, Ransom, 

NAYS-25. 

Aldrich, Dolph, Jones of Nevada, Sawyer, Allen, Edmunds, Moody, Squire. Blair, Evarts, Paddock, Stockbridge, Cameron, Frye, Platt, 'l'eller, Casey, Hawley, Plumb, Cullom, Biggins, Power, Dixon, Hoar, Quay, 

ABSENT-38. 

Allison, Farwell, Mitchell, St-ewart, Blackburn, George, :\Iorrill, Tnrpie, Blodgett, Ha.le, Pasco, Vance, Brown, 1Iarris, Payne, Walthall, Call, Hearst, Pettigrew, "\Vashbnrn, Carlisle, Hiscock, Pierce, Wilson of Md. 

Chandler, Ingalls, Sanders, Wilson of Iowa, Cockrell, Kenna, Sherman, 'Volcott. Davis, J'\Ic~I illan, Spooner, Dawf's. :'.\Tanderson, Stanford, 

-,. 

. ' 

ABSENT-49. 

A lli,:on, Rdm unds, l\Iitchell, Blackburn, Farwell, Morrill, 

Blair, Frye, Paddock, Rlu<l ett, George, Pasco, Brown, Gorman, Payne, Call, Hale, Pettigrew, Cameron, Harris, Pierce, Carlisle, Hearst, Plumb, Chandler, Ingalls, Power, Cockrell, Jones of Nevada, Quay, D:1niel, Kenna, Sanders, Davis, l\Icl\Iillan, Sherman, Dawes, :Handerson, Spooner, 

Stanford, 

Stewart. Stockbridge, 

Turpie, 

Vance, 

'Va.It hall, \Va.sh burn, 'Vi Ison of Iowa, 'Wilson of Md. 

Wolcott. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No quorum having voted, the Secretar.v will call t.he roll of the Senate. 

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

dr. BATE (-'!hen Mr. HARRIS's name was called). My c~lleague 

[Mr. HARRIS] is not very well, although he has been here this morn- ing. He is absent temporarily. 

l\Ir. FAULKNER (when Ur. KENNA'S name was called). I de.~ire 

to wake the same announcement I have heretofore made with reference to my colleague [Mr. KENNA], that he is detained from the Senate by illness. 

The roll-call having been concluded, the following Senators were an- nounced as having responded to the call: 

Aldrich, Carlisle, Dixon, Allen, Casey, Dolph, Barbour, Cockrell, E<lmunds, Bate, Coke Eustis, 

~~~\~... ~~~~· ~=~r~er, 

.·' 

Frye, 

Gibson, 

Gray, 

Ha.le, 

Hampton, 

Hawley, 

- ' \"' 

.. 

-. :.. 

•. 

'· 

:-

.. 

,· 

.· 

·, ,--
; 

·.: . j 

.'1 

:.. 

. 8790 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

Higgins, Moody, Quay, 

Hiscock, Paddock, Reagan, 

Hoar, Pettigrew, Sawyer, Jonesof Arkansas, Platt, Squire, l\foPherson, Power, Stockbridge, 

Manderson, Pugh, Teller, 

Turpie, 

Va.nee, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

Wilson of Iowa. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven Senat.ors have answered 

to their names. A quorum is present. The question recurs on the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] to paragraph 141. The Secretary will call the roll upon agreeing to the amendment. 

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll 

Mr. COCKRELL (when his name was called). I am paired, as heretofore announced, with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], but at 

the instance of his colleague [Mr. WILSON], in order to make a qu1Jrum, I vote ''yea.'' 

Mr. GORUAN (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES]. 

Mr. V ANOE t when his name was called). I again announce my pair 

with the Senator from Michigan (Mr . .McMILLAN]. If he were present, 

I should vote ! 'yea. 1

' 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. (when his name was called). Under the 

terms of my pail: with the Senator from 1'1aryland [Mr. WILSON] I feel 

authorized to vote if my vote is necessary to make a quorum. rtherefore vote ''nay.'' 

Mr. HARRIS (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Sena.tor from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL]. If my vote is necessary to 

make a quorum, I shall cast it; otherwise not. 

The roll-call was concluded. • Mr. SPOONER (after having Toted in the negative). I am paired 

generally with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. WALTHALL], who 

is not fa the Chamber and has not voted. I observe that the Sena.t.or 

from North Carolina. [Mr. VANCE] is paired with the Senator from 

Michigan [Mr. McMILLAN]. With the consent of the Senator from 

North Carolina I will transfer the pairs so that the Senator from Mississippi [.Mr. W.AI,THALL] will be paired with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McMILLAN] and the Senat.or from North Carolina and myself will be at liberty to vote. 

Mr. VANCE. That is satisfactory. 

Mr. SPOONER. Then I will allow my vote to stand. 

Mr. VANCE. I vote "yea." 

Mr. DA VIS. My colleague [Mr.WASHBURN] is necessarily absent. 

He is paired with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GIBSON]. 

The result was announced-yeas 22, nays 27; as follows: 

YEAS-22. 

Barbour, 

Bate, 

Butler, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Daniel, 

Eustis, McPherson, 

Faulkner, Paddock, 

Gibson, Plumb, 

Gray, Pugh, 

Hampton, Ransom, Jones of Arkansas, Reagan, 

.Aldrich, 

Allen, 

Blair, 

Cameron, 

Oasey, 

Cullom, 

Davis, 

Dixon, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Frye, 

Hale, 

Hawley, 

Higgins, 

.Allison, Dawes, 

Berry, Evarts, 

Blackburn, Farwell, 

Blodgett, George, 

Brown, Gorman, 

Call, Harris. 

Carlisle, Hearst, 

Ohandler, Ingalls, 

Colquitt, Kenna, 

NAYS--27. 

Hiscock. 

Hoar, 

.Jones of Nevada., 

Moody, 

Platt, 

Power, 

Quay, 

ABSENT-3:>. 

l\Io:U:illan, 

:Manderson, 

l\fitchell, 

Morgan, 

l\Iorrill, 

Pasco, 

Payne, 

Pettigrew, 

Pierce, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Turpie, 

Vance, 

Vest., Voorhees. 

Sawyer, 

Spooner, 

Squire, 

Stockbridge, 

Teller, 

Wilson of Iowa. 

Sanders, 

Sherman, 

Stanford, 

Stewart, 

Walthall, 

Washburn, 

Wilson of Md. 

Wolcott .. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reading of the bill will be resumed. 

The Chief Clerk resumed the reading of the bill at the beginning of 

paragraph 142. The next amendment of the Committee on Finance was, 

in line 7, to strike out the word "gauge." 

The amendment was a.greed to. 

When the Chief Clerk had completed the reading of paragraph 142, 

Mr. l\IcPHERSON. Mr. President, it seems to me as though we had reached the time when possibly something could be done in reduc-

~g the duty on wire. The duty has been extravagantly high throughout 

all the tariffs of which I ha.ve had any knowledge, and it is no less high 

in the present tariff bill. · 

I see no way, as the bill is made up, that it is possible to have imposed an ad vn.lorem duty instead of specific without a reconstruction 

of the whole schedule from be!!inning to end. Therefore I shall try 

to get some reduction in the specific rates of duty tbat are here proposed, assuming that the committee have made, in their estimation, a well proportioned bill. I shall therefore move the reduction of an equal amount on each one of the gauges in paragraph 142. 

So I move, in lines 5 and 6, to strike out the words "and one-fourth 

cents" and insert" cent;" so that it will read "1 cent per pound." 

.._ '• . 

On "smaller than No. 10 and not smaller than No. 16 wire gauge," 

in line 8, I move to make it lt cents per pound, instead of li cents per 

pound. 

In lines 10 and 11 I move to strike out the words "and one-fourth;" 

so that it will read "2 cents per pound." 

In line 12 I move to strike out the word "three" and insert "two 

and three-fourths." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proposed amendments will be 

stated and will be treated as a. single amendment, if there be no objection. 

The CmEF CLERK. In lines 5 and 6, paragraph 142, strike out 

the words "and one-fourth cents" and insert "1 cent;" so as to read 

"1 cent per pound." 

In line 8 strike out the words "three-fourths cents" and insert the 

word "cent;" so that it will read "1 cent per pound.'' 

In lines 10 and 11 strike out the words "and one.fourth;" so that 

it will read '' 2 cents per pound.'' · 

In line 12 strike out the word ''three '' and insert in lieu thereof the 

words " two and three-fourths;" so that it will read "2 ~- cents per 

pound." 

Mr. CARLISLE. l\Ir. President, this js a paragraph which covers a great number of articles, and I have not had time to arrange the matter so as to state briefly its effect upon the duties, but I can indicate 

some of the increases made. 

It was said in the report made to the House of Representatives by 

the Committee on Ways and Means: In wires of all descriptions there has been a reduction of one.fourth of a. cent per pound. 

That statement is not correct, even upon the face of the paragraph 

as it stands in the bilJ. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I suppose the House committee had reference to 

ordinary plain wire. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I will read the stat~ment again: 

In wires of all descriptions there bas been a reduction of one-fom·th of a cent per pound. 

If the committee meant to confine itself to plain wires, as suggested 

by the Senator from Rhode Island, it was certainly very unfortunate 

in the use of the language which I have read from the report; Instead of being a redaction of one-fourth of a cent per pound upon wires 

of all descriptions, this paragraph makes an enormous increase of duties 

upon no less than twenty-two different classes of wires embraced in it, 

not directly by fixing the duties in the text of the paragraph which 

enumerates the articles themselves, but by a proviso which is inserted 

at the close of the paragraph in these words: 

Pro'IJided further, That all iron or steel wire valued at more than 4 cents per pound shall pay a. duty of not less than 4.'>percent. ad valorem, except that card wire for the manufacture of c.1.rd clothing shall pay a. duty of 35 per cent. ad va.lorem. 

Now, Mr. President, as I have said, the effect of this proviso is enormously to increase the duty upon no less than twenty-two classes of 

wire enumerated in this paragraph. For instance: 

·wire made of iron or steel not smaller than No. 10 wire gauge, It cents per pound. · 

The present duty is 1! cents per pound; so this is in fact a. reduction of one-fourth of a cent per pound. 

But the next clause provides that on wire "smaller than No. 10 and 

not smaller than No. 16 wire gauge, 1! cents per pound" shall be paid, 

and this upon the face of the paragraph appears to be a. reduction in 

the rates of duty, but the present equivalent ad valorem upon that 

class of wire is only 11.53 per cent., and the proviso which I have 

read raises it to 45 per cent. ad valorem, four times the present rate. 

In the next clause, which eμibraces wire "smaller than No. 16and 

not smaller than No. 26 wire gauge, 2! cents per pound," it appears 

also upon tbe face of the paragraph to be a reduction of one-fonrth of a cent per pound, whereas in fact it is an ~crease of from 17.67 percent. 

to 45 per cent. ad valorem. 

The next cL·mse is: 

Smaller than No. 25 wire gauge, 3 cents per pound. 

This does not even purport to be a reductio~ from the present rates 

of duty. 

Then we have the proviso: 

That iron or steel wire covered with cotton, silk, or other material, and wires or strip steel, commonly known as crinoline wire, corset wire, a.nd hat wire, shall pay a duty of 5 cents per pound. 

This, upon the face of the paragraph, appears to be a reduction from 

6 cents per pound on one class, ~ on another, and 7 cents per pound 

on another to 5 cents per pound, while in fact it is an increase of duty 

from 11.10 per cent. to 45 per cent. ad valorem. 

'!'hen comes the nex t proviso: 

A ncl 71ro1:ide<l f llrlher, That flat steel wire, or sheet steel in stl'ips, whether 

drawn through dies or rolls, untempered or tempered, of whatsoever width, twenty-five-one-thousand lb of an inch thick, ready for use or otherwise, shall pay a duty of 50 per cent. ad valorem. 

This is not noted in the tables reported by the committee at all. 

It is not necessary to read the next proviso. 

The next one after that is: 

That iron or steel wire cloths and iron or steel wire nettings made in meshes 
1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 8791 

or any form shall pay a duty equal in amount to that impose!1 on iron or st~el 

wire used in the manufacture of iron or steel wire cloth or u-on or steel wire 

nettings, and 2 cents per pound in addition thereto. 

This also appears to be a reduction, but under the proviso it largely 

in.creases the rates of duty upon three classes of these articles. 

! There shall be naid on iron or steel wire coated with zinc or tin or any other 

metal (except fence wire and iron or steel, fiat, with longitudinal ribs, for the 

manufacture of fencln~) one-half of 1 per cent. in addition to the rate imposed on the wire of which it is made. 

This purports to be a reduction from 2 cents to l! cents per pound 

on the first class; from 2~ to 2! cents per pound on the second class, 

and from 3 cents to 2t cents a pound on the third, whichisareduction 

of one-fourth of a cent a pound all through on the iron wire. 

Bnt when we come to steel wire, galvanized, we find in this paragraph an apparent reduction of one-fourth of a cent per pound, when 

in fact there is an actual increase from 19 per cent. to 45 per cent. under 

the proviso which is inserted. at the end of this paragraph; and in the 

next class there is a like increase from 13.11 to 45 per cent. under this 

insidious proviso. 

And so, if I were disposed to consume the time of the Senate, I could 

go through the whole paragraph and show, as I have said, upon twentytwo classes of these articles, embracing nearly all kinds of wire and 

article~ made from wire, an increase of duty, sometimes to more than 

four times the present rates. And yet it is said by the committee of 

the House of Representatives, and it appears here upon the face of the 

tables, and upon the face of the paragraph itself as it stands without 

· reference to the proviso, that there is a decrease! 

Mr. VEST. May I ask the Senator from Kentucky if it is not true 

that there is an increase upon all but four of these.grades? 

Mr. CARLISLE. On all but four or five. I have had no time to 

analyze it carefully; perhaps five or six. 

Mr. VEST. I made it four. I had an experL to examine. I want 

to call the attention of the Senator to the explanation of all these paragraphs. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky 

yield to the Senator from MiRSonri ? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Yes. 

Mr. VEST. It is true, the Senator from Rhode Island says, this was 

done by an expert, and that the committee had nothing to do with it. 

But nnder the resolution of the Senate, asking the committee to explain these pages, they adopted the statement of the expert and it is 

their report. Here is their report: 

This is but a sll&"ht change from existing rates and is a reduction on some of 

the lower grades. 

And yet the truth is that I make it four, the Senator from New Jersey six, and the Senator from Kentucky five, I believe. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I said ''five or six." 

Mr. VEST. There is an increase and a large increase upon fortyodd of them, and yet that is the report of that expert upon that state 

of the case. 

l\Ir. McPHERSON. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from 

Kentucky that it was my purpose to offer to amend the bill so as to 

make reductions of these specific rates as we go along through this paragraph, because I saw no use of applying the ad vaiorem rates to them, 

and then move to strike out the proviso entirely at the end of the 

section. 

Mr. CARLISLE. But, Mr. President, as it stands now, with this 

pTOviso, there is an ad valorem rate of duty fixed upon neatly all these 

classes of wires of 45 per cent. . 

Now, I suggest, Mr. President, that if it was the purpose of the Committee on Finance to increase the rates of dnty upon all these classes 

of wire, the fair way to do it would have been to put it on the face of 

the paragraph itself, and not have in the paragraph and in the tables 

figures which upon their face show a reduction, and then at the end of 

the paragraph have a proviso which makes an enormous increase, and 

report to the Senate that this is '•but a slight change from existing rates 

and is a reduction on some of the lower grades.'' 

It is true that it is a reduction on a very few of the lower grades, 

but a large increase, not justifiable or attempted to be justified by the 

committee, upon, as I have said once or twice betore, twenty-two 

classes of this wire. If this committee desires the SenatA to have ac- curate information upon that subject, I repeat, it ought to have put 

these rates of duty in the paragraph and in the tables, so that every-

'body could see them, and not raise them in this indirect and insidious 

way by inserting a proviso at the end of the paragraph. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not quite understand what the Senator from 

Kentucky means by "this insidious way of inserting a proviso at the 

end." 

Mr. CARLISLE. I will state what I meau. 

:Mr. ALDRICH. If the Senator from Kentucky will excuse me, I 

should like to complete my statement. 

The proviso is there in plain, set terms, so there can be no misunderstanding about its purpose. It provides that the duty upon wire valued 

at 4 cent.-, per pound a.9d above shall not be less than 45 per cent. ad 

valorem. ... :row, I will suggest to the Senator from Kentucky that the real question before the Senate in this connection is, or should be, not whether 

the effect of this provision will be to increase the duties upon some 

grades of iron or steel wire, but whether the rates proposed by the 

committee are excessive. 

It is true that upon all ordinary kinds of iron 01· steel wire the paragraph proposes a reduction in rate of one-fourth of a. cent a pound, or 

$5.60 per ton. For instance, take the fence-wire which is used very 

largely in this country. The price of this wire to the American purchaser is only 2! cents a pound, and of course the foreign price would 

be less than 4 cents. All kinds of Bessemer steel wire, all kinds of 

open-hearth steel wire, and all forms of iron wire, except the very 

finest, would be valued at less than 4 cents a pound. 

The committee propose, and I think every Senator will see the justice and equity of the proposition, that wires worth to-day 25, 26, 45, 

47, or 48 cents per pound-and I have taken these prices at randomshould pay a rate of duty equal to that imposed upon other manufactures of iron and steel. 

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. McPHERSON] and every Senator 

on that side of the Chamber voted for a proposition to impose a duty of 

50 per cent. ad valorem upon bar-iron. If that was a proper ratt3 to 

impose upon bar-iron, certainly 45 per cent. is not excessive upon these 

finer forms of the manufactures of iron and steel. 

The general clause of this schedule imposes a rate of duty of 45 per 

cent. upon all manufactures ot iron and steel not specially enumerated, and I have yet to hear one reason suggested by any Senator on 

the other side why the articles provided for in this paragraph, including, as I have already stated, the very finest kinds, or crucible-steel 

wire, shoul<l not pay a rate of 45 per cent. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I supposed when a proposition was made to impose a tax upon the people, directly or indirectly, or to increase a tax, 

that the onus was upon the proposers of that tax to show why it should 

·be done, and not upon the opponents of the m~asure to show why it 

should not be done. 

This proposition is to increase the duty over the present rates in some 

cases 300 per cent., and in many others 200 per cent., and in a large 

number 100 per cent., and the Senator calls upon us to show why it 

should not be increased. We call upon him to tell us why it should 

be increased, and especially why, if an increase is necessary, it should 

be made in this indirect way. 

And in this connection I will tell the Senator what I mean when. I 

call this an insidious proviso. If the Committee on Finance had putinto this clause a provision that all these wires should pay 45 per 

cent. ad valorem it would have reduced the duty on quite a number of 

classes of wire ; but by saying simply that no one of them shall pay a 

less rate than 45 per cent. ad valorem it leaves the existing higher 

rates upon those which now bear higher ra.tes, ~nd brings the lower 

ones up to 45 per cent.. ad valorem. 

Now, if the Senator believes that 45 per cent. ad valorem is necessary and is sufficient, say so in the paragraph, and that will bring down 

some of these classes of wires from the rates now proposed to be established; for instance, galvanized wire made from steel will pay, under 

this paragraph, over 61 per cent. ad valorem. Your 45 per cent. does 

not apply to that, but would apply to it if it paid now only 25 per 

cent. and would raise it to 45. 

The next class, galvanized wire made of steel, pays, urrder this bill, 

46.43 per cent., and the next class, 49.48. It is not proposed to bring 

them down to 45 per cent., but to have all the others brought up to 

45 per cent. and leave these where they are. 

Therefore I said it waa an insidious proviso which does not, in the 

first place, accomplish what at first glance everybody would suppose it 

did, that is, to impo'>e a rate of 45 per cent. upon these wires, but leaves 

the higher rates, those which are above 45, and affects only those now 

below 45 per cent. 

I say again, if the Senator from Rhode Island thinks that 45 per cent. 

is a sufficient rate of duty, let us say so on the face of the bill, and 

not raise those which have been 10, 11, 15, and 20 per cent. under the 

existing law to 45 per cent., and leave all the higher classes to stand 

as they are. I can see no necessit_y for this increase of duty and the 

Senator has stated none. 

They are the rates of duty imposed by the existing law, under which, so far as I know, the manufacturers of these articles have prospered to a reasonable degree at least. There was no complaint made by anyb ody within my k:nowledp;e before the Committee on Ways and Means 

of the House, or before the Committee on Finance of the Senate in regard to tha existing rates of duty upon these classes of wire. They 

have been increased gratuitously by the committee, not even upon the 

demand of interested parties, not even at the suggestion of anybody, 

manufacturers or consumers, and no reason is stated here for it. 

On the contrary, the Senator who advocates H calls upon us to state 

the reason why it should not be done .. These are the rates which were 

fixed by the Republican tariff act of 1883, after a full investi~ation of 

this whole subject by the Tariff Commission, composed largely, if not 

entirely, of the advocates of a protective system, and after a full investigation by the Committee of Ways and M earui of the House and by 

the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and they have stood as a part 

of your law for seven years without complaint from any quarter as far as I know. And yet, without any explanation, without demand, the 

1. 

~. 

.. _ ... 

: 

-. 

.. -

: 
' . 

• L 

.-.. _ .... 

•, ... '". 

8792 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

dnties are to be incr~ased, and we are a~ked to state the reason why it 

should not be done. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, one would infer from the statement 

made by the Senator from Kentucky that to suggest any increase of 

the present rates of duty was a crime. The Senators upon the other 

side are perfectly willing to reduce the existing rates of duty when it 

serves their purpose or when they think they are too high. But when 

rates are confessedly too low it is reprehensible in the highest degree 

for any one to snggest t.hat they shonld be increased. 

The Senator says that no man bas asked for an increase of duty. 

Why, Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] 

asked the other day why we had advanced the dnty upon cotton-ties, 

when no one had asked for the increase, and the same question is asked 

now. I answered that Senator to the best of my ability, and I will repeat the answer now. It is the duty of the Committee on Finance, as I understand it, to present to the Senate a schedule of rates which in 

their opinion is proper and equitable, and not to simply formulate the 

demands of either importer or manufacturer. If you intend to have all 

rates equally protective it is necessary, that the rates may be harmonious, that they shall have a proper relation to each other, from the 

crudest to the finest products. 

The articles in this schedule range in value from the iron ore, that is 

worth from $2 to $10 per ton, to the finest watch-springs, worth many 

dollars per pound, which are provided tor in this paragraph, and it is 

necessary, if all this vast range of important industries are to be fairly 

treated, that the duties upon each sustain a proper relation to each other, 

and it was with this purpose in view that the committee (without regard to suggestions made by interested manufacturers or by interested 

purchasers as to what rate of duty should be fixed) suggested the rate w J::i.ich has been so seYerely criticised. 

Now, I say to the Senator from Kentucky that when it is ascertained 

that rates of duty are imposed upon the expensive manufactures enumerated iu this paragraph, which are only equivalent to 7.38, 10.63, 

or 11.10 per cent. ad valorem, it should not require any special effort 

to convince Senators that these rates are inadequate and unjust. 

The Senators on the other side are apparently quite willing to impose 60 per cent. upon iron ore, pig-iron, and iron iu bars, and upon 

various cruder forms of iron awl steel, but when the finer forms are 

reached, those upon which the most labor is required, then they insist 

ibat we shall maintain presentrates of 8 to 10 or 12 per cent., and afao 

in -ist that we are put upon the defensive if we propose to establish 

rates equivalent to those proposed upon other manufactnres of iron and 

steel. 

Now, if it is the purpose of Senators to place prohibitory duties upon 

all the cruder forms of manufacture and to allow foreign manufacturers to sell us all the finer forms by putting the rates so low thatit would 

insure importations for the benefit of their friends, the importers-if, I 

repeat, this is their purpose, they should declare it courageously and 

manfnlJy. Do not say to us, because we have fixed a rate of duty of 45 

per cent., a r.ite less than theaveragerateofthiswhole schedule, upon 

these costly manufactures, that we are doing something criminal and 

something that requires explanation to the American people. 

:Mr. VEST. .Mr. President, at every step in this bill the Senators 

upon this side of the Chamber have resisted increases of duty on the 

lower grades, and the higher grades, and all the grades in the bill. 

We have persistently and consistently fought every increase at the expense of the consumers of the country. And yet the Senaror from 

Hhode Island undertakes to defend this monstron.s increase, for which 

lle can find no reason whatever except his idea of a symmetrical tariff 

bill; be undertakes to defend it upon the ground that we upon this 

side have p.:irmitted these further increases to be made. It is not true, 

l\Ir. President, and we now have a look at this monstrous system in 

it.a naked deformity, stripped of all pretense that it is anything else 

than an oat-of-hand piece of spoliation of the people of the United 

States. 

We have come at last to the point where the Senator has no reason 

except that because we have done this in other places we must do it 

here in order to preserve the harmonious relations of this bill, the symmetry of this tariff bill as proposed by the Committee on Finance ! 

Why, Mr. President, from the beginning of this false statement by this 

expert that there bas been no increase, throuJ?h all the steps of the taxation contained in this clause, we have shown that there has been an 

increase without any reason whatever, and the Senator is now driven 

to the resort of saying that it is necessary to preserve the symmetrical 

relations of one part of this bill with another! 

What is the result of the Senator's statement? We know very well 

that in any article of crude material there will be found different kinds 

ofma.nufacture. Takeleat.her, forinstance. Aft~rthehideshavebeen 

prep ired as leather, you find the manufactures of boots and shoes, sachels, and harness, and all the different kinds of leather manufacture. 

According to the Senator from Rhode Island, if you make an increase on any one of them you mnst then blindly make an increase upon all 

in order to pre.serve the symmetrical relations of tariff taxation ! 

Suppose the manufacturers of saddlery were making enormous fortunes and the manufacturers of boots and shoes were not. According 

to the Senator from Rhode Island, iftherewasanincreaseuponleather 

, 

or an increase upon any of the other articles in which leather is used 

for manufacturing purposes, there must be an increase in saddlery in 

order to preserve the symmetrical relation of the tariff! 

We are to go blindly, without cause, to increase taxes when they are not demanded, when there is no other reason for it except the symmetrical relation which is adopted by the Committee on Finance! 

Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, the public will take notice that the 

Committee on Finance can find no reason for thi8 increase except that, 

in their opinion, the present rates are unjust, and therefore they ought 

to be increased ! If so, then I presume they ought not to be ashamed 

to increase them directly, instead of saying, after assigning a duty t-0 

each classification of these wires, many of which are below 45 per 

cent.-instead of assigning to each one a duty which would bring it up 

to 45 directly, so that the public could see and the plainest minds could 

comprehend what they were doing, and so Senators on this side would 

know what they were doing, they take the indirect method of saying 

in a proviso that all wires, iron or steel, valued at not less than 4 cents 

a pound shall pay a duty of not less than 45 per cent. 

That is the indirect way of doing it, and the general reading public 

would not comprehend, having no tables before them, whether there 

had been any increase at all; and the deception is further carried out 

by a. foot-note, given by the committee by way of explanation, thatThis is a slight change from the existing rates, nnd a redaction in a few of the 

lower grades; 

Whereas it is a great change in existing rates in more than forty odd 

of the entire number of kinds of wire specified, and a very slight reduction in only a few of them. The truth is the reverse of what wr 

might infer from this equivocal statement of the committee. 

We, on this side of the Chamber, are constantly twitted, Mr. Presi· 

dent, with being friends of the importers, and we are called upon to 

say why we resist these reductions as the friends of the importers. 

Why, Mr. President, there is nobody on this side who is a. friend to 

the importers. Our clients are not the importers. Our clients are the 

great consuming public, the American people; the clients of that side 

of the Chamber are the manufacturers; and it will not do to attempt 

to narrow the issue in that way, to attempt to narrow the number and 

the character of the people and the interest that we represent here 

(which is that of the great American public), to compare with the half 

dozen or t.be handful of manufacturers of iron wire. 

Mr. BLAIR. I should think your client.a had better change their 

attorneys if they want to get their rights. 

Mr. V ANOE. That may be so. If our client.a could come here and 

consult with us, as they come and consult those on that side of the 

Senate; if our clients, the great consumers, the American people, could come here into these antechambers and corridors, and could excludo 

the manufacturers and the majority of the committee, and could post 

us upon these classific.ations, it might be that we could succeed in reducing some of these duties in an indirect and. a secret manner, a:1 

they have succeeded in increasing the duties in that indirect and secret 

manner. But that is not possible, Rir. 

The great public can not be here. The great public of consumem 

have no experts to send here to manipulate the tariff' bill. They depend upon the justice, the intelligence, and the patriotism of American legislators, and I fear, sir, that they will be disappointed every 

time that they have that expectation. Especially do they labor under 

the disadvantage that they have not been informed as to the manne1 

of making these changes; that they have not been informed as to the 

necessity of the changes being made, and that those upon whom is 

devolved the duty of furnishing the information have deceived them 

by making a representation here that is not, apparently at least, in 

accordanCEI with the facU!. TherefoTe they can not expect to bold theil 

bands in legislating in this way with the chosen recipients of the benefits of this taxation who have the field all to themselves and have the 

technical knowledge of their own business which it ie impossible for 

others to acquire. 

If the Senator says the burden of proof is on this side, and that those 

who entertain the opposite doctrine should show the reason why·an increase should not be made, the ordinary rules of proof in every court 

of justice will be set at nought and changed. The purpose of the resolntion introduced by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLU.1\IB] was to 

furnish this very information, for the want of which we are now floundering frequently in the dark. The report which has been made here, 

in quite a number, if not a majority, of the cases where there have 

been changes, says ''no data," and therefore there are no means of 

telling whether it is an increase or not. 

There is no information given to us anywhere, before the committee 

or by the report of the Finance Committee, why this increase should 

be made. We are all working in the dark. We are all floundering 

for the want of proper information, except that portion of the Finance 

Committee that has been in close consultation with the manufacturers 

themselves, and who know precisely what they want and the best way 

to obtain that which they do want with.mt letting the great bulk of 

the American people know what they are after. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Mr. President, I wish, sir, to enter my protest 

ag-p.inst this kind of proceeding any longer. For one, I do not sympathize with any ambition, whether it be upon this side of the Chamber 

\ .. 
1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8793 

or that side, which undertakes to censure the Senator from Rhode 

Island or any of the members of the Committee on Finance who were 

engaged in the preparation of this tariff bill. I am quite sure that 

.neither the Senator from Rhode Island nor any member of the committee had vary much to do with it. The tariff bil1 was made up by the 

beneficiaries themselves, and the result was handed to the committee 

for the purpose of explaining it to the country and sustainh~g it before 

the Senate. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey 

yield to the Senator from Rhode Island? 

Mr. McPHERSON. I do. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I will say to the Senator from New Jersey that 

there is uot one particle of truth in that statement in regard to any 

paragraph of the bill. 

Mr. McPHERSON. His a well known fact, sir, that not one individual other than the manufacturers themselves, so far as the public 

knows, had a chance to appear before that committee. They came there and they were heard by the committee iu respect of these paragraphs and schP.dules. The general public, the consumers, were not 

invited there, and therefore they had nothing to do with making up 

the bill. . Now, I find no fault with the committee. The Senator from Rhode 

Island, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy to-day, seems to be 

all alone. Three of his associates upon the committee have apparently 

escaped, and the only one who is present with him is speechless. Now, 

I find no fault, as I say, with· this paragraph. It is exactly like the 

rest of the paragraphs of the bill. The paragraph itself states in ex- press language what it means. There bas been no concealment on the 

part of the committee, so far as I have been concerned, for I have 

read the paragraph through from beginning to end. 

When I see that upon certain qualities and kinds of wire a duty ot 

11, 12, or 15 per cent. is interposoo and when I find a context in the 

way of a proviso which impose~ a duty of 45 per cent., I know what it means. Therefore, Mr. President, I intend at first t-0 move to amend 

each particular pa.mgraph and ea.ch particular grade of wire as we pass 

along. I then int~nd to moYe to strike out the provision in toto, so as 

to leave that exactly as the committee left it, less the proviso. That 

is all, sir. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senate ready for the question? 

!tlr. McPHERSO~. Mr. P1·esident, it being an important pa.ragrdpb, 

I propose to ask for the yeas and nays so far as I have moved to amend, 

which is down to line 12. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Upon the several amendments proposed by the Senator from New Jersey, which, for the purpose of voting, are treated as one amendment, the Senator from New Jersey demands the yeas and nays. 

M.r. McPHEl:{SON. .And further, Mr. President, I wish to give notice that it is my intention to move to strike out the proviso, so that 

when Senators vote upon my amendments now they will understand 

that they are voting with the understanding that I intend as well to 

move to strike out the proviso. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I hope that the Senator from New Jersey will include that in this present motion. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I can not, because I have three or four other 

motions t-0 make concerning this paragraph. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. 

!\fr. D.t... VIS (when bis name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Indiana [Mr. TURPIE]. 

Mr. HARRIS (when bis name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Vermont [l\fr. MORRILL]. 

Mr. M.A.NDERBON (when his name was called). I am paired with 

the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Br.ACKBURN]. 

Mr. P .ASCO (when his name was called). I again -announce my 

pafr with the Senator from Illinois [M"r. FARWELL]. If be were 

present, I should vote "yea." 

Mr. VANCE (when bis name was ~alled). Iagainannouncemypair 

with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Mcl\IrLLAN]. If he were present, I should vote " yea." 

:Mr. WALTH.A.LL (when his name was called). I am paired with 

the Senator from Wisconsin [!\Ir. SPOONER]. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. P .A.SCO. I desire to announce the absence of my colleague [Mr. 

CALL] and to state that he is paired with the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. PETIIGREW]. 

Mr. GIBSON (alter having voted in the affirmative). I am paired 

with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. W .ASHBURN], and therefore I 

withdraw my vote. 

Mr. EVAl{T8. I am paired with the Senator from Alab:ima [Ur. 

MORGAN]. I should like to inquire whether his vote is recorded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. His vote is not recorded. 

Mr. EV ARTS. Then I withhold my vote. 

Mr. HARRIS. I snggest to the Senato!' from New York that I am paired with the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL], and thatifhe 

desires it we may transfer our pairs, so that the Senator from New 

York and I can both vote. 

Mr. EV .ARTS. That ii. satisfactory to me. Mr. HARRIS. I vote" yea." 

Mr. EV ARTS. I vote "nay." 

Mr. COCK RITTiL. .As heretofore announced, I am paired with the 

Senator from Iowa [Ur. A LISON], but in pursuance of what his colleague stated to me awhile ago, and in order to make a quorum, and as it will not change the result, I vote "yea." 

Mr. SPOONER. I am paired with the Senator from Mississippi 

[Mr. W .ALTHALL]. • 

Mr. WALTH.A.LL. I see that the Senator from Wisconsin [Alr. 

SPOONER] has entered the Chamber, and therefore I vote "yea." 

:Air. SPOONER. I vote "nay." 

The result was announced-yeas 17, nays 27; as follows: 

Barbour, 

Bate, 

Berry, 

Butler, 

Cockrell, 

Aldrich, 

Allen, 

Blair, 

Cameron, 

Caeey, 

Cullom, 

Dixon, 

Allison, 

Blackburn, 

Blodgett, 

Brown, 

Call, 

Carlisle, 

()handler, 

Colquitt, 

Daniel, 

lJavis, 

Ooke, 

Eustis, 

Gray, 

Hampton, 

Harris, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Evarts, 

Frye, 

Hawley, 

Higgins, 

Hiscock, 

YEAS-17. 

McPherson, 

Pugh, 

Reagan, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

NAYS-27. 

Hoar, 

Jones of Ne\ada., 

:Moody, 

Paddock, 

Platt, 

Power, 

Q.uay, 

ABSENT-to. 

Dawes, Kenna, 

Farwell, 1\Ic:\lillan, 

Faulkner, Manderson, 

George, Mitchell, 

Gibson, l\Iorgan, 

Gorman, l\lorr1ll, 

Ha.le, Pasco, 

Hearst, Payne, 

Ingalls, Petti~rew, 

Jones of Arkansas, Pierce, 

So the amendments were rejected. 

Walthall, 

Wilson of Md. 

Sawyer, 

Spooner, 

Squire, 

Stockbridge, 

Teller, 

Wilson of Iowa. 

Plumb, 

Ransom, 

Sanders, 

Sherm.an, 

Stanford, 

Stewart, 

Tur pie, 

Vance, 

Washburn, 

Wolcott.. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I desire to offer an amendment: In line 17, on 

page 32, to strike out the word "five" and insert the word "foar;" so as to read "4 cents." 

ThePRESIDINGOFFICER. Let the amendment be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. At the beginning of line 17, on page 32, strike 

out "five" and insert "four;" so as to read, "4 cents per pound." 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. McPHER. .... ON. Then I move to amend, in line 22, page 32, by 

striking out the word "fifty " and inserting in lieu thereof "forty;" so as to read: "40 per cent. ad valorem." 

The CHIEF CLERK. .At the end of line 22, pa~e 32, strike out 

'' fifty'' and insert '• forty; '' so as to read: 

Shall pay a duty of 40 per cent. ad valorem. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. ~IcPHERSON. In line 9, page 33, I move to strike out the 

word c; two " and insert in lieu thereof "one and one-half; " so as to 

read " H cents." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be i·eported. 

The CHIEF CL ERK. In line 9, page 3~. after the word ''and,'' strike 

out "two " and insert "one and one-half." 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. McPHERSON. In line 17, page 33, I move to strike out the 

word "one" and insert "one-half." 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 17, page 33, strike out the word" one" 

and insert in lieu thereof" one-half;" so as to read ''one-half cent per 

pound.'' 

The amendment was r~jected. 

.Mr. McPHERSON. On page 33, line 20, I move to strike out ''two" 

and insert" one and one-half." 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Now, Mr. President, we have reached theproviso to which I intended to offer an amendment calculated to reduce 

the ad valorem rate of duty from 45 per cent. to25percent., and upon 

that question I shall ask for the yeas and nays, because that is the 

vital question~f the whole paragraph. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. · The CHIEF CLERK. , In line 24, page 33, after the word " than," it 

is proposed to strike out "forty-five " and insert "twenty-five;" so as to read: 

Shall pay a <luty of n·ot less than 25 per cent. ad valorem, except that card 

wire, for the manufacture of card clothing, shall pay a duty of 35 per cent·. ad 

valorem. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Clerk correctly understand 

the Senator from New Jersey that his amendment is to reduce the rate 

to 25 per cent. ad valorem? 

Mr. McPHERSON. Twenty-five. I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Chief Clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

•• J ,-

--

' 

; : 

·-.. 

·, 

. , 

, 
·. 

·. 

; 

-

.· 

8794 . ·' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

Mr. HARRIS (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL]. 

Mr. PASCO (when his name was called). I againannounee my pair 

with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. FARWELL]. If he were present, I 

should vote "yea." 

Mr. QUAY (wheuhis name was called). lam paire1l with thejunior 

Senator from West Virginia [Mr. FAULKNER]; and while I am on the 

floor I will inquire whether the name of the junior Sena.tor from West 

Virginia was recorded as having voted during the last roll-call. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chief Clerk informs the Chair 

that be is not so recorded. 

Mr. QUAY. ·I was under a misapprehension. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. GIBSON. I am paired with the Senator from Minnesota. [Mr. 

WASHBURN]. I withhold my vote. I make this announcement of my 

pair for the day. 

Mr. BATE. I desire to state that Mr. FAULKNER, of West Virginia, was called out of the Chamber a. short time ago. 

111r. HARRIS. In order to make a quorum, though paired, I have 

the authority to vote, and I vote ''yea.'' 

Mr. COCKRELL. I previously announced my pair with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], but, fur the purpose of making a quorum 

and as it does not change the result of the vote, I vote "yea." 

The resul_t was announced-yeas 19, nays 27; as follows: 

YEAS-19. 

Barbour, Coke, Harris, Vest, Bate, Daniel, ~cPherson , Voorhees, Berry, Eustis, Morgan, Walthall, Butler, Gray, Pugh, Wilson of Md. 

Cockrell, Hampton, Reagan, 

NAYS-27. 

Aldrich, Dolph, Hoar, Sawyer, Allen, Edmunds, Jones of Nevada, Spooner, Blair, Evarts, Mitchell, Squire, Cameron, Frye, Moody, Stockbridge, Casey, Ha.le, Paddock, Teller, Cullom, Hawley, Platt, Wileon of Iowa. 

Dixon, Hiscock, Plnmb, 

ABSENT-38. 

Allison, Farwell, McMillan, Sanders, Blackburn, Faulkner, Manderson, Sherman, Blodgett, George, Morrill, Stanford, Brown, Gibson, Pasco, Stewart, Call, Gorman, Payne, Turpie, Carlisle, Hearst, Pettigrew, Vance, Chandler, Higgins, Pierce, Washburn, Colquitt, Ingalls, Power, Wolcott. 

Davis, Jones of Arkansas, Quay, Dawes, Kenna, Ransom, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. VANCE. I move to strike out the whole of paragraph 143. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. 

follows: 

It is proposed to strike out paragraph 143, as 

GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

143. No allowance or reduction of duties for partial loss or damage in conse- quence of rust or of ctiscolora.tion shall be ma.de upon any description of iron or steel, o• upon any article wholly or partly manufactured of iron or steel, or upon any manufacture of iron and steel. 

Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I do not profess to be familiar with 

the methods of importation and with the accidents and losses that are 

necessarily attendant upon it; but it seems to me that that paragraph 

<'.an have no effect in the world except to discourage importations, 

which means that we proclaim to the world, by that paragraph and by 

similar ones in other schedules, that we do not want anybody at all to 

trade with us; that we want foreigners to bring nothing here, and that 

if they should come with a cargo and should be so unfortunate as to 

have it damaged in any way by the perils of the sea no allowance will 

be maie therefor; and although the damage may be anything short of 

total loss of the goods, and ifthat which remains is not worth the duty, 

yet the importers have got to pay those duties or throw tbe goods 

away or take the damaged goods back. That is a repulsion of trade. 

It exhibits an unfriendly spirit, the spirit of the Dark Ages, which discourages trade and intercourse between nations; and the more that the 

goods of foreign countries are discolll'aged by this means from coming 

here, the less we shall be able to sell of our own p ducts. Consequently the injury will fall ultimately upon our own people, who are not permitted to exchange. 

I think it is so contrary to the spirit of the age and to the civiliza· 

tion of the times that it should not stay upon the statute-book; and if 

a man should bring a cargo of goods which he had the misfortune to 

have greatly datpaged and proposed to sell them in the market for 

what they would bring the loss should be taken off the value estimated 

upon the goods when they were assessed for duty. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senate ready for the question 

on the amendment proposed by the Senator from North Carolina, to 

strike out the whole of paragraph 143? 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary resumed the reading of the bill, as follows: 

144. All metal produced from iron or its ores, which is cast and malleable, of 

whatever description or form, without regard to the percentage of carbon con· tained therein, whether produced by cementation, or converted, cast, or made 

from iron or its ores, by the crucible, Bessemer, Clapp-Griffiths, pneumatic, Thomas-Gilchrist, basic,Siemens-Martin, or open-hearth process.or bv the equiv- alen t of either, or by a. combination of two or more of the processes, or their 

equivalents, or by any fusion or other process which produces from iron or its ores a metal either granular or fibrous in structure, which is ca.st and malleable, excepting what is known as malleable-iron castings, shall be classed and denominated as steel. 145. No article not specially pro>ided for in this act, wholly or partly manu- factured from tin-plate, terne-plate, or the sheet, plate, hoop, band, or scroll iron or steel herein provided for, or of which such tin-plate terne-plate, sheet, plate, hoop, band, or scroll iron or steel shall be the materiai of chief value, shall pay a lower rate of duty than that imposed on tho tin-plate, terne-plate, or sheet, plate, hoop, band, or scroll iron or steel from which it is made or of which it 

shall be the component thereof of chief value. 

The Committee on Finance proposed, on page 35, to strike out paragraph 146, in the following words: 

146. On all iron or steel bars or rods of whate\·er shape or section, which are cold-rolled, cold-hammered, or polished in any way in addition to the ordinary 

process of hot rolling or hammering, there shall be paid one-fourth of 1 cent 

per pound in addition to the rates provided in this act; and on all strips or sheets of iron or steel of whatever shape, other than the polished, planished, or glanced sheet-iron or ahee~steel hereinbefore provided for, which are coldrolled, cold-hammered, blued, brightened, tempered, or polished by any process to such perfected surface-finish, or polished better than the e-rade of coldrolled, smooth only, hereinbefore provided for, there shall be pa.id lt cents per pound in addition t-0 the rates provided in this act; and on steel circular saw- plates there f!hall be paid 1 cent per pound in addition to the rate provided in 

this act for steel saw-plates. · 

And in lieu thereof to insert: 

146. On all iron or steel bars, rods, strips, or steel sheets, of whatever shape, other than the polished, planished, or glanced sheet-iron or sheet-steel hereinbefore provided for, and on all iron or steel bars of irregular shape or section, which are cold-rolled, cold-hammered, or polished in any way in addition to the ordinary process of hot rolling or hammering, there shall be paid one·fourth 

of 1 cent per pound in addition to the rates provided in this act; and on steel 

circular saw-plates there shall oo paid 1 cent per pound in addition to the rate 

provided in this act for steel saw-plates. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I wish to propose an amendment. In line 3, 

page 36, I move to strike out "one-fourth" and insert "ol)e-tenth;" 

so as to read: "shall be paid one-tenth of 1 cent per pound." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from New Jersey to the amendment of the 

committee. 

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. McPHERSON. In line 5, I movetoinsertthewords ''one-half 

of'' before ''one;'' so as to read: 

And on steel circular·saw plates there shall be paid one-half of 1 cent per pound in addition to the rate provided in this act for steel saw-plates. 

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment of the commitee to strike out and insert. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The Secretary read paragraph 147, as follows: 

lllANUFACI'URES OF IRON A.ND STEEL. 

147. Anchors, or parts thereof, of iron or steel, mill-irons and mill-crank! of 

wrought-iron, and wrought-iron for ships, and forgings of iron or steel, or of 

combined iron and steel, for vessels, steam-engines, and locomotives, or parts thereof weighing each 25 pounds or more, LS cents per pound. 

Mr. VANCE. In the paragraph preceding, which was passed over 

in such a hurry, I see that there is an increase of duty upon saw-plates 

of which circular saws are made. I should like to know what the 

necessity for that increase is. I should like to ask the Senator from 

Rhode Island who bas the bill in charge why that increase is made. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the Senate 

will return to that- paragraph. The amendment proposed by the Senator from New Jersey was to make it one-half a cent perpound,in line 

5, instead of 1 cent per pound, which was disagreed to. 

Mr. VANCE. Then I beg pardon. We were proceeding so rapidly 

that I did not keep up. 

.Mr. ALDRICH. What was the question asked by the Senator from 

North Carolina.? I did not understand him. 

Mr. VANCE. I ask the reason for the increase in the duty on sawpla.tes, of which circular saws are made? 

Mr. ALDRICH. This duty is the same as the present law. 

Mr. VANCE. It is put down in th e table of the expert as an increase. Mr. ALDRICH. I will read the prv ent law, for the information of 

the Senator: 

And on steel circular-!'aw plates there sha'. l be paid 1 cent per pound in addition to the rate provided in this act. 

Mr. V A.NCE. Then the expert has misinformed us. I looked at 

the result of his exposition, and not at the original law. 

Mr. ALDRICH. It is safer to look at the law~ 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Paragraph 147 has been rc{Ld. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I think that 1. 8 cents per pound is a pretty 

heavy rate of duty to impose upon anchors and all sorts of mill machinery. I see the rate of duty is 34.56 per cent. I move to strike 

out " eight-ten tbs " and insert '' .five-tenths." 
·, .-

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOOBD--SENATE: ·8795 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. 

The SECRETARY. In line 14, on page 36, after the word '' and,'' 

strike out ''eight" and insert ":five;" so as t-0 read "1.5 cents per 

pound.'' 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary read paragraph 148, as follows: 

14.8. Axles, or parts thereof, axle-bars, axle-blanks, or forgings for axles, 

whether of iron or steel, without reference to the stage or state of manufacture, 

2 cents per pound: Provided, That when iron or steel axles are imported fitted 

in wheels or parts of wheels, of iron or steel, they shall be dutiable at the same rate as the wheels in which they arc fitted. 

:Mr. VANCE. In line 17, on page 36, I move to strike out "2cents" 

and insert "1! cents;" so as to read "ti-cents per pound." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from North Carolina. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Paragraph 149 was read. 

The Committee on Finance proposed to amend the paragraph by inserting after the word '' anvils " the words "or parts thereof," and to 

strike out after the word "two" the words "and one-half;" so as to 

make the paragraph read: 

149. Anvils or parts thereof of iron or steel, or of iron and steel combined, by 

whatever process made or in whatever stage of manufacture, 2 cents per pound, 

The amendment Wa..<l agreed to. 

Mr. VANCE. I move to amend the paragraph in line 24, on page 

36, by striking out the word ''two,'' and inserting '' one and onehalf; '' so as to read '' 11' cents per pound.'' 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from North Carolina. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary read paragraph 150, as follows: 

150. Blacksmiths' hammers ·and siedges, track tools, wedges, and crowbars, 

whether of iron or steel, 2t cents per pound. 

Mr. VANCE. I move to strike out in line 2, on page 37, ''and 

one-fourth;" so as to read" 2 cents per pound." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from North Carolina.. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary read paragraph 151. The Committee on Finance -proposed to amend the paragraph on page 37, line 31 after the word 

"tubes," by striking out the word "or, 17 and in the same line, after 

the word ''pipes," striking out the word "or;" so as to make the 

paragraph read: 

151. Boiler or other tubes, pipes, flues, and stays of wrought-iron or steel, 2j cents per pound. 

The amendment. was agreed to. 

Mr. VANCE. In line 4, on page 37, I move to strike out'' and-0nehalf," so as to read "2 cents per pound." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from North Carolina. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary continued the re.ading of the bill as follows: 

152. Bolts, with or without threads or nuts, or bolt--bl&nks, and finished hinges or hinge-blanks, whether of iron or steel, 2t cents per pound. 

153. Card-clothing, manufactured from tempered steel wire,50centspersquare 

foot; all other, 25 cents per square foot. 

1tfr. VANCE. A paragraph which was passed over recently provided 

that all articles made from wire, sheet-iron, etc., should not pay a le..."8 

rate of duty than the material out of which it is made. In that item 

the card wire out of which card-clothing is made is 35 per cent., and 

this provision here is that it shall pay 25 per cent. I should like to 

ask the Senator from Rhode Island if the effect of that will not be to 

increase the duty upon all other card-clothing than that which is made 

out of steel-tempered wire. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not understand the question of the Senator 

from Nortb Carolina. 

.Mr. VANCE. I say that in one of the paragraphs which we passed 

over to-day-I do not now recur to it-there is a general provision that 

no arlicle made out of iron wire, sheet-steel, or iron sheets should pay a less rate of duty than the duty imposed on the material out of which 

it is made. I ask the Senator if the effect of this paragraph would not 

be to increase the duty on wire card·clothing to 30 per cent. instead of 

25 per cent. 

Mr. ALDRICH. It is 25 cents a square foot. 

Mr. VANCE. The untempered wire is 50 cents per square foot. 

The tempered steel wire, card clothing, and all other is 25 cents per 

square foot. Now, would not that increase the duty under the general clause providing that the duty on all articles shall be at least as 

high as that on the raw material out of which they are made? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not know of any such paragraph in the bill. 

I do not quite understand the Senator, whether he thinks the rate will 

be more than 50 cents a square foot. 

Mr. VANCE. Let it be passed over; I will not take the time of the 

Senate. I will hunt up the paragraph and eall it to the attention of 

the Senator. 

Mr. McPHERSON. If the Senator will turn to page 34.--

..... 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from .North Carolina desire further delay? 

Mr. VANCE. No, sir; let the paragraph be passed over, and I will 

call the Senator's attention to it again. 

The n~xt paragraph of the bill was read, as follows: 

154. Ca.st-iron pipe of evezy description, nine-tenths of 1 cent per pound. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I wish to call attention to para~raph 154. 

This is a most important paragraph. Ca.st-iron pipe, the simplest form 

of manufacture in the world, is to pay a dut.v of nine-tenths of 1 cent 

per pound. It seems during the year 1889 less than 1 ton of it was 

imported-2, 140 pounds. The unit of value is given at 6.3 cents per 

pound. That certainly would mean some of the :finer grades of iron 

pipe of smaller sizes, used b_y plumbers, unquestionably, for plumbing 

uses, and would have no relation whatever to the larger sizes of iron 

pipe which are used for extensive water works and for conduits for 

water. That kind of iron pipe, as I am informed, sells all the way 

from 2 to 3 cents a pound. It is proposed here to insert a duty of nineten ths of a cent a pound, which would be equal to $44.10 a ton. 

For great establishments, great water-works, great public w<1rks that -

are going on all over the country, in which the pipe by contract is delivered at from 2! to 3f cents a pound, a duty of nine-tenths of a cent 

a pound is absolutely prohibitory. 

I move, in order that there may be some competition in tha.t line of 

goods, that the duty, instead of being nine-tenths of a cent a pound, be 

made seven-tenths of a cent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. 

.The SECRETARY. Strike out, in line 11, page31, the word "nine" 

and insert "seven;" so as to read: 

Seven-tenths of 1 cent per pound. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreein~ to the 

amendmetlt proposed by the Senator from New Jersey. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary read paragraph 155, ,as follows: 

155. Cast-iron vessels, plates, stove-plates, andirons, sad-irons, tailors' irons, 

hatters' irons, and uastings of iron, not St>ecia.lly provided for in this act, 1.2 cents per pound. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I move to reduce that duty. I move to strike 

out "and two-tenths cents," in line 15, on page 37, and to insert 

"cent; " so as to read: 

One cent per pound. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary read paragraph 156, as follows: 

156. Castings of malleable iron, not specially provided for in this a.ct, 1f cents per pound. 

.Mr. McPHERSON. I move, in line 18, on page 37, before the word 

"cents," to strike out "three-fourths" and insert "one-fourth;" so as 

to read: " lt cents per pound." 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary read paragraph 157. The Committee on Finance proposed to amend the paragraph by striking out, after the word ''tinned,'' 

the word "three" and inserting "two and one-half;" so as to make 

the paragi·aph read: 

157. Cast hollow-ware, coated, glazed, or tinned, 2t cents per pound. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I move to strike out "and one-half;" so as to 

leave the duty 2 cents per pound. 

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The Secretary read para_graph 158. The Committee on Finance proposed, in line 2, on page 38, after the word "pound," to strike out 

"but no chain or chains of any description sh.all pay a lower rate of 

duty than 45 per cent. ad valorem;" so as to make the paragraph 

read: 

158. Chain or cha.ins of all kin-<li!,made of iron or steel, not less than threefourths of 1 inch in diameter, 1.6 cents per pound; less than three-fourths of 1 

inch and not less than three-eighths of 1 inch in diameter, LS cents per pound; less than three-eighths of 1 inch in diameter, 2l cents per pound. 

The amendment was agreed to. • 

Mr. VANCE. I move to strike out, in line 25J on page 37, •'and 

eight-tenths cents" and insert "cent;'.: so as to read "1 cent per 

pound.'' This is a duty on trace-chains, as I understand, the chain 

which goes with th~ plow, which is the foundation of all prosperity 

and bas to pay for all these things that are .enumerated here; and I 

call for the yeas and nays on the amendment. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. The Senator from North C.arolina 

moves to amend the paragraph as stated, and asks that on this question the yeas and nays may be entered on the Journal. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. 

Mr. HARRIS (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Vermont [Mr. MOB.RILL]. 

Mr. PASCO (when his name was called}. I am paired with the 

Senator from Illinois [Mr. FARWELL]. If.he were present, I should 

vote '' yea." 

1ilr. QUAY (when his name was called). I am paired with the junior Senator from West Virginia [l\Ir. FAULKNER]. 

, 

,· 

·•.· . , 

-

..- .. -' 

-

,."" 

-- •I 

. --

~. 

:. 

_. 
.. -

-. .... 

I j 

. . , 

8796 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. .AUGUST 19, 

Mr. VANCE (when bis name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator fromMichiJ!an[Mr. McMILLAN]. If he were present, I should 

vote ''yea.'' 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa (when bis name was called). I am paired 

with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. WILSON]. He is not in the Chamber, and unless it should become necessary for me to vote to make a 

quorum, I shall withhold my vote. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. HARRIS. I suggest to the Senat-0r from Pennsylvania [Mr. 

QUAY] that, as I am paired with the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] and he with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. FAULKNER], 

we transfer our pairs and vote. 

Mr. QUAY. That is satisfactory, Mr. President. 

Mr. HARRIS. I vote ''yea.,, 

Mr. QUAY. I vote" nay." 

Mr. BLAIR. HastheSenatorfromindiana [Mr. VOORHEES] voted? 

The PRESIDENT pro iemp<Jre. He is not recorded. 

Mr. llLAIR. I withhold my vote. 

Mr. EDMUNDS (after having voted in the negative). I think the 

Senator from Alabama [Mr. PUGH] has not voted. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. He is not recorded. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Assuming that there is a quorum, I withdraw my 

vote, as I am paired with him. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is not yet recorded. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Then I will let it stand. 

Mr. BLAIR. I can vote for the purpose of making a quorum, and I 

vote "nay." 

Mr. COCKRELL. Paired as I am with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 

ALLISON], yet at the instance ofhis colleague I will vote if agreeableit will not change the result-to make a quorum. I vote ';yea." 

Mr. EUSTIS. I am paired with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. 

PADDOCK]. 

Mr. MANDERSON. I am paired with the Senator from Kentucky 

.Mr. BLACKBURN]. 

Mr. BLAIR (after having voted in the negative). I desire to withdraw my vote, if there is a quorum without it. 

Tue PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is recorded. 

Mr. BLAIR. I withdraw my vote then. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem.pore. The Senator from New Hampshire 

withdraws his vote. 

The result was announced-yeas 18, nays 26; as follows: 

YE.A..S-18. 

Bate, 

Berry, 

Hu tier, 

Oockrell, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Daniel, 

Gray, 

Hampton, 

Harris, 

Jones of ArkanM.!, Turpie, 

McPherson, Vest, 

Morgan, Walthall. 

Aldrich, 

Allen, 

Cameron, 

Casey, 

Cullom, 

Hi\ vis, 

D:xon, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Evarts, 

Frye, 

Ha.le, 

Hawley, 

Higgins, 

Ransom, 

Reagan, 

NAYS-26. 

Hiscock, 

Hoar, 

.Tones of Nevada., 

Mitchell, 

Moody, 

Platt, 

Quay, 

A.BSENT--40. 

Allison, Eustis, Manderson, 

Jhrbour, Farwell, Morrill, 

Blackburn, Faulkner, Paddock, 

Blair, George, Pasco, 

Blodgett, Gibson, Payne, 

Brown, Gorman, Pettigrew, 

L'all, Hearst, Pierce, 

Carlisle, Ingalls, Plumb, 

Ch11ndler, Kenna., Power, Dawes. 1\IcMillan, Pugh, 

So t.he amendment was rejected. 

Sawyer, 

Spooner, 

Squire. 

Stockbridge, 

Teller. 

Sandera, 

Sherman, 

Stanford, 

Stewart, 

Vance, 

Voorhees, 

Washburn, 

Wilson of Iowa, 

Wilson of l\Id. 

'Volcott. 

The Secretary read paragraph 159. The Committee on Finance proposed in line 19, page 38, before the words " four dollars," to strike 

ont "more than,,, and, after the same words, to insert "or more;" so as to make the paragraph read: 

Cutlery: 

159. Pen-knives or pocket·1f:nh-es of all kinds, or parts thereof, and erasers, or parts tbe1·eof, wholly or partly manufactured, valued n.t not more than 50 cents pe1· dozen, 12 cents per dozen; vamed 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 and not exceeding $3 per dozen, Sl per dozen; Yalued at more than S3 !_J~r dozen, $2 per dozen; and in addition thereto on-all the above, 50 per cent. u.u vn.1orem1 Razors and razor-blades, finished or unfinished, va.lned at less than U per dozen, $l per dozen; valued at $4 or more per dozen, $1.75 per dozen; and in addition thereto on all the above razors and razor-blades, SO per cent. ad va.lorem. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I desire to put in the RECORD a table which 

will show the large increase proposed in 'this bill upon the lower grade 

of knives, the least cosUy goods, pen-knives, pocket-knives of all kinds. 

I ask the attention of the Senate to the fact that the compiler of the 

table on page 38 bas seen :fit not to give us any ad valorem rate of duty 

there n.t all. The existing law imposes 50 per cent. ad va]orem, and ns it hn.s not been carried out in this table we are not told what the 

proposed ad va.lorem rate of duty will be with this compound duty 

here propOEed. I therefore wish to put in the RECORD exactly what 

twill be. 

The table referred to is as follows: 

..d Rates of duty under- f t--~~~-,--~~~~~~~~~~~-1 

cl 

~· Increased ad valorem rate. 

~ Existing 

law. H. R. 9416 and Senate. 

Pocket-knives: 12 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 74 per cent. 

r 

159 Mp.ct l 50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. From SO per cent. to 116.66 per cent. &I per dozen and 50percent .. From 83 per cent. to 100 per cent. $2per dozen and50per cent .. From 70 per cent. to 100 per cent. Razors: $1 per dozen and SO per cent .. 

SL 75 per dozen and 30 per cent. 

Finished, from 41 per cent. to 63.33 per cent. Unfinished, from 59 per cent. to 80 per cent. 160 35 p.ct ..... . 35 per cent ............................... . Razor blades, from 59.17 per cent. to 96.66 per cent. 

Mr. McPHERSON. As the compiler of the comparative statement on page 38 leaves the space where the ad va1orem percentage ought to 

bo in blank, it becomes necessary to supply that in(ormation from actual invoices of goods imported in 1889 and calculate the percentage in 

conformity to the proposed tariff: 

Pocket and pen knives. 

Valued at- Proposed duty. 

50.50 per dozen.. ... 12 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem ... . 0.75 per dozen ..... 50cents per dozen and 50 percent.ad valorem ... . 

t~ E~ ~~:;:::.::: :::::::::~~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:~·::::·:·:.·:::::::::::::::::::::::: 2.00 per dozen ..... Sl per dozen and 50per cent.ad va.lorem ........... . ~.50 per dozen .............. do .............................................................. . 3.00 per dozen .............. do ............................................................. . 4.00 per dozen ..... $2 per dozen and 50 per cent. ad va.lorem .......... . 

~:~ ~=~ ~~~~::::: :::::::J~ :::.:::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·.:::::::::::: Jim i~F-· ::::::::.u···~·:::::::··::::c::::·:Hf :.:::z::::::::::.:.:i:H: 

I Equal to-· 

Per cent . 74.00 

ll6.66 

100.00 

90.00 

80.00 

100.00 

00.00 

83.33 

100.00 

90.00 

83.33 

78.50 

76.60 

75.00 

72.22 

70.00 

From the above it will be seen that the cheaper quality, worth 7G 

cents per dozen, pays an ad valorem duty of 116 per cent., the dearer 

qualities, worth ten times the amount, namely, $7.50 per dozen, pay 

only 76.66 per cent. ad valorem. 

Besides, this system ofcomplex duties, part ad >alorem and specific, 

is just the system that plays in the hands of persons disposed to be 

dishonest. A knife costing abroad 52 cents per dozen, the proposed 

duty on which is 50 cent; per dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem, ought 

to pay 76 cents duty. All a dishonest importer need do is to invoice 

the knife at 50 cents per dozen or 2 cents less than his cost, and be 

pays a duty of 12 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem, or 37 

cents, instead of 76 cents, which an honest importer must pay. No 

appraiser can properly appraise a difference of 2 cents on a dozen of 

knives. 

A knife costing abroad $1.54 per dozen, the proposed duty on which 

is $1 per dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem, equal to $1. 77: A dishonest importer need only invoice this knile at $1.50 per rlozen, or 4 

cents per dozen less than actual cost, and he pays a duty of 50 cents 

per dozen and 50 per cent. ad valorem, or $1. 25 instead of $1. 77. 

Razors: The proposed duty on all razors, finished, valued at less than 

$4 per dozen, is $1 per dozen and 30 per cent. ad valorem; hence razors valued at $3 per dozen will have to pay $1. 90, or 63. 33 per cent. 

etc. .As the comparative statement, page 38, does not contain the percenta,Q;e ad valorem, it becomes necessary to use invoices of mzors re- ceived in 1889 and 1890: 

Razors, finisl1ed. 

Valued at- Duty. 

S3 per dozen ....... .................................... $1and30 percent ........... . ~ per dozen ............................................ h ....... do .......................... . 

~ :~ ~~~:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::::: .~::~.S~~.~ ~~~.~~.~~·:::::::: S7 per dozen ...................................................... do ........................... . $8 per dozen ..................................................... do ........................... . $10 per dozen ................................................... do ........................... . ~15 per dozen ................................................... do ........................... . 

Equal toPer cent. 

fi3. 33 55.00 

65.00 

59.17 

55.00 

51.88 

47.50 

41.60 
I ... 

.• -

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8797 

Here, again, the cheaper goods, at $3 per dozen, when :finished, pay 

63.33 per cent. ad valorem, and razors worth :five times that amount, 

$15 per dozen, of the finest and dearest quality, fit for a king, pay only 

41.60 per cent.. 

But this is not all. Razors "unfinished 17 pay the sam• duty of $1 

and $1. 75, respectively, and 30 per cent. ad valorem,and as the comparative statement is silent on the percentage it becomes again necessary to 

use invoices, etc. 

Razors, unfinished. 

absolute truth as to this cutlery interest and the basis upon which this 

increase of duty is now p_laced. 

In the protest the American importers say, after giving this table: 

It must be borne in mind that the foreign cost, with duty and charges added, 

represents the cost of the goods laid down at the port of New York;, o.nd "that 

the importer must add his profit to such cost before they can come into compe- tition with the domestic article. It will be observed that out of nineteen sam· pies corresponding with the descriptions named in the American manufacturers' table, without adding anything for importers' commission or profit, nine 

Valued at- Duty. 

patterns figure out a. higher cost than the American selling price; eight pat- terns figure slightly lower, and two patterns figure substantially the same. It will therefore be readily seen that if the importer should add 10 per cent. to 

hjs cost for profit it would bring an average price considerably higher than the 

Equal to- domestic makers a.re asking for their goods. . . 

$2 per dozen............................................. Sl and 30 per cent ........... . t2.50 per dozen ................................................ do ............................ . 

iJ E~ i~~:~::::::::·::·:·:·::·::·:·:·:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~i:~~~~~:~::i~~:~~~~:.::::::: ~per dozen ..................................................... do ............................ . 

Per cent. 

80.00 

70.00 

63.33 

50.00 

6.5.00 

59.17 

It must be understood we are simply now combating the erroneous statements made by the domestic manufacturers, on \Vhich they claimed an advance 

of duties. 

Take Senator PLATT's argument from this manufacturers' table of relative 

cost (CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, January 20, 1888, page 1022) and see how it.works 

out with actual !acts, facts that can not be controverted. He takes a 4-inch ironlined jack-knife, wood covering, one blade, and says (quoting from the table in 

qu,estion): "This knife costs in Germany 56 cents, in England 91 cents, and in 

America $1.90," and then quotes the labor cost in Germany "at 35 cents, in Eng· land at70 cents, and in America.at $1.42." Now turn to Table A, and take knife 253cFrom the above it will also be seen that unfinished razors valued at That i~ the knife [exhibiting]; a common jack-knife, with a wood 

$2 per dozen pay 80 per cent. ad valorem, while razors, unfinished, at handle, the commonest article that is manufactured either abroad or 

$6, worth three times as much, and on which workmanship has ad- here in the way of ajack-knifevanced at least twice or even three times as much as on the $2 per take knife 253c, which is the exact description as the above knife referred to, 

dozen razors, the duty is only 59.17 per cent. It seems as if the fram- and it is found that this knife costs in GermanySl.1.0insteadof56cents, andthat ers of this tariff bill have determined not only to deceive the fa boring this knife in like quality and desorption can be purchased from the American manufacturers at Sl.50, though the manufacturers' table makes it cost to pro- c1n.sses, but have also o"ffered a bounty of percentage on goods further duce $1.90, and, further, that after this s11ome knife has become subject to the 

advanced in workmanship, but still unfinished. Again, razor-blades, present duty of 50 per cent. ad valorem and other usual charges necessary to fini~hed, valued at $2 per dozen, pay ~1 per dozen and 30 per cent. ad land it in this country it costs the importer SL75, or nearly 17 per cent. more 't' than the selling price of the American knife of same grade, so that the im· 

valorem, equal to 80 per cent., while the finished, valued at $6 per porter to compete with the American manufacturer on this knife must sell it at 

dozen, pay only 59.17 per cent. 20 per cent. less than cost. This showing makes it quite unnecessary to com- Now, I intend to offer an amendment. On page 38, I move to strike ment un the labor argument of Sena.t-or PLATT in this connection. There are plenty of other cases in this table in the some boat. 

out all or9 the paragraph after the word "manufactured," in line 7, Mr. President, I have here all these nineteen samples, which were 

down to and including the word "above," in line 16· said by the American manufacturers to cost certain prices abroad and 

TbePRESIDENTprotempore. The Secretary will report the amend- to be sold for certain prices in the United States, and in every instance 

ment. they have falsified the actual facts. 

The SECRETARY. Itis proposed to strike out, after the word "man- I have here the affidavit of Mr. Morron, of the Simmons Hardware 

ufactnred," in line 7, down to and including the word "above," in Company, the largest establishment in the West, in which he gives the 

line 16, as follows: prices at which the American manufacturers had placed these same Valued at not more than 50 cents per dozen, 12 <:ents per dozen; valued at goods, and that affidavit shows beyond any question that they most 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 and not exceeding $3 per dozen, deliberately changed the facts in order to suit the argument that they Sl per dozen; valued at more than $3 per dozen, $2 per dozen; and in addition were then making in support of this increase of duty. • thereto on all the above. They have also stated, and foe Committee on Finance reiterates the 

Mr. McPHERSON. It will leave the paragraph then to read: statement, that their industry has been destroyed by the importers1 

Pen-knives or pocket-knives of all kinds, or parts thereof, and erasers, or parts and they have given a garbled statement to show that importations thereof, wholly or partly manufactured, 50 per cent. ad valorem. Razors and bad increased from year to year, when the facts warrant but one staterazor-blades, finished or unfinished, valued at less than $4 per dozea, Sl per ment, and that is that importations have decreased and that ill certain 

clozen; valued at $4 or more per dozen, Sl.75 cents per dozen; and in addition articles of cutlery the American manufacturers command the market. 

there lo on all the abovil razors and razor-blades, 30 per cent. ad valorem. H is true, and it will al ways be true, notwithstanding any tariff 

Now, I move to strike out "fifty" and insert "forty-five;" so as to duty in this country, that. there are certain grades of cutlery which 

make it read, "45 per cent. ad valorem." · have never been reproduced in the United States. Thereare articles of 

The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment will be reported. cutlery that are sold upon the brand, that command a higher price 

The SECRETARY. In line 16, on page 38, strike out "fifty" and in- than any other in the market, and always, in my judgment, will comsert "forty-five;" so as to read, "45 per cent. ad valorem." mand those prices. There is the Rodgers cutlery knife, the WostenThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the holm knife, made in England, and we have never been able to approxamendment proposed by the Senator from New Jersey. imate to those knives, nor have the Germans. There is the Wilson 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, these increases of duty upon pocket cut- butcher-knife, which the American butcher will nave if it takes onelery seem to be based upon a table that was furnished by the Ameri- half of his yearly proceeds, because he is bound to have it. We <:an 

can manufacturers. In 1888 the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] not produce such a knife; and butchers say that it is absolutely necesalluded t-0 a table, which I had never seen and which had never been saryto them in their business. In the common knives used by children, 

seen at that time by the importers, and stated that the prices paid in and the cheapest articles that sell from 20 to 40 cents a gross, the Gertha foreign market both for labor and for the materials used in the mans can beat the world, for they have cheaper labor, but in the middle 

manufacture of cutlery were so entirely out of proportion to what was class of cutlery the American manufacturers are holding their own charged in the United States as to make an increase of duty under the to-day. 

act of 1888 absolutely necessary. :Mr. President, one of these manufacturers, Mr. Charles M. Landers, 

He also stated that it was very remarkable that the importers bad appeared before the committee, and you will find his testimony on 

never denied any of the statements made in that table and that no pages 77 and 78 of the testimony taken before the Ways and Means 

Senator upon this side of the Chamber bad denied them. A sufficient Committee. If you read that testimony you will find that he deliberexplanation and answer to the Senator's st.atement is simply in the ately stated that the American manufacturers of cutlery are bein~ 

fact that that statement was never seen by -any Senator upon this side forced into bankruptcy by the foreign competition, that they can n~t 

of the Chamber, nor was it ever seen by any importer of cutlery. It live under the present rates of duty. Now, I happen to have a pubhseems to have been used before the Committee on Finance by the cation on the hardware question, which is sent to me regularly for 

American manufacturers, but it.a existence was never made known to some reason, and there I find this statement; this gentleman swore beany opponent to the increase of duties upon cutlery. fore the committee that he is a memner of the firm of Landers, Frary 

Mr. A. H. Saxton, president of the Hardware Association, secured a & Clark, and that he is losing money every day: 

copy of this table which had been used for the purposes I have named, Landers, Frary & co.- after the debate had concluded in 1888, and he then went to Europe d" ·ai 

and priced the duplicates in the European market, in the German mar- Says the e iton -

h are now kept very busy supplying their Western Cttstomers with their superb ket, whic is the lowest upon cutlery, so as to secure the real foreign cutlery. They were compelled during the spring to employ about two hunprice upon identical knives, the prices of which had been stated by the dred new hands, to be able to keep up witlt the demand for their well famed 

American manufacturers to the Committee on Finance in 1888. He goods. 

then secured the affidavits of dealers in cutlery both in Chicago and And here is the pauper, emaciated, starving, compelled to have an St. Louis as to the American selling price, and these tables which I increase of duty; famine stares him in the face; the workmen are to 

have before me now and which can be found in the protest of the Hard- be discharged and American workmen are to haunt the streets and be- ware Association of the United States and in the testimony taken be- come tramps upon the highway. Bat it happens here that in an artifore the Ways and Means Committee, exhibit in the strongest light 1 cle in a public journal devoted to the hardware trade is the absolnte 

, .. 

·. 

., ·.,. 

'I 
• .. 

- 9 • 

·, 

, • 

..... ' ·. '· .,. , 

8798 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, . 

refutation of all such statements, and so far from this industry btiing 

destroyed, as the committee say, by foreign competition, it is now in 

a flourishing condition, and day by day, in a great many grades of cut;.. 

lery1 commanding the market. 

There is a lan?e increase of duty in this bill upon butcher-knives 

such as are ma.de in the United States. I happen to have before me 

The Engineering and Mining Journal, giving the export price with the 

discount on American cutlery and especially upon butcher-knives and 

table cutlery, in which I find a.s to Tommins & Adams, a jobbing-house 

in New York which sells the goods both of foreign and American manufacture: 

Tommins & Adams's knives, table: Japanned-iron handles, Sl0.70 per gross 

pairs. 

.And so on, and so on; ''celluloid handles, discount to the foreign 

trade, 25per cent." That is t.o say, these gentlemen who are going into 

bankruptcy can sell to the people abroad, in South America and elsewhere, for 25 per cent. less than they do to American citizens. 

Here are butcher-knives, cocobolo handles, 4-inch, 4~inch, 5-inch, 

5!-inch, 6-inch, 6~-inch, 7-inch, 8-inch, 9-inch, 10-inch, 12-inch, etc. 

It gives the price on each of them. 

Discount 25 and 10 per cent. · 

Then here are shears and scissors. 

Discount, japanned, 60 per cent.; nickel, 45 per cent·. 

And so on. H I bad tbe strength and the Senate the time, I conld read page after 

page showing all these articles are carried abroad and sold in the foreign market from 25 to 60 per cent. less than is charged the American 

consumer, and yet we are told that we must increase the duties, and 

the doors of the Committee on Finance are open to these manufacturers, 

but closed against the importei:s as public enemies, almost hostes humani 

generis. · :Mr. President, if you will turn to the testimony before the Ways and 

Means Committee of the House, you will find that Mr. A. H . Saxton, 

president of the Hardware Association, was treated as if he were a. dishonest man, who had no right in that committee, and when he undertook to read his tables the chairman of the committee said, "Sir, you 

a,re taking up too much time; leave your tables here and have them 

printed." And finally the Democratic members of the committee protested in the name of common decency against such trea.tment, and 

said, ''This man has a right to be heard; you have beard the other side 

and now you should hear him." And the chairman of the committee 

coJt tinued to interrupt him, as any one can see by reading the testimony, and treated him exactly as a calaboose lawyer would have treated 

a witness in a police court whom he believed to be committing pei:jury. 

What was this man doing? He was exercising the common right of 

an American citizen to defend his legitimate occupation; a man of as 

high character as any manufacturer in this country, and if it is attacked 

his character can be easily established. 1\fy friend from .A.labama [Mr. 

MORGAN] asks me if he is an importer? Yes, he boys American goods 

and foreign goods. He sells, as be testifies him..<ielf, more American 

manufactured goods than those that come from abroad; but he was opposed to this duty; he thought that the existing duty was sufficient. 

He denied the statement that there was an increase of importations 

from year to year, and be proved beyond the scintilla of a doubt that 

that manufacturers' table was ~arbled and false from beginning to end, 

and I can go through the items here and show it. I know Mr. Morton, 

of St. Louis, of the Simmons Hard ware Company. There is not a. more 

reputable man living, and he states emphatically what these men offered 

the3e goods to him for. 

l'rlr. PLATT. What men? 

Mr. VEST. The American manufact urers; and here is Mr. Morton's affidavit, if the Senator from Connecticut has any interest in the 

matter, showing what they offered these identical goods for, and yet 

they made another and far different statement from what they made in 

their reply to Mr. Morton. They could not shake him. Their reply 

was that they did not mean the Simmons Hardware Company. They 

did not refer to them when they stated these prices were garbled as stated in the affidavits, and that. they were simply based upon the sales 

of job lots, as they call them, and not in the regular course of business, 

and the correspondence can be produced here between Mr. l\lorton 

and these gentlemen afterwards, in which they apologize, and stat.a 

emphatically that they did not mean him; that their reference was to 

other people entirely. ' 

This increase is not at all as large as was theratein the bill of 1888, but 

it is an increase of 100 per cent. In 1888 the committee increased the 

duty in a good many instances 300 per cent. But there is no necessity 

for this increase; it comes off the common people of the United States, 

and it is not demanded in order to protract the existence of any of the 

American manufacturers, and the evidence in any court of justice wo11ld 

substantiate the 1act that these tables were garbled for a selfish purpose. .Mr. CULLOM. Mr. Bresident, I do not rise to reply especially to 

the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST], but for special reasons I desire 

to make a f~ w brief observations this evening on the ~eneral question. 

The tariff question is one which affecUi the business life of the people 

of the whole country. I believe in a. protective tariff. I believe that 

in a great degree the unparalleled growth and development of the 

wealth of this country are due to the protective-ta.riff system. I believe that much of the comfort which the masses of the American 

people enjoy over and beyond that enjoyed by the masses of the people 

of other conn tries is due t.o our protective system. 

Shall the system be maintained ? This was the question in the great 

political campaign of 1888, and undoubtedly will be in the campaign 

which is to come in 1892. In the campaign of 1888 the tarift system 

was assaulted with great vigor. It was defended with equal earnest-· 

ness and power. The people decided in favor of protection. 

1\fr. President, the Republican party stands on solid ground. We are 

in the fooUiteps of the fathers of the Republic. We stand where Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Clay, and Webster stood. The Republican party is in line on that question with the earlier statesmen of 

the nation, und~r whose guidance it bas become so great and its people 

have prospered. 

The tariff reformer, so called, says that protection does not protect; 

that the protective tariff injures instead of benefiting the laboring man, 

the manufacturer, the general'interests of the country. We say that 

it benefits all interests and all industries and all classes. They say it 

injures everything except the specific thing protected. We say that 

the history of the country shows that under the influence of low or 

non-protective tariffs mills and factories have been closed, labor has 

been cheapened, idleness has been enforced, and that under protective tariffs mills, factories, and mines have been worked, labor has 

been better pa.id and in greater demand. 

We say that under protective tarift:'l the people have been more prosperous, times have been better, there has been more work, wages have 

been higher, there has been more development of the resources of the 

country, more wealth has been added t.o the aggregate wealth of tho 

nation than during any other periods in our history. II this is so, 

what more need be said to show the folly of frpe trade and the sound- ness of the protection doctrine? 

The tariff reformers say that a protectfre tariff is robbery; thatit robs 

Peter to pay Pan!; that it makes the millions poor to enrich the few; 

that it increases the prices of the articles protected, and closes the for- ~ign markets against us; that a protective tariff builds up monopolies 

and breeds trusts which become oppressive to the people. 

We say that a protective tariff robs no one, but, on the other hand, 

prevents the people of other countries from robbing us. We say t.o the 

manufacturer and merchant of England, or any other foreign country, 

"You can not bring your goods here to sell in competition with ours 

unless you pay into our Treasury for the privilege a duty on sncb articles as we manufacture and deem wise to protect.'' Why should we 

not say so? They have no interest in America or ita people, commercially speaking, except as they can make money out of us. Commerce 

and markets are not governed by sentiment, but by conditions which 

touch the pockets of the people. 

The idea that the tariff is a robbery is based on the idea that a tariff 

on any particular article benefits no one except the person or the corporation making it; that a tariff on steel rails benefits no one but the 

owner of the mill and the rails; that a tariff on nail.a benefits no one 

except the manufacturer of nails; that a tariff on carpets and calicoes 

and other goods benefiU! no one except those who make them, and that 

all oar fact.ories and mills would be built and operated and the production of rails and nails and carpets and all our manufactures would 

proceed prosperously and well without a prot-ective tariff. We say 

that they would not, and that experience has shown it. 

I say that there is scarcely a mill or factory running to-day which 

does not benefit the whole country. I supplement that statement by 

saying that there would not be a mill or factory in operation in this 

country engaged in the production of an article ia which there is competition with the manufacturers or producers in other lands were it not 

for our protective-tariff system unless the conditions were greatly in our favor. I ought to qualify that possibly by saying that if any of them 

were in operation it would be because the condition of things in this 

country would enable them t.o hire labor at cheaper rates than they are doing to-day. Hence, instead of making the miilions poorer, tl1e building and operation of every mill and fa ctory add to the general wealth, 

and also in a greater or less degree benefit everybody who does anything or has any interest in the country. 

The foundation of every Democratic or free-trade argument is the 

same; they are based upon the same assumption as that of the late 

President, 1\1.r. Cleveland, in his somewhat famous message of December, 1887, that our tariff laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise 

the price to consumers of all articlei! imported and subject to duty by 

precisely the sum paid for such duties. 

That is the declaration; that is the substratum declaration of every 

tariff reformer, uttered in concise language by the late President of the 

United States, and all who discuss the subject take it as the foundation 

of their attacks upon the prot-ective-tariff system. If the declaration 

is not true, then the whole free-trade structure falls to the ground. 

The hist-0ry of the country shows conclusively, it seems to me, that 
1890. CONGRESSIONAL :REOORD-SENATE. 8799 

the effect of protection in this country has been to reduce prices, and 

that, too, when the tariff duty was prohibitory as to importations in 

some cases. 

There iB nothing consumed by the farmers of this country which is 

not cheaper under our protective system than under tariffs for revenue 

only or free trade, except those articles which are not sufficiently protected or which for physical reasons can not be manufactured in this 

country. 

The theory of tariff reformers is that if the ports of this country were 

opened and the productions of other peoples could come in free it 

would cheapen the price of such articles to the consumers. 

Grant that it would for a time, ultimately the effect would be to 

break down our industries, and then the prices of goods would go up. 

!tis clearmonsters, or robbers, as my friend from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES] would 

call them, are foregoing the privilege of robbing the people of $17 per 

ton on the 2,000,000 t-Ons which will be probably made in 1890. 

What a magnificent sh-0wing, Mr. President. No steel rails manufactured.in this country before 1867. Twenty-five hundred tons only 

in 1867. One million five hundred and fiJty-two thousand tons in 

1838. One hundred and sixty-six dollars per ton in currency in 1867, 

$29.25 in currency or gold in 1889, and all this reduction with a protective tariff in force which has been denouncetl loud and long. What 

is said of the manufacture and sale of steel rails in this country may 

as truly be said of hundreds of other manufactures. 

It is no answer, as the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE] says, 

that the price of tin-plate has also been reduced Without protective 

duties. Tin-plate is only steel or iron plate. The very thin wash of 

tin on it is very trifling compared to the steel, and the same causes Says the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CART.-ISLE], in an article writ- which have reduced rails and all forms of steel have reduced tin-plate. 

ten by him- When the contest came between us and the English, and the domestic 

that the purcha.ser And consumer of an imported article must pay not only the 

original cost abroad and the whole amount or the duty, but also the proiits of 

the dta.lers on that cost and the duty, and it is equally clear tha.t this enables 

the domestic manufacturer of the same kind of article to add the whole o-r at least a. large part of the duty to the price of the article. 

competition was increaBed by the tariff, millions of money and the best 

technical and administrative skill in the world were brought to bear 

on the problem of making iron and steel more cheaply. To compensate for our dnty the English had to reduce labor to the Jowest limit 

and make every possible saving in the manufacture. 

Mr. President, an importer ofan article to this country, if a duty is In America we had the natura.ldisadvantageoflon~ distances, with 

imposed, must pay that duty, be it large or small, before his goods can higher labor and interest charges. The first we have tried to overcome in competition with those of American production, but what do come by fleets of steel barges on the lakes, carrying thousands of tons 

statistics show as to the effect of the tariff on the prices of protected of ore, and by building railroads into the very mines themselves, with 

manufactures? For-instance, take steel rails. The price of steel rails ore docks where the largest ships are loaded in a few hours. It is the 

in the United States in 1889 was $29.25 per ton. During the same I development of the steel industry and the possibilities in its manu- period the price of steel rails free on board ship at English ports was facture which have cheapened it so much in price. The reduction in 

$24.57, according to the weekly reports from London, and it ha.<:1 been the price of steel rails has reduced the price of barbed wire, and restated that there is very little difference in the price between the two placeil the old iron nail with the steel nail, which is not only much 

countries now. better but cheaper. 

Now, according to the Senator from Kentucky, the price in the Alr. President, we are all equally interested in a fair and correct soUnited States demanded by the manufacturer of steel rails under our lution of the tariff issue, and no man in its-discussion should attempt 

protective tariff would be, say, $24.57, plus $17, the duty, making the to cloud the issue with any effort to work on ignorance and suspicion 

price of steel rails $41.57 in this country. Instead of this, the price by trying to make class distinctions apd persuading one portion ot 

last fall was $29. 25, only $4. 68 per ton more than the price in England. the community that there is another portion trying to rob them. 

The conditions of the manufacture of rails and other forms of steel The United States has gone forward in the development of the art.a, 

are very different in America from what they are in England. In Eng- sciences, and manufactures, and in the de-velopmP.nt of our resources 

land the mills are all, or mainly, ori tide water. The ore, which is generally, and as a people we are a factor in giving direction to the 

mainly Spanish, is brought to the furnace in ship-loads at a total cost, business of the world. To-day we could compete in the markets of 

laid down at the fornace, of far less than what the American furnaces the world in most of the manufactures of this.country, and in many of 

pay for the freight on their ore, to say nothing of the cost of the ore. onr manufactures could take possession of all the markets if ou-r labor 

The ore is smelted with coal mined within a very few miles, on which were put on the same level with that of England and other of the old 

the transportation is a mere trifle; and when done, the st.eel is at tide countries. We prefer that our labor shall be well paid, even at the 

water ready for the cheapest possible transportation to any paxt of the expense of being undersold in the markets of the world on some of our 

world. Thus the cost of assembling the materials is little or nothing. goods. 

Capital can be bad in England for building works and operating As 1tlr. Gladstone says, we are a world unto ourselves, and labor is 

them at rates that are here unknown. It wonld be asaJe estimate that better rewarded in this country than in Great Britain. The struggle 

during the period since Bessemer steel was first made their interest is to keep it so. And the question of to-day of free trade or proteccharges have been certainly less than half, probably not more than one- tion might be, putting it another way, a question of well paid or pa.uthird, of those of the American manufacturers. The wages paid in per labor. Humanity requires that the wages of the mechanic and 

the English mills are far less. Sir I. Lowthian Bell, probably the most the laboring man and woman shall be maintained, and if possible indistinguished authority in EU2land on iron and steel, in his recent very creased; the good of society and the state requires that the labor of 

exhaustive work on the subject of iron and steel manufacture. esti- this country shall be well paid. 

mates them at about half. The argument is advanced by free-traders or tariff-reformers that it 

In America, the chief source of Bessemer ore js Lake Superior, 400 the United States abolished its protective tariff our exports would be 

miles from the nearest and 900 miles from the farthest American miU. largely increased; in other words, that our protective tariff restricts, 

Bessemer steel is practically all made with coke, which is made 500 to a large extent, the exportation of our products. Nothing could be 

mile3 from Chi-ca.go, where more steel rails are made than in any other more preposterous. · 

city, perhaps, in the world. With the advantages in fuvor of England By way of illustration I will take one article, and give the facts 

in freight and low wages so heavily against us, we could never have concerning it--that of raw cotton. We export more raw cotton by 

begun the competition with England in the manufacture of steel rails se,·eral times than any other agricultural product. In 1859, before 

without a duty to pro~ct the beginning. the adoption of our protective system, we exported 73.24 per cent. of 

The Bessemer process ha.d been known several years before the first the total production and imports. · 

works were built in America. The fust attempt to make steel at In number of pounds we exported 1,836, 738,676 pounds, out of:a 

Wyandotte, Mich., failed, and the works were torn down. When suffi- total production of 1,892, 664, 987 pounds, and a total importation of 

cient protection was finally granted the manufacture began, and the 743,500 pounds. The export.a of-raw eotton for 1888 constituted 65. 73 

table of prices shows the result. Protection in America reduced the per cent. of the total production and imports. While in pe:-centage, 

price in the United States and in England, too. That is the natural apparently, our exportations have decreased, when we consider the inresult ·and what prowctionists always claim. The fact that we made creased production in 1888, it will be seen that our exports of raw cothere in America almost 16, 000, 000 tons of steel rails from 1867 to 1888, ton have materially increased. 

inclusive, and in 1887 more than all the rest of the world combined, In 1888 we exported 2, 264, 669, 93:l 1>0unds and produced 3, 439, 172,-

instead of going to England for them, has been the greatest factor in 391. From 1859 to 1888 our exports of raw cotton have increased anreducing the price in England as it has been reduced. nually, except during the years of the civil war and the depres.'3ion of 

The effect of such an increase in the demand on their market if rails trade that followed. Instiead, therefore, of the tariff restricting cxhad not been maile in the United States can be imagined from the fact ports, in this instance, and this ia onJy one of a great number, the exthat within the last year a demand from other countries, without any portations have increased wonderfully since the adoption of our prodemand at all from the United States, increased the price of steel rails tective system. 

in England from $20 to $35 a ton, and rails have been sold in England In wheat and corn the '"markets of the world" in 1840 took about 

and in Pennsylvania at about the same price. In spite of a very brisk 2 per cent. of our entire products, and the home market 98 per cent.; 

demand all last fall and winter and a large advance in the cost of pig- in 1850 the" markets of the world" 1.9 per cent. and the home marirou and ore, our mills have advanced. their price but slightly. Instead ket 98.1 per cent.; in 1860 the "m!U'kets of th-e world ,, wanted only 

of putting "the price up $17 higher than it is abTOad and still monop- 1.8 per cent. and the home market 98.2 per cent., and in 1A70 the 

olizing the home market," as so confidently predicted, these American ''markets of the world" had increased to 3.5 cent. and the home mar-

.· 

... . · 

.. ~ .· 

:. 

., ., 

·-
·-

' : .. 

8800 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

ket to 96.5 per cent.; since then the "markets of the world" have 

averaged annually about 5 to 6 per cent. of what our own population 

has consumed. 

As a matter of fact our home market consumes about 33 per cent. of 

all the cotton produced, 94 per cent. of all the cereals, 87! per cent. ot 

all the bogs and hog product and a much larger per cent. of its other 

meats, 50 per cent. of its toba~co, and about 35 per cent. of its petroleum. 

The production of cotton has increased since the war from 1,480,-

244, 604 pounds to 3, 444, 669, 933. We retained for consumption in 

1888, 1, 180,345,135. 

I think it safe to say that before the war the total production of cotton ne>er reached an aggregate of 2,000,000,000 except in 1860, when 

it exceeded that amount, aggregating 2,275,000,000. We are now con- suming annually in our own cotton mills almost equivalent to the total 

annual production of cotton during the decade ending in 1860, and more than the annual production of the decade of the decennial period 

ending in 1850. The amount consumed in the American cotton mills 

last year exceeded by 100,000,000 pounds the average annual product 

of the five years immedialiely succeeding the war. Mr. President, no market is so reliable as the home market. The more nearly the industries of this country can be so di versified that the 

productions of the a~iculturist may be consumed by those engaged in 

other industries the better for him and the country generally. 

Our farm products in 1886 were valued at $3,700,000,000. Of th1s 

amount there was exported $370,000,000 worth, or exactly 10 per cent. 

The SO per cent. consumed at home is more than double the total imports of every kind into Great Britain in the same year. Add to the 

farm products the manufactured goods sold and consumed at home, say 

$5, 000, ooot 000, which is a low estimate, and the total is $8, 330, 000, 000, 

which amounts to more than the total imports of all the countries of Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, and the islands of the sea, 

which, according to the American Almanac for 1888, are given as $7, 569tOOO, OOO. Of what value, therefore, are the foreign markets in com- parison with our home market? 

But, Mr. President, what about the charge that our protective system destro~s our foreign trade? We hear this talk constantly as an argument against protection. How much has it been broken down by 

this robber tariff, a<tit is so glibly called by its enemies? The census of 

1860 showed the value of the property of the country to be $14,000,000,-

000, exclusive of what was then called slave property. This was the 

total result of the labor and savings of the people from the time the 

British colonists landed in 1607 down to 1860, as I believe Mr. Blaine 

stated it in 1884. After twenty years, and by the census ofl880: the 

property of the country amounted to $44,000,000,000. The population in that time increased 60 per cent. and the property increased in 

\alue 214 per cent. Thirty billions of dollars were added to the 

wealth of the country in twenty years-$125, 000, 000 per month. 

The total value of our imports and exports of met'chandise for the 

year ending June 30, 1890, amounted to $1,647,192,014, an increase of one hundred and fifty-nine and a half millions. The ocean trade of 

this CQuntry with other countries has doubled, it is stated, in twenty 

years. The exports of the last fiscal year amounted to $857,856,159; 

the imports, to $789,335,855, showing a balance in our favor of sixtyeight and a half millions in round numbers. This is better than ha v- i ng it against us, and it is doubtless a surprise to our Democratic friends 

that it should be so. In the last twenty-one years the movement of 

trade has been in our favor, the total amount of exports over imports 

being twelve hundred and twenty-seven millions of dollars. Now, Mr. 

President, our trade with foreign nations having gone on under our protective system from year to year until the year just closed shows that 

it was greater than ever before. It will continue to grow in volume 

and value. 

Our Democratic friends say that the prices of all the principal agricultural products which the farmer sells at home are fixed in the free 

markets abroad, where he sells his surplus, while the prices of the 

articles he has to buy are fixed in protected markets here. The price 

of agricultural products, like everything else, is largely governed by the 

supply and demand, and if tlie demand in foreign countries is great 

and the supply of the product is limited the·price will be :fixed accordingly. The farmers of this country will get just as much benefit fr.:>m 

the scarcity of the product as those of any other country. 

The important fact for the farmer is to know that he can find a mar- ket for his property somewhere, the nearer home the better, transportation being eliminated from the question if the market is at bis door. 

In these days of unrest, in which a readjustment of conditions between 

capital and labor is under consideration by everybody engaged in busine1SS or public affairs, it is our duty to examine these great economic 

questions in the light of what is best for the great body ot the people 

who labor. The laborer is worthy of his hire; work and good wages are to be kept constantly in view and plenty of work and good wages can uot be secured if onr mills and factories are not protected, but left 

to straggle with the mills and factories run by the cheap labor of other 

countries. 

There is another suggestion which I desire to make in connection 

with the operation and business of the great manufacturing establishmen ts of the country which bears on the question oflabor. I find a paragraph cut from a paperpublished sometime ago, which states that the 

freight traffic in 181:!7 of one single steel company, according to Poor's 

Manual, equaled the entire traffic of the States of North and South Carolina and Mississippi. The mill is said to have furnished 226t364,997 

tons moved one mile. By their operation labor finds employment in 

Recuring and transporting materials to the mills, in the mills, and in 

taking the product from the mills. I ask to insert this extract in the RECORD: 

A SINGLE STEEL COllPANY FURNISHES MORE FREIGHT THAN MANY STATES. 

A single Pennsylvania Bessemer steel company furnished freight traffic in 

1887 equal to 226,364,997 tons moved 1 mile. To give a better idea oftheimmensity of this traffic, we present a table showing the number of t<>ns of freight 

moved 1 mile in certatn States in 1886, according to Poor's l\Ianual: 

Texn.s ................................. 539, 407, 578 North Carolina. ..................... 72, 828, 927 

Alabama .......... .................. 365, 625, 026 Arkansas ............................. 89, 463, 602 

Georgia ............... _ ............ 345,339,893 Oregon .................................. 87,838,013 Iowa ............................... ... ~22, 4 L6, 911 Florida. ................................. 49, 735, 047 

Louisiana. ........................... 262, 206, 081 West Virginia ...................... 47, 791, 962 

Vermont ............................ 226, 958, 239 l\Ussissippi. .......................... 28, 867, 722 

Connecticut ........................ 225, 276, 508 New Hampshire .................. 81, 56.5, 584 l\Iaine ................................ 176, 108, 517 Rhode Island ....................... 18, 688, 3H 

South Carolina .................. 126, 140, 374 Delaware .............................. 20, 856, ~ 

Colorado ............................ 225, 380, 399 

One Pennsylvania steel company ........................................................ 226,3&1,99'1 

Think of it-a single Pennsylvania steel company furnishes more freight trnf· fie than either of thirteen States named in the table I 

This article shows the amount of traffic of a number of States, and tho one manufacturing establishment referred to furnished the transpor· 

tation companies more business than any one of the thirteen different 

States which are named and more than three or four of certain of the 

States combined. 

In this connection, Mr. President, I desire to refer to a document 

which I received to-day showing the amount of labor that is given to 

the laboring people by the operation of our railroads, and these great 

industries have to depend upon the transportation Jines of the country. 

This is an advance copy of the Statistics of Railways in the United 

States, furnished me only to-day, from which I read the following extract: MEN EMPLOYED ON RAILWAYS. 

The property above described gives employment to 704,743 workers, most of 

whom are men. It is a safe estimate to say that, independently of stockholders, 

the railway industry of the UnU.ed States provides a living for3,000,000persons, or about 1 in 22 of the total population oflhe country. 

Mr. President, it is not necessary for me to say that if any economic 

system should be adopted in this country which would result, peradventure, in the <!losing of these great mills and factories, the railroads, 

the transportation lines, would be reduced to such extremities as that 

much of the labor now employed by them would have to be dispensed 

with. 

There is another item I find in glancing over this document which 

I desire to call to the attention of the Senate in connection with the 

railroad subject: · 

The number of passengers carried by the railways of the United States during the year ending June 30, 1889, was 472,171,343; the aggregate number of miles 

traveled was 11,553,820,445. 1.'his shows an average journey of 24.t7 miles for 

ea.ch passenger. Pnssenger train mileage for the same period was 2771240,804, 

from which it appears that the average number of passengers in a tram, on a basis of which passenger rates must ultimately be adjusted, was 42. 

The number of tons of freight carried by the railwnys of the United States 

during the year ending June 30, 1889, was 539,639,583; the aggregate number of ton miles was 68,727,223,146. This shows an average haul of 127.36 miles for each ton of freight. The freight-train mileage for the same period was 383,200,573, 

from which it appears that the average number of tons carried by a freight train, 

which is conceded to be an important factor in adjusting rates, was 179.35. 

I refer to these statistics to show the vast business which is carried on in this country, largely the result of the keeping alive of these great 

manufacturing interests of the country scattered over it from one end 

to the other. 

Mr. President, I desire to give some statistics showing the quantity 

of corn, wheat, iron ore, pig-iron, and coal in this country. 

The corn crop of tM United States in 1888 was 2,000,000,000 bushels, or 56,000,000 tons. · The wheat crop, 500,000,000 bushels or 15,000,000 tons. 

The iron ore produced in the United States in 1888 was 12,000,000 

tons; the pig-iron produced in the United States was 7,500,000 tons. 

The coal production was: Bituminous, 94,937,666 net tons; anthracite, 43,538,080 tons; making a total of coal of 138,475, 743 tons; and of 

this total over 12,000,000 tons is produced in Illinois. Let me recapitulate: Tons. 

Coal._ --- --- _ ----- ---- ----- _ --··-- _ - ------ ----- - _ --- 138, 475, 743 

Corn _____ ---------------- ·------------ --··---- ----- 56, 000, 000 ~heat----------------------------------·---------- 15,000,000 

Iron ore ______ -------------------·--------------··---- 12, 000, 000 

Pig-iron-------------------------------------------- 7, 500,000 

In quantity the production of coal, that great product which warms the homes, runs the machinery, and produces the motive power of tho 

world, takes the lead, and corn, that other great product of the farms 

of this country, comes next. 

I will ask, Mr. President, to insert some statistics, showing the 

, . 

, 

·,· I • 
I• 

. , ) . ·. · . 

.. 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8801 

amount of corn, wheat, and hay raised in Illinois, beginning with 

18G7, and also showing the acreage and value: 

CORN. 

Year. 

I 

1867 ............. .............................................. .. 

1868 ............................................................ .. 1869 ............................................................ . 1870 .. .... ........ ........................................... .. 1871 ........................................................ : .... . 

1872 .............. ...... ........................................ . 1873 ............................................................ . 1874. ............................................................ .. 1875 ............................................................. . 1876 .............. ~ ........................................... . 

1877 ............................................................. . 1878 ............................................................ . 1879 ....... ................................................. .... .. 

1880 ........................................................... .. 1881. ..................... ...................................... .. 1882 ............................................................. . 1883 ............................................................. . 1884 ............................................................ . 1885 ............................................................. . 1886 .......................... .................................. . 1887 ............................................................ .. 

1888 ........................................................... .. 1889 ............................................................. . 

Acreage. 

.Acres. 

4,583,655 

3,99..8,742 

5,237,068 

5, 720, 965 5,310,469 

5,468,040 

6,839, 714 7,421,055 

8, 163,265 

8, 920,000 

8, 965,517 

8,337,000 

8, 920,600 

8,840, 180 9,096,600 

7,914,042 

R,151, 463 

8, 151,563 

8,559,036 

8,559,036 

7,347, 915 

1, 788, 790 8,022,454 

WHEA.T. 

1~::::::::::::::::::::::::.-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 1869 ............................................................ .. 1870 .......................... ................................. .. 1871 ............................................................ .. 

1872 ............................................................ . 1873 ............................................................ .. 1874 ........................................................... .. 

1875 ............................................................. . 1876 ............................................................. . 

18i7 ................................................. ........... .. 1878 ............................................................. . 1879 ............................................................. . 1880 .... ......................................................... . 1.381. ........................................................... .. 1882 ............................................................ . 1883 ............................................................. . 1884 ................. ........................................... .. 1885 ............................................................. . !~ ........................................................... . .. 

1887 .......................................................... .. 1888 ............................................................ .. 18S9 ..................................................... . ...... . 

HAY. 

1867 ..................................... ..................... .. 

1868 ............................................................. . 1869 ............................................................. . 1870 ............................................................ .. 

1871. .......................................................... .. 

1872M"'"'°'"'' ''°"'°°''°'''°"'°'°''"''''''°''"'"''"'°''°°' 1873 ........ .................................................. .. 

1874 ............................................................. . 

1875 ............................................................. . 1876 ............................................................ . 

1877 ........................................................... .. 1878 ..................................................... : ..... .. 

187U ........................................................... .. 1880 ............................................................. . 

1881 ............................................................ . 

1882 ............................................................ .. 1883 ............................................................ .. 1884 ........................................................... .. 1885 ............................................................ . 1886 ............................................................. . 1887 ............................................................ . 1888 ............................................... .............. . 

2,456,140 I 

2,483,478 

2,607, 142 2, 259, 583 

2,050,081 

2,042,231 

2, 104, 963 

2,619,304 

2,600,0!'() 

2,520,430 

2,000,000 

2,325,000 

2, 400, 900 

3, 6.50,225 

3,285,2(1() 

2,956,000 

2,115,ooo I 

2. J,255, 790. 905 900 I 

2,015, 400 2,423,092 

2,449,343 1 2, 375,863 

Acres. 

l, 778,000 

1, 905,000 

1, 761,006 

1, 605, 932 

l,403,053 

1, 428, 888 

l,880,000 

1, 860,417 

2,226, 277 2, 500, ()()() 

2,460,000 

2,370,000 

2, 188,843 

l,790,021 

2,472,856 

2, 744,870 

2, 944,870 

2,8i5,000 

3,306,250 

3,372,3i5 

3,406,099 

3, 303, 916 

Illinois. 

Production. 

Bushels . 109, 091, 000 

134, 363, 000 121, 500, 000 

201, 378, 000 203, 391, 000 217, 628, 000 143, 634, 400 

133, 579, 000 280, 000, 000 223, 000, 000 

260, 000, 000 223, 932, 700 312, 221, 000 240, 452, 896 

176, 733, 000 182, 336, 900 

203, 786, 500 2«, 544, 000 

268, 998, 000 

209, 818, 000 141, 080, ()()() 

278, 060, 000 

259, 125, 000 

28,000,000 

28,560,000 

29,200,000 

27, 115,000 

25, 216, 000 24,ill,000 

28,417,000 

30,122,000 

27,300,000 

23,440,000 

33,000,000 

31,620,000 

44,896,830 

60, 958, 757 26,822,000 

52,302, 900 22, 150,000 

32,374,000 

10,683,000 

27,562,000 

36, Btil, 000 33,556,().)() 

38,014,000 

Tons. 

2,667,000 

2,667,000 

2,800,000 

1,895,000 

1,838,000 

1, 929,000 

2,350,000 

2,232,500 

3,050,000 

3,500,000 

3, 936,000 

3,531,300 

2, 648, 500 2, 595,530 

3,214, 713 

3,439, 743 4,270, 062 

4,025, 000 4,298, 125 

4,513,031 

2,721,879 

4, 625, 4S~ 

Home 

value. 

Dollars. 

74,281,880 

57, 776,090 

69,255,000 

70.482, 300 65,085, 120 52, 2.30, 720 

45, \162, 880 74.,804,240 

95,200,000 

69, 130,000 

75,400,000 

56,483, 175 96, 788, l'HO 

86,563.043 

102, 505, 140 85, 698,343 

81,514,600 

75,808,640 

75,319,440 

65,043,580 

57,84.2,800 

80,637,400 

62,190,063 

55, 160,000 

34, 272,000 

22, 192,000 

25,488, 100 29, 754,880 

30,394,530 

31,258,iOO 

25, 904. 920 

24,843,000 

21, 799, 200 

34,320,000 

23, 715,000 

48,039,608 

57, 9L0,819 

32, 722,840 

44, 980,494 

20,378,000 

20,395,620 

8, 653, 230 19,017, 780 25,802, 700 31,207,080 

26,609, 666 

Dollars. 

25,949, 910 26,670,000 

27,636,000 

20,352,300 

18,•71, 900 18, 267,630 

20,562,500 

23,418, 925 29,676,500 

23,380,000 23 104 320' 

18: 150:882 24,869,415 

21,672,675 

36, 647, 7'18 30,269, 738 30, 957, 95(1 

25, 116,000 

31,591,219 

28,883,398 

28,039,005 

35,893,740 

I also ask to insert a statement showing the number of farm animals in the State of Illinois for the years 1860, 1870, 1880, and 1890: 

Numbe~· of Jann animals in the State of minois. 

Year. l\Iules. Milch- O.x~rh!:1dl Sheep. s · cows. cattle. • wme. 

1860 ......... = 563, 736 38, 539 522, 634 1, 061, 1 i9 I 769, 135 2, 502, 308 1870 ... ......... ...... 853, 738 85, Oi5 640, 321 1, OW, 265 1, 568, 286 2, 703, 343 

1880 .................. 1, 023, 082 123, 2i8 8&5, 913 1, 518, 409 1, 037, 073 5, 170, 266 lBW .. .......... ...... 1, 123, 973 109, 947 1. 012, 473 1, 713, 9GG I 688, 387 5, 433, 250 

Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland [Mr. GoRl\I.AN], in a very 

able speech a few days ago, argued strongly in favor of a reduction of 

XXI-551 

the duty on iron ore. I list.ened to that honored Senator with interest 

and was greatly impressed by his ability. and at the same time his devotion to the interests of the people of his own State in the first place, 

and then with what shrewdness be appealed to the country, and es- pecially tn the Senators representing the Atlantic States, in favor of 

either free raw materials or very low duties. 

That distinguished leader of his party knows that free raw materials 

in this country means free trade all along the line, and he suggests to 

the people on the Atlantic coast that it would be exceedingly desirable 

to them, and I have no doubt it would be~ if the mills along the border 

of the Atlantic Ocean could get free raw material, for they would have 

an advantage naturally over the manufacturers in the interior of the 

country; and so the Senator from Maryland, ambitious to build np this now young but great manufacturing establishment here near the city 

of Baltimore~ suggests that we ought to have reduced rates of duty on iron ore so as to give that mill in the first instance an advantage over the mills at Chicago and at other places in the interior of the country. 

I desire to say to him that while I appreciate his disposition to defend the interests of his own particular locality and admire the shrewd- ness with which he suggests tothe people along theAtlanticcoastthat 

it would be to their interest to have a reduction of the duties on raw materials and on iron ore, when the time comes that raw materials are put upon the free-list you will find that the beginning of the end 

has come in the way of maintaining a protective ta.riff. The men who 

are engaged in the coal mines, in the iron mines, and mines of all sorts 

and in all localities, will insist upon having some protection to them 

as well as to those who may happen to be engaged in the mills. 

Mr. President. I am of the opinion that the honorable Senator and 

his friend, Mr. Bent, have put their heads together to secure an advantage over all other such establishments in the United States and 

thereby build up the greatest concern in this or any other country. 

The ambition is laudable, but no legislation should be permitted 

which would build up one and destroy another. His establishment 

now has, in my judgment, a. little advantage over its competitors. 

I ca.II attention to a clipping from a paper printed, I believe, in 1888, 

showing some facts in relation to the ore tonnage of the Pennsylvania 

Railroad and the location and per cent. of American ores used in this 

country. I will read it as a matter of information: 

In a paper read before the Franklin Institute, Mr. J obn Birkinbiue, "' speakinit of the 13,063,439 tons of iron ore consumed in this country last year, stated that it equaled nearly 50 per cent. of the entire frehrht traffic of the Pennsylvania Railroad and it.s bran.ihes for the year, and its mining, loading int-0 cars, and 

transportation employed over 50,000 men, besides leading to a decided develop- ment in the manufacture of such mechanical appliances as hoisting engines, 

pumps, air-compressors, and rock-drills nsed in getting the ore. The principal localitiesAnd this is what I desire to read especiallyThe principal localities contribute to our ore supplies as follows: 

Percentage of Percentage of 

total output. total output. 

Lake Superior region ....................... 37 Ohio................................................. 3 

!~~!f~:,r:!'ii~~i~d::::·:::.::·.:·::::·::::::~. ~ ~r;i~i~.~~::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !k 

Cornwall Ore Hills, Pennsylvania... 5 l\iissouri .......................................... 3~ 

Lake Champlain district.................. 6 Sali..<ibury region ....................... ..... 1 Tennessee, estimated ......... .... ......... 5 Georgia, estimated......................... 1 

But, as the ores vary in the percentage of iron they contain, the contributions to our supply of iron are estimated as below : 

Percentage. Percentage. Lake Superior ores ........................ 44 Tennessee ores ............................. 4 

Foreign ores ................................... 1~ l\Iissonri ores ................. _.,........... st 

Lake Champlain ores..................... 6t Virginia ores .................. _.............. 3 

Cornwall ores................................. 5 Ohio ores....................................... 2! Alabama ores ................. ............... 5 Salisbury region........................... 1 New Jersey ores ........ :.................... 4} Georgia ores................................. .;. 

This 13,000,000 tons of ore, with the coal, coke, and limestone re- quired to reduce itto pig-iron, gives the railroads not less that 20,000,-

000 tons of freight, which is almost one-half the tonnage of the corn crop and is one-third more than the wheat crop of the entire country. 

This, when converted, makes 7,000,000 tons of pig-iron, a ·very large 

pOl'tion of which is transported long distances over the railroads. This 

pig-iron in turn is made into over 6, 000, 000 tons of cast-iron, wronghtiron, and steel. 

I give these statements, Mr. President, to show how people are em- ployed and to show that without these great industries idleness and 

want would overtake millions of people who are now at work and who 

with their families are prosperous and happy. All can not be farmers 

in this country. The farmer is the last man who ought to encourage more to enga~e in the business; they want consumers of agricultural 

products, diversity of industry. 

Mr. President, I do not desire to see any policy adopted in this coun- try which will result in securing the ores from a foreign country. The 

mill referred to by the honorable Senator from Maryland, located upon 

the margin of the country, bas its mines now in Cuba and supplies 

itself with imported. ore, and while we have nothing to say against 

that, I do not desire to see a policy .adopted which will drive the mills 

into one section of the country and result in the importation of ores from other countries insteadofusing theores of America, for, as everybody knows, we have an abundant supply within our own limit8. 

Suppose any policy should be adopted in this country which would 

·- 'I ·-

. . ...... f. 

. : 

.

•,I 

\ :. 
, . 

. . 

'· 

. -

, ! 

... l 

-. 

·. 

. -

... 

... -: 

8802 . , 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

result in closing up the mills of the United States, what would be the On second grade, redaction of 6 cents per pound from existing law. 

result? What would become of these millions of men who are trained 6. Tannie acid or tannin, :;o cents per pound. 

in the mills, in the mines, and in the factories, who would be turned oat Reduction of 50 cents per pound both from existing law and Mc· 

upon the world with no qualifications for_ any other duty, who would Kinley bill. 

have to drift upcm the farms and Ii ve as best they could? lf they be- 12. Blue vitriol, or sulphate of copper, 2 cents per pound. came good farmers and producers, what would be the result? The re- snlt would be that the production of agricultural products would be Redaction of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

still greater, and the consequence of that would be what we have seen 14. Borax, crude, or borate of soda., or borate of lime, 3 cents per pound; rea little of thi~ year on account of the gre.at corn crop in the West. fined borax, 5 cents per pound. 

We find that our farmers in that section have had great difficulty to Reduction in refined borax of 2 cents per pound from existing law. 

get such prices for their product as they thought they ought to have No change in other classes. 

and as would be remunerative to them. 15. Camphor, refined, 4 cents per pound. 

That is all I desire_ to say on the _genera~ subject, but ~ wish to say Reduction of 1 cent per pound from ex:istina law. • ' a few words more a. little more pertinent directly to the bill under con-t 17 Chi t: 40 t d 0 

sideration. . oro orm, cen s per poun . 

The charge bas been made here and made over and over again that Reduction of 10 cents per pound from existing law. 

this was a bill of increase and nothina else substantially- that it was 25. Ethers s_ulphuric,40 cents pc_r pound; s~irits ofnilrous etl1er, 25centsper 

hi h han b·n h 0 d h · h h. ' ill pound; batync ether and all fr wt ethers, 01ls, or essences, $2.50 per pound; g er t any l eretofore presente , 1g er than t e b we had ethers of all kinds not specially provided for in this a.ct $1 per pound. 

two years ago, and that it was substantially the McKinley bill, so called, I · · ' · · which passed the othei: branch of this Congress. First class, red~ction of 10 cents per pound fro~ e;x1stmg law. Seel have run over the bill as best I could and! admit in advance that ond class, reduction of 5 cents per pound froro eXISting law. 

it is exceedingly difficult to find out exactly what th~ rate is upoi: any- 28. Glycerine, crude, not purified, It cents per pound. Refined, 4! cents per 

thing looking upon the tables or facts as given there; but, assuming that pound. . . • . 

in the main they are correct, I find a large number of reductions. Redu~tion of o~e-half cent per pound from existing law. 

. The. fact is in general that there are ninety-four paragraphs. as I find, 3L Iodm.e, resublimed, 30 cents per pound. . . 

m which there are reductions below the McKinley bill, so called, and Reduction of 10 cents per pound from existmg law. 

in many instances below the present law, and each paragraph, as we 32. Iodoform, SI.50 per pound. 

all know, compTises a number of it.ems.. Reduction of 50 cents per pound from existina law. 

Then I find that in the free-list there are 291 paragraphs, 37 of which 33. Licorice, extracts of, in paste, rolls. or other forx~s. 5 cents peT pound. 

are pot upon the free-list by the bill as reported from the Senate commit- Reduction of 2} cents per pound from existing law and 1 cent per 

tee. So the reductions in this bill as reported from the Senate com- pound from McKinley bilL 

mittee and the free-list amount to a much larger number of paragraphs 

than those of the increases. 

Mr. President, while I do not stand here to commit mvself to each 

of the provisions of the bill, I favor it generally and intend to vote 

for or against the various provisions of the bill as my jndgment dictates. I am speaking now, however, of the general tenor of the bill 

and of the false accusations, as I think, on the part of those opposed · 

to the measure as reported by the Finance Committee, because, as a matter of fact, there is a large nnmber of reductions. I will read some 

of them. 

Take the chemical schedule, for instance. 

SCHEDULE A.--CHEllICALS1 OILS, A..'il> PAD.'TS. 

Acids: 

1. Acetic or pyroligneous acid, not exceeding the specific gravity of 1.ot7, lt cents per pound; exceeding the specificgr1i.vit.y of 1.047, 4 cents per pound. 

On first grade, reduction of one-half cent '(>er pound from existing 

law; on second grade, reduction of 6 cents per pound from existing 

law. 

6. Tannie acid, or tannin, 50 cents per pound. 

Reduction of 50 cents perponnd, both from existing law and McKinley bill. 

12. Blue vitriol, or sulphate of copper, 2 cents per pound. 

Reduction of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 14. Borax, crnde, or borate of soda, or borate of lime, 3 cents per pound; re- fined borax, 5 cents per pound. 

Reduction on refined borax of 2 cents per pound from existing law. 

No change in other classes~ 

15. Camphor, refined, 4 cents per pound. 

Reduction of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

17. Chloroform, 40 cents per pound • 

Reduction of 10 cents per pound from existing law. 25. Ethers sulphuric, 40 cents per pound; spirits of nitrous ether, 25 cents per pound; butyric ether and all fruit ethers, oils, or ebsences, $2.50 per pound· ethers of all kinds not specially provided foi- in this act, SI per pound. ' 

First class, reduction of 10 cents per pound from existing law; sec- ond class, reduction of 5 cents per pound from existing law. 

So I might go through with this list, but I fear it would consume too 

much time. ~ 

Mr. PLATT. Insert it in yonr remarks. 

Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether I ought to ask t-0 have H 

inserted in the RECORD or not. I will do it, however, if it is agreeable to the Senate~ While I do not vouch that the list is correct, because it seems to be a difficult thing to find out exactly what the facts 

are: unless you take the present law and compare it with the items in 

the reported bill, yet I assume that the expert who bas had charge of 

this subject time out of mind has tried to be fair about it, and in the 

main perhaps has arrived at as correct conclusions as almost anybody 

else could have done. These are the reductions. 

REDUCTIO .. rs. 

Acids~ 

SCHEDULE A.-CHEMICALS, OILS, ~D PAINTS. 

1. Acetic or pyroligneous acid, no.t exceeding the specific gravity of L047, ll cents per pound; exceeding the specific gravity ofL047, 4 cents per pound. 

On f&st grade, redue.tion. of one-half cent per. pound. from existing 

law. 

3!. l\Iagnesia, carbonate of, medicinal, 4 cents per pound; calcined, 8 cents per pour1d; sulphate of, or Epsom salts, three-tenths ofl cent per pound. 

Reduction of 1 cent per pound from existing law on first class. Reduction of 2 cents per pound on second class from existing law. Reduction of two-tenths cent per pound from ex.isting law on third class. 

35. l\Iorphia, OT morphine, and all salts thereof, 50 cents per ounce. 

Reduction of 50 cents per ounce from existing law. 

36. Alizarine assistant, or soluble oil, or oleate of soda, or Turkey red oil, 

cont.a.jning more than 50 per cent. of castor oil, 40 cents per gallon; all othe.rs, 15 cents per 1rallon. 

Redaction of 40 cents per gallon from existing law on oils containing 

more than 50 per cent. of castor oil. 

~- CJtstor-oil, 00 cents pe11 gallon. 

Rednction of 30 cents per gallon from existing law • 

39. Cotton-seed oil, 10 cents per gallon of7l pounds weight. 

Redaction of 15 cents per gallon from existing law. 

40. Croton-oil, 30 cents per pound. 

Reduction of 20 cents per pound from existing law. 

Paints, colors, and varnishes: 48. Baryta, sulphate of, or barytes, including ba.rytes earth, unmanafactured, 

$1 per ton; manufactured, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. 

Reduct.ion on nnmanufactured of $1 per ton from McKinley bill. 

Slight increase over existing law. 

53. Ocher and ocbery earths, sienna and sienna earths, umber and umber earths not specially provided for in th is act, dry, one-fourth of l cent per pound; 

ground in 011, It cents per pound. 

Reduction of 50 per cent. from existing law on dry ochers and o.~bers. 

M. Ultramarine blue, 4~ cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing law. 

55. Varnishes, includingso~lled gold size or japan, 3.~per cent. ad >alorem; and on spirit varnishes for the alcohol contained therein, $1.32 per gallon addi- tional. · 

Slight reduction from existing law. 

58. 'Vhitiog and Paris white dry, one-half of 1 cent per pound; ground in oil or putty, 1 cent per pou~d. 

Redaction of one-half cent per pound from existing law on whiting 

ground in oil. 

Lead products : · 6L Acetate of lead, white, 5k cehts per pound; Qrown, ~ cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing law. 

T.?. Nitrate of potash or saltpeter, refined, I cent per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing law. 

76. A.11 medicinal preparations, including medicinal proprietary preparations, of which alcohol is not a component part, and not speciallypi;ovided for in this act, 25 per cent. ad valorem. 

Existing law has two rates, 23 and 50 per cent. Senate bill makes 

one rate, 25 per cent. Reduction of :2.J p~r cent. from existing law on some classes. 

79. Santonine, and all 1mlts thereof containing 80 per cent. o:r over of aanto- nine, lr!?.00 per pound. 

Reduction of 50 cents per pound from existing law. 

81. Bicarbonate of soda or supercarboaate of Roda or sa.leratus, 1 cent per pound . 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing law • 

. - I • • 

·I r • • 1 
· .. ~. · .. : ...:. , . '., .. ·., 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8803 

frl. Strychnia. or strychnine, and all salts thereof, 40 cents per ounce. 

Reduction, 10 cents per ounce from existing law. 

88. Sulphur, refined, in rolls, $8 per ton; sublimed, or flowers of, 10 per ton. 

Reduction of$2 per ton from existing law on refinedsnlphnr and $10 

upon flowers of sulphur or sublimed. 

Stone: 120. Burr-stones manufactured or bound up into mill-stones, 15 per cent.. ad 

va.lorem. 

Reduction of 5 per cent. from existing law. 

129. Bar-iron, rolled or hammered, comprising flats not less than 1 inch wide, nor less than three-eighths of l inch thick, eight-tenths of 1 cent per pound; round iron not less than three-fourths of 1 inch in diameter, and square iron not less than three-fourths of 1 inch square, nine-tenths of 1 cent. per pound; fiats less than 1 inch wide 01 less than three-eighths of 1 inch thi<'k; round iron less than three-fourths of 1 inch and not less than seven-sixteenths of 1 inch in di&meter; and square iron less than three-fourths of 1 inch square, 1 cent per 

pound. 

Reduction of one-tenth of 1 cent per pound from existing law on 

higher grades. 

130. Round iron, in coils or rods, less than seven-sixteenths ot 1 inch in diam- eter, and bars or shapes or rolled iron, not specially provided for in this act, 1.1 cents per pound : Provided, That all iron in slabs, blooms, loops, or other forms less finished than iron in bars, and more adnmced than pig-iron, except ca.str ings, shall be rated as iron in bars, and be subject to a duty of eight-tenths of 1 cent per pound; and none of the iron above enumerated in this paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than 35 per cent. ad valorem: Provided f"rtlter, That all iron bars, blooms, billets, or sizes or shapes of any kind, in the manufacture of which charcoal is used as fu.el, shall be subject to a. duty of not Jess than $22 per 

ton. 

Reduction of one-tenth of 1 cent per pound from existing law on 

higher grades. 

131. Bea.ms, girders, joists, angles, channels, car-truck channels, TT-columns and posts or parts or sections of columns and posts, deck and bulb beams, and building forms, together with all other structural shapes of iron or steel, whether plain or punched, or fitted for use, nine-tenths of 1 cent per pound. 

Reduction of thirty-five-one-hundredths of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

133. Forgings of iron or steel, or forged iron and steel combined, of whatever shape, or in whatever stage of manufactu.re, not specially provided for in this act, 2.3 cents per pound: Provided. That no forgings of iron or steel, or forgings of iron and steel combined, by whatever process made, shall pay a.less rate of duty than 45 per cent. o.d valorem. 

Reduction of two-tenths of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

135. Railway-bars, made of iron or steel, and railway-bars made in part of steel, T-rails, and punched iron or steel flat rails, five-tenths of l cent per pound. 

Reduction from $17.92, $20.16, and $17 per ton to $11.20 from ex- isting Ia.w, and one-tenth of 1 cent per pound from McKinley bill. 

136. Sheets of iron or steel, common or black, inclu.ding all iron or steel com- mercially known as common or black taggers iron or steel, and skelp iron or steel, valued at 3 cents per pound or less: Tltlnner than No. 10 and not thinner than No.20 wire ga.uge, l cent per pound; thinner than No. 20 wire gauge and not thinner than No.25 wire gauge, 1.1 cents per pound; thinner than No. 25 wire gauge, 1.4 cents per pound; corrugated or crimped, 1.4 cents per pound: Protrided, That all common or black sheet-iron or sheet-steel not thin- ner than No. 10 wire gauge shall pay duty &S plate iron or plate steel. 

Reduction of one-tenth of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

137. All iron or steel sheets or plates, and all hoop, baud, or scroll iron or steel, excepting what are known commercially as tin-plates, teme-plates, and taggers tin, and hereinafter provided for, when galvanized or coated with zinc or spelter, or other meta.ls, or any alloy of those metals, shall pay one-half of 1 cent. per pound more duty than the rates imposed by the preceding paragraph upon the corresponding gauges, or forms, of common or black sheet or taggers iron or steel. 

Reduction of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound from existing law on galvanized. _ 

138. Sheet-iron or sheet-steel, polished, planished, or glanced, by what~ver 

name designo.ted, 2l cents per pound: Provided, That plate or sheet or taggers iron or steel, by wha.tever name designated, other than the polished, planished, or glanced herein provided for, which has been pickled or cleaned by acid or by any other material or l)rocess, or which is cold-rolled, shall pay one-quarter of 1 cent per pound more duty than the corresponding gauges of common or black sheet or taggers iron or steel. 

Reduction of one-tenth of 1 cent per pound from existing law on the 

various forms. 

142. Wire: Wire made of iron or steel not smaller than No.10 wire gauge, lt cents per pound; smaller than No. 10 and not smaller than No. 16 wire gaug-e, If cents per pound; smaller than No. 16 and not smaller than No. 26 wire gauge, 2t cents per pound; smaller than No. 26 wire gauge, 3 cents per pound: Pr<W"ided, That iron or steel wire covered with cotton, silk, or other materialt and wires or strip steel, commonly known as crinoline wire, oorset- wire, a.nu hat-wire, shall pay a duty of 5 cents per pound: .And provided further, That flat steel wire, or sheet steel in strips, whether drawn through dies or rolls, untempered or tempered, of whatsoever width, twenty-five-one-thou- sandths of an inch thick or thinner (ready for use or otherwise), shall pay a. duty of 50 per cent. ad valorem: And provided further, That no article made from iron or steel wire, or of which iron or steel wire is a component pa.rt of chief ya.lue, shall pay a less rate of duty than tb.e iron or steel wire from which it is made either wholly or in part: And provided further, Tlla.~ iron or steel- wirc cloths and iron or steel wire nettings, made in meshes of any form, shall pay a duty equal in amount. t-0 that imposed on iron or steel wire used in the manufacture of iron or s~el wire cloth, or iron or steel wire nettings, and 2 cents per 1><>und in addition thereto. There shall be paid on iron or steel wire coated with zinc or tin or any other metal (except fence-wire and iron or steel, flat, with longitudinal ribs, tor the m'111ufacture of fencing) one-half of l cent per pound in addition to the rate imposed on the wire of which it is made; on iron-wire rope and wire strand, 1 cent per pound in addition to the rate imposed ou the wire ot which it is ma.de; on steel-wire rope and wirestrand.2 cents per pound in addition to the rs.teim- posed on the wire of which tb.ey or eitheT of them are ma.de : Provided further, 

. · 

That a.11 iron or steel wire-valued at more than 4 cents per pound shall pay a. 'duty of notless than 45 per cent. ad va.lorem, except that card-wire for the man- ufacture of card clothing shall pay a duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem. 

Reduction on some of the lower grade3. 

146. On all iron or steel bars, rods, strips, or steel sheets, of whatever shape, other than the polished, planlshed, orglancedsheet-iron or sheet-steel hereinbe- fore provided for, and on a.l l iron or steel bars of irregular shape or section, which are cold-rolled, cold-hammered, or polished in any way in addition to the or- dinary process of hot rolling or hammering, there shall be paid one-fourth of 1 cent per pound in addition to the rates provided in this act; and on steel cir- cular-saw plates there shall be paid 1 cent per pound in. addition to the rate provided in this act for steel saw-plates. 

Slight reduction from existing law. 

!LU."lJFACTURES OF mos AND STEEL. 

14.7. Anchors, or parts thereof, of iron or steel, mill-irons and mill-cranks of 

wrought-iron, and wrought-iron for ships, and forgings of iron or steel, or of combined iron and steel, for ve sels, steam-engines, and locomotives, or parts 

thereof, weighing each 25 pounds or more, 1.8 cents per pound. 

Reduction of two-t.enths of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

148. Axles, or parts thereof, axle-bars, axle-blanks, or forgings for axles, whether of iron or steel, without reference to the stage or state of manufacture, 2cents per pound: Provided, That when iron orsteela.xlesareimportedfitted in wheels, or parts of wheels, of iron or steel, they shall be dutiabld at the same rate as the wheels in which they are fitted. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing la.w. 

149. Anvils, or parts thereof, of iron or steel, or of iron and steel combined, 

by whatever process made, or in whatever stage of manufacture, 2 cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from McKinley bill. 

150. Blacksmith's hammers and sledges, track t-0ols, wedges, and crowba.rs, whether of iron or steel, 2t cents per pouod. 

Reduction of one-fourth cent per pound from existing law. 

15L Boiler or other tubes, pipes, flues, and stays of wrought-iron or steel, 2} cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

152. Bolts, with or without th.reads or nuts, or bolt-blanks, and finished hinges or hinge-blanks, whether of iron or steel, 2t cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-fourth cent per pound from existing law on bolts. 

15-i. C&St-iron pipe of every description, nine-tenths of 1 cent. per pound. 

Reduction of one-tenth of a cent per pound from existing law. 

155. Cast-iron vessels, plates, stove-plates, andirons, sa.d-irons, ta.tlors' irons, hatters' irons, and castings of iron, not especially provided for in this act, L2 cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-twentieth of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

156. Castings of malleable iron not especially provided for in thi.S act, li cents per pou.nd. 

Reduction of one-fourth cent per pound from existing law. 

157. Cast hollow-ware, coated, glazed, or tinned, 2~ cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing law and from 

McKinley bill. 

158. Chain or cha.ins of all kinds, ma.de of iron or steel, not less than three- fourths of 1 inch in diameter, 1.6 cents per pound; less than three-fourths of 1 inch and not less than three-eighths of 1 inch in diameter, 1.8 cents per pound; less than three-eighths of 1 inch ic diameter, 2t cents per pound. 

Slight reduction from existing law ou heavier chains. 

162. Files, file-blanks, rasps, and floats, ofall cuts and kinds, 4. inches in length and under, 33 cents per dozen; over 4 inches in length and under 9 inches, 75 cents per dozen; 9 inches in length and under 14 inches, H.30 per dozen; 14 inches in length and over, S2 per dozen. 

Reduction from existing law. 

Nails, spike!.', tacks, and needles: 167. Cut nails and cut spikes of iron or steel, 1 cent per pound. 

Reduction of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound from existing law. 

169. Wire nails made of wrought-iron or steel, 2 inches long and longer, not lighter than No. 12 wire gauge, 2 cents per pound; from 1 inch to 2 inches in length, and lighter than No. 12 and not lighter than No. 16 wire gauge, 21 cents pe.r pound; shorter than 1 inch and li~hter than No. 16 wire gauge, 4 cents per pound. 

Reduction in wire nails from 4 cents per pound in existing law to 2, 

2~, and 4 cents per pound. 

liO. Spike , nuLs, and washers, and hor.se, mule, or ox shoes, of wrought iron or steel, 1.8 cents per pound. 

Redaction of two-tenths cent per pound from existing law. 

in_ Cut ta.cks, brads, or sprig. , not exceeding 16 ounces to the thousand, 2i cents per thousand; exceeding 16 ounces to the thousand, 2t cents per pound. 

Slight redaction: 

175. Railway fish-plates or splice-bars, made of iron or steel, 1 cent per pound. 

Reduction of one-foruth cent per pound from ex.isting law. 

li8. Scre,vs, commonly called wood-screws, more than 2 inches in length, 5 cents per pound; over 1 inch and not more tha.n 2 inches in length, 7 cents per pound; over one-half inch and not more than 1 inch in length, 10 cents per pound; one-half inch and less in length, H cents per pound. 

Slight reduction on large3t size3. Slight increase on smaller sizes. 

179. Wheels, or pa.rt.a thereof, ma.de of iron or steel, and steel-tired wheels for rail way purposes, whether wholly or partly finished, ancl. iron or steel locomo- tive, car. or other railway tires or parts thereof, ,.-holly or partly manufactured, 

2} cents per pound; and ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, or blanks for the same, without regard to the degree of manufacture, U cents per pound: Provided, That when wheels or parts thereof, of iron or steel, are imported wit.h iron or steel axles fitted in them, the wheels and a.rles together shall be dntia.ble at the same rate as is. provided for the wheels when impo.rted separately. 

Reduction of one-fourth cent per pound. 

.. . - ; . 

. ' 

- ~ .... 

. : 

_;, 

.. . 

. : 

... 
. . -.. 

\ ' 

·. 

, I 

,_ 

~ · . 

8804 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

llISCELLAYEOUS METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 

180. Aluminium or aluminum, in crude form. alloys of any kind in which aluminum is the component mate1·ial of chief value, 20 per cent. ad valorem. 

Reduction of 15 per cent. from McKinley bill. 

181. Antimony, a!' ragulus or metal, tht·ee-fourths of 1 cent per pound. 

Slight reduction. 

Copper: 185. Copper imported in the form of ores, one-half of 1 cent per pound on each pound of fine copper contained therein. 

Reduction of2 cents per pound from existing law and three-fourths 

of 1 cent per pound from McKinley bill. 

186. Old copper, flt only for remanufacture, clippings from new copper, and all composition meta.I of which copper is a. component materia.1 of chief value, not specially provided lor in this act, 1 cent per pound. 

Reduction of 2 centa per pound from existing law and three-fourths 

ofl cent per pound from McKinley bill. 

187. Regulus of copper and black or coarse copper, and copper cement, I cent per pound on each pound of fine copper contained therein, 

Reduction of 2! cents per pon nd from existing law and three-fourths 

of 1 cent per pound from McKinley bill. 

188. Copper in plates, bars, ingots, Chili or other pigs, and in other forms, not manufactured, not specially provided for in thid act, lt cents per pound. 

Reduction of 2i cenlq per pound from existing law and three-fourths 

cent per pound from McKinley bill. 

193. Lead iu sheets, pipes, shot, glaziers' lead, and lead wire, 2t cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing law. 

197. Nickel, nickel oxide, alloy of any kind in which nickel is the compo- nent material of chief value, 8 cents per pound. 

Reduction of 7 cents per pound from existing law and from McKinley bill. 

Zinc or speller: 203. Zinc in blocks or pigs, I} cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-fourth cent per pound from 1\IcKinley bill. 

207. Zinc, old and worn out, fit only to be remanufactured, It cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-fourt!i cent per pound from existing law. 

SCHED'GLE D.-WOOD AND MA1'-UFACTURES OF. 

2W. Timber, hewn and sawed, and timber used for spars and in building 

wharves, 10 per cent. ad va.lorem. 

!{eduction of 10 per cent. ad valorem from existing law. 

210. Timber, squared or sided, not specially provided for in this act, one-half of 1 cent per cubic foot. 

Reduction of one· half cent per cubic foot from existing law. 

211. Sa.wed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of hemlock, white wood sycamore, white pine and bass-wood, Sl per thousand feet board measure: sawed lumber, not specially provided for in this act, ~ per thousand feet board measure; but when lumber of any sort is planed or finished, in addi- tion to the rates herein pro,·ided, there shall be levied and paid for each side so planed or finished, 50 cents per thousand feet boa.rd measu1'6; and if planed on one side and tongued and grooved, SI per thousand ieet board mea..~ure; and if planed on two sides, and toni;:-ued and grooved, $1.50 per thousand feet board measure; and in estimating board measure under this schedule no deduction shall be made on board measure on account of planing, tongueing and £trooving: Pro· vided, '!'hat in case any foreign country shall impose an export duty upon pine, spruce, elm, or other logs, or upon stave bolts, shingle wood, or heading blocks e:xported to the United 8t..'l.tes from such country, in excess of the duty fixeu in this net upon the sawed lumber manufactured from logs of the kinds heretofore mentioned, then the duty upon the sawed lumber herein provided for, when imported from such counlry, shall remain the same as fixed by tho law in force prior to the passage of this act. 

Il~uction of $1 per thousand feet from existing law on white pine 

and sawed lumber. 

·223. A.11 sugars above No. 13 Dul!!h standard in color 11hall be classified by the Dutch standard of color and shall pay dut.y as follows, namely: All sugars above No.13 and not above No.16 Dutch standard of colo1·, three-tenths of l cent per pound. All sugars above No.16 Dut<:h standard in color shall pay a duty of six- tenth.s ofl cent per pound: Provided, That if an export duty shall hereafter be laid upon sugar or molasses by any country from whence the same may be im- ported, such sugar or molasses so imported shall be subject to duty as provided 

by law prior to the passage of this act. 

Reduction on sugar above No.13 and not above No. 16, 2~ cents per 

pound from existing Jaw; above 16 and not above 20, 2. 4 cents per pound 

from existing law; above 20, 2.9 cents per pound from existing law. 

24.6. Ilice, cleaned, H cents per pound; uncleaned rice, 1 cent per pound; paddy, 

three-quarters of I cent per pound; rice-fionr, rice-meal, and rice, broken, which will pass through a sieve known commercially as No. 12 wire sieve, one-fourLh of 1 cent per pound. 

Reduction on rice, cleaned, of three-fourths cent per pound from ex- isting law and one-ha.If cent from McKinley bill; uncleaned rice, one- half cent per pound from existing 1::t wand one-fourth cent per po and from 

McKinley bill; third class, reduction of three-fourths cent per pound 

from existing law and one-fourth cent from McKinley hill; and last 

class: reduction of 4. 76 per cent from existing law. 

224. Sugar-candy and a.ll confectionery, including chocolate coufectlonery, made wholly or in part of sugar, valued at 12 cents or less per pound. and on sugara after being refined, when tinctured, colored, or in any way adulterated, 5 cents per pound. 

Under existing law there are two classes, one at 5 cents per pound 

and one at 10 cents per pound. Senate bill makes a uniform duty of 

5 cents per pound, a reduction of 5 cents per pound from existing law on some classes. 

I _,.. • .. 

Seeds: 269. Castor.,beans or seeds, 32 cents ver bushel of 50 pounds. 

Reduction of 18 cents per bushel from existing law. 

259. Cider, !'.I cents per gallon. 

Reduction in equivalent ad valorem rate of 2. 27 per cent. from existing law. 

294. Nuts of all kinds, shelled or unshelled, not specially provided for in thif· act, ll cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existing law. 

306. Dandelion-root and a.corns prepared, and other articles used as cof!:ee, or as substitutes for coffee, not specially provided for in this a.ct, I} cents per pound. 

Reduction of one-half cent per pound from existin~ law. 

308. Starch, including all preparation31 from whatever s11bsta.nce produced, fit for use as starch without further process of manufacture, 2 cents per pound. 

Reduction in ad va.lorem equivalent of13.97per cent. from existing 

law. 

309. Dextrine, burnt starch, gum substitute, or British gum, 1 cent per pound. 

Reduction of 1 cent per pound from McKinley bill. 

3ll. Spices, ground or powdered, not sp -'cially provided for in this act, 4 cents per pound; sage, 3 cents per pound. 

Reduction of 9. 75 per cent. in ad valorem equivalent on spices; sage now free. 

342. To,v, of flax or hemp, SLOper ton. 

Reduction of $15 per ton from McKinley bill. 

345. Cables, cordage, binding-twine, and twine, composed wholly of manila or sisal-grass, H cents per pound; ca.hies and cordage, .mnde of hemp, 2~ cents per pound; tarred, 3 cents per pound. 

Reduction from 3, 2~, and 3! cents to 1-§ cents per pound from ex- isting law upon cables, cordage, and twine. 

348. Bags for groin, me.de of burlaps, 2 cents per pound. 

Reduction of duty from existing law. 

3-!9. Bagging for cott<>n, gunny-cloth, and all similar material suitable for covering cotton, composed in wllole or in part of hemp, flax, jute, or jute butts, valued at 6 cents or less per square yard, 1.3 cents per square yard; valued at more than 6 cents per square yard, 1.5 cents per square yard. 

Renuction one-half of present rate of duty. 

356. All manufactures of ttR.x, hemp, jute, or other vegetable fiber, e:xcept cot- ton, or of which fl.ax, hemp, jute, or other vegetable fibel', except cotton, is the component material of chief value, not specially enumerated 01· provided for in this act, valued a.t 5 cents per pound or less, 2 cents per pound; valued above 5 

cents per pound, 40 per cent. ad valorem. 

Reduction of 11 per cent. ad v::ilorem from 1\IcKinley bill and slight 

reduction from existing law. 

417. Gunpowder, and all explosive substances used for mining, blasting, ar- tillery, or sporting purposes, when valued at 20 cents or less per pound, 5 cents per pound; valued above 20 cents per pound, 8 cents per pound. 

Reduction from 6 to 5 cents and from 10 to 8 cents upon existing law. 

418. l\Iatches, friction or lucifer, of all descriptions, per gross of one hundred and forty-four boxes, containing not more than one hundred matches per box, 10 cents per gross; when imported otherwise than in boxes containing- not more than one hundred matches each, 1 cent per one thou~and matches. 

Believed -to be slight reduction. 

420. Feathers and downs of all kinds when dressed, colored, or manufactured, 

including quilts of down and other manufactures of down, and also including dressed and finished birds suitable for millinery ornaments, and a.rtiticial and ornamental feathers and flowers, or parts thereof, of whatever material com- posed not specially provided for in this act, 40 per cent. ad valorem. 

Slight reduction. Undressed feathers now dutiable at 25 per cent. 

ad valorem are placed upon the free-list. 

423. Hair, human, if clean or drawn, but not manufactured, 20 per cent. ad val01·em. 

Reduction of 10 per cent. ad valorem upon existing law. 

426. Hair, curled, suitable for beds or mattresses, 15 per cent. ad valorem. 

Reduction of 10 per cent. ad valorem from existing law. 

Leather and manufacturers of: 431. Bend or belting leather l\nd sole-leather, and leather not specially pro - vided for in thi~ act, 10 per cent. ad valorem. 

Reduction of 5 per cent. ad valorem from ex..ii;ting la"\v. 

4!4.. Plush, black, known commercially as hatters' plush. composed of silk, or of silk and cotton, and used exclusively for making men's huts, 10 per cent. ad valorem. 

Reduction of 15 per cent. ad valorem upon existing Jaw. 

I have another table, giving the increases, the increases being largely on agricultural products, and I desire to read some of them for the 

purpose of calling the attention of the Senate to them. Take: for instance, live-stock: 

SCH:&DULE G.-AGRICUI:runAL PltODt:'CTS AXD PROVISIO~S. 

Animals, live : 232. Horses and mules, $30 per head: Prol."ided, That horses valued at $U50 anc over shall pay a. duty of 30 per cent. ad va.lorem. 

Increase upon existing law of 50.07 per cent. ad valorem. 

233. Cattle, more than one year old, SlO per head; less than one yeal' old, $2 

per head. 

IncreMe of 41. 94 per cent. ad valorem upon existing law. 

234. Hogs, $1..50 per head. 

Increase of 25.68 per cent. ad valorem upon existing law. 
. ·• -

\ 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE. 8805 

2.35. Sheep, ~l.50 per head. 

Increase of 30. 30 per cent. ad valorem upon existing law. 

Breadstufts and farinaceous substances: 

237. BR.rley, 25 cents per bushel of 48 pounds. 

Increase of 15 cents per bushel upon existing law. 

238. Barley-malt, 40 cents per bushel of 31 pounds. 

Increase of 20 cents per bushel upon existing law. 

239. Barley, pearled, patent, or hulled, 2 cents per pound. 

Increase of 1! cents per pound upon existing law. 

2W. Buckwheat, 15 cents per bushel of 48 pounds. 

Increase of22.47 per cent. ad valorem upon existing law. 

241. Corn or maize, 15 cents per bushel of 56 pounds. 

Increase of 5 cents per bushel upon existing law. 

242. Corn-meal, 20 cents per bushel of 48 pounds. 

Increase of 10 cents per bushel upon existin~ law. 

243. Macaroni, vermicelli, and all similar preparations, 2 cents per pound. 

Now free. Senate bill places a.duty of 2 cents per pound on it. 

244. Oats, 15 cents per bushel. 

Increase of 5 cents per bushel upon existing law. 

245. Oatmeal, 1 cent per pound. 

Iucrease of one-half cent per pound upon existing law. 

249. 'Wheat, 25 cents per bushel. 

Increase of 5 cents per bushel upon existing law. 

250. Wheat flour, 25 per cent. ad valorem. 

Increase of 5 per cent. upon existing law. 

Dairy products : 251. Butter, and substitutes t:herefor, 6 cents per pound. 

Increase of 2 cents per pound upon existing law. 

252. Cheese, 6 cents per pound. 

Increase of 2 cents per pound upon existing law. 

253. l\lilk, fresh,5 cents per gallon. 254. Milk, prescn·ed or condensed, including weight of packages, 3 cents per pound; sugar of milk, 8 cents per pound. 

Increase of duty upon existing law. 

Farm and field products: 

255. Beans, 40 cents per bushel of 60 poun.ds. 

Increase in equivalent ad valorem rate of 14.80 per cent. upon existing law. 

256. Beans, pease, and m ushrooms, prepared or preserved, in tins, jars, bottles, or otherwise, 40 per cent. ad valorem. 

Increase of 5 per cent. ad valorem upon existing law. 

Zo"-7. Broom-corn, $8 per ton. 

Now free. 

260. Eggs, 5 cents per dozen. 

Now free. 

261. Eggs, yolk of, 25 percent. ad valorem. 

Increase of 5 per cent. upon existing law. 

262. Hay, S4 per ton. 

Increase of $2 per ton upon existing law. 

264.. Hops, 15 cents per pound. 

Increase of 7 cents per pound upon existing law. 

266. Pease, green, in bulk or in barrels, sacks, or similar packages, 40cents per bushel of 60 pounds; pea.se, dried, 15 cents per bushel; split pease, 50 cents per bushel of 60 pounds; pease in cartons, papers, or other small packages, 1 cent per pound. 

Increase upon existing law. 

267. Plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds, commonly known as nursery stock, not specially provided for in this act, 20 per cent. ad valorem. 

Now free. 

268. Potatoes, 25 cents per bushel of 60 pounds. 

Increase of 10 cents per bushel upon existing law. 

270. Flaxseed or linseed, poppy seed, and other oil seeds, not specially provided 

for in this act, 2.5 cents per bushel of 56 pounds; but no drawback shall be allowed on oil-cake made from imported seed. 

Increase of 5 cents per bushel upon existing law. 

271. Garden seeds, agricultural seeds, and other seeds, not specially provided 

for in this act, 40 per cent. a.d valorem. 

Increase of 20 per cent. upon existing law. 

272. Vegetables of all kinds, prepared or preserved, including pickles and sauces of all kinds, not speciallly provided for in this act, 45 per cent. ad va.- lorem. 

Increase of between 10 and 15 per cent. upon existing law. 

273. Vegetables in their natural state, not specially provided for in this a.ct, 25 

per cent. ad valorem. 

Increase ofl5 per cent. upon existing law. 

274. Straw, 30 per cent. ad valorem. 

Now free. 

275. Teasel'!, 30 per cent. a valorem. 

Now free. 

278. Fish (imported otherwise than in barrels or half-barrels) smoked, dried, 

salted, pickled, fresh, frozen, pa.eked in ice, or otherwise prepared for preserva- tion, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, one-half of 1 cent per pound. 

A portion of this paragraph is now on the free-list. 

2i9. Henings, pickled or salted, one-half of 1 cent per pound; herrings, fresh, 

one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. . 

A portion of this paragraph is now on the free-list. 

280. Fish in cans or packages made of tin or other material, except anchovies 

and sardines, and fish packed in any other manner, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, 30 per cent. ad valorem. 

Increase of 3.55 per cent. upon existing law. 

FRUITS AND NUTS. 

Fruits: 282. Apples, green or ripe, 25 cents per bushel. 

Now free. 

283. Apples, dried, desiccated, evaporated, or prepared in any manne1·, and not otherwise provided for in this act, 2 cents per pmmd. 

Now free. 

28t Grapes, 60cents per barrel of3cubic feet capacity or fractional part thereof; 

plums and prunes, 2 cents per pound. 

Large increase upon existing law. 

285. Figs, 2l cents per pound. 

Increase of one-half cent per pound upon existing faw. 

287. Raisins, 2t cents per pound. 

Increase of one-half cent per pound upon existing law. 

289. Fruils preserved in their own juices, 30 per cent. ad valorem. 

Increase of 10 per cent. upon existing law. 

292. Filberts and walnuts of all kinds, not shelled, 3 cents per pound; shelled, 6 cents per pound. ' 

Increase upon those shelled of 3 cents per pound upon existing law. 

Meat products: 291>. Bacon and hams, 5 cents per pound. 

Increa~e of 3 cents per pound upon existing law. 

296. Beef, mutton, and pork, 2 cents per pound. 

Increase of 1 cent per pound upon existing law. 

298. Extract of meat, all not specially provided for in thif act, 3S cents per pound; fluid extract of meat, 15 cents per pound; but the dutiable weigllt shall 

include the extract and the tins, jars, bottles, or other articles containing the same, and no separate or additional duty shall be collected on such coverinirS 

unless as such they a.re suitable and apparently de!!igned for use other than 

in the importation of meat extracts. 

Increase upon existing law. 

300. Poultry, live, 3 cents per pound; dressed, 5 cents per pound. 

Increase upon existing: law. 

I will also insert a table giving the duties collected under these va· rious paragraphs for the fiscal year 1889, where practicable, the esti· 

matedd.uties under the bill as reported from.the Fin~nce Committee, on the basis ot the importations being the same as for the last fiscal year, 

and the increase in duties. 

Increase of duties in. agricultu1·al schedule. 

Articles and rates of duty. 

232. Horses and mules, $30 per head: Provided, That horses valued at$150 and over shall pay a duty of 30 per cent. ad 

va.lorem .............................................................................. ....................•.................................•.................................. 233. Cattle, more than one year old, $10 per head; less than one year old, $2 per head .................................................... . 

m: ETrtt!~~~r.~~~iitJi;~~:;~~::_:::;;:::::::::::~::.~:.:_:.:.:.:.:.:;;;,:::.:.::.:.:_::;:_:;,::;:::;;;:::;_::;_:;:::::::;:::::::::;:::;:::;:_::_:_::::::::::::::::::: 239. Barley, pearled, patent, or hulled, 2 cents per pound .................................................................................................. . 240. Buckwheat, 15 cents per bushel of 48 pounds ..................................•......•................................................•...................... 243. Macaroni, vermicelli, and all similar preparations, 2 cents per pound ................•......•....•...............................•......•..... 

~~: g:~~::J.ef !:~:~~1~~~~d:::::·.:::::::::::·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:.:::::::::·:.:::::::::::::::::::::·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 250. 'Vb eat ftour, 25 per cent. ad valorem .......................................•......................•................•........................ ................... 251. Dutter, and substitutes therefvr, 6 cents per pound ........................................... : ......................................................... . 

~~· ~~~~~~·4~ ~~~~~:r t~~:~·~r·oo·p~~·;;ii~:::·::.~·.:::::::·:.:::::·:::::::.·.:·.·:.·:::.·:::.:·:::.·:::::::::::.:::·::::::::::::::.·::::::·:::::::.:::·::.::::::::::·.::::·.:·.::: 

d t duties under Incrc~se m Duties un- Estimated I . er r:.:_en Senate bill. duties. 

~29,302.90 

108,552. 94 

954.16 337,83~.48 

1, 130, 692. 52 

30,038.39 

1,441.49 

2,546. 98 Free ......... .. . 2,232.44 

9,573. 22 1, 160.97 3,650.'1:7 

327, 792.53 

i5, 980. 23 

$4, 504, 030. ()() 

336, 186.00 

2, 179. 50 

598,359.00 

2, 826, 731 . 31 

60, 0i6. 78· :'.i,765. 96 8, 274.10 

208,280.04 

3, 348.66 19,146.39 

1,451. 2L 5,475.40 

491,688. 79 

264,312.44 

$1, 074, 727.10 

227,633.06 

1,226. 79 

360,520.52 

1, 696, 0 <8. 79 

30,038.39 

4,324.47 

5, 727.12 

208,280.04 

1,116. 22 9,573.17 290.97 1,825.13 

163,896.26 

188,332.21 

:·, . 

.· 

.. , 

·'-

' 
• I 

,• 

•\ 

..: -

8806 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

Increase of duties in agricultuml scltedule-Continued. 

Articles and rates of duty. Duties un· Estimated Increase in der present duties under duties. 

law. Senate bill. 

~i E~~lt~:::::~:;:: ;;::~::::<:;;:;:::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·i·::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; ~~1: i~ 266. Pease, green, in bulk or in barrels, sacks, or similar packages, 40 cents per bushel of 60 pounds; pease, dried, 15

1 

No data. ......................... .. $796, 032. 50 421, 488. 08 ..... i210;;;44:04 612.087.00 28.5,640.58 

ie!~ C1~!rbp~~~~ .. ~:.~~~ ~~~~ ... -~~~-~.~~~. ~-~~~ ~ ~~.~~~~~-~~ '. .. :.~.~. ~ .i.~ .~.~~~~~ . ~~:.~ ~~ .. ~~-~:~~~- ~-~-~ ~ .~.~-~:.~~~.'.. 10, 5-17. 60 267. Plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds, commonly known as nursery stock, not specially provided for in this 17, 198. 96 6, 651. 36 

64, 752.56 ·······ss:·338':43 268. r:t':itio ~r ~:1~ ; ~r •:~~h~l'of'GO ·p;;;;~ds :·.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.:: ::·:.:·.:·::. :::: ·:.::::·:.:::::::'.'. :·::.:: :::::: ::: ::::::.:: :::::: ::: ~.- : :: .'.": :·:::: :::::: :: : :::::: ::::::::: • K f;;, ~7~~r.t 220. 846.25 270. Flaxseed or linseed, pop py seed and other oil seeds, not specially provided tor in this net, 25 cents per bushel I 

of56 pounds; but no drawback shall be allowed on oil-cake ma.de from imported seed........... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... 674, 822. 03 27L Garden SP.ed", ngricultural seeds, and other seeds, not specially provided for in this act, 40 per cent. ad valorem ...... 37, 497. 74 843, 527. 55 168, 705.52 fr/,497. 74 272. Vegetables of all kinds, preμnred or pre8erved, including pickles and sauces of all kinds, not specially provided 

74, 995.48 

for in this act, 45 per cent. ad valorem ......... ............ ............... ...... .. ... .... .............. ..... ..... .. ............. ...... . .... ......... ..... 23i, 078. 08 273. Vegetables in their natural state, not specially provided for in this act, 25 per cent. ad valorem .......................... ..... .1 43, 737. 75 325,997. 60 91, 919.52 84,344.39 40,606.44 

8,676. 30 ..................... 692.70 ····················· 274'. Straw, 30 per cent. ad valorem .................. .................. - ............................................................................................... , Now free .... . 

~: ~f:h(~~~~~~dc~~~:r~"i:~ f~~n: i~· b'~;~~~ .. ~~ · h~ii:i;~~~i~· : ~~;;k;;~c<l·;i~ct: -~~ii;;;i:"j»i~k. i;;a·. rr~~h: ·r~~~~~:1;~~k~d·1~·· K ow free.···· 

ice. or otherwise prepared for preservation, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, one-half of I 

cent pe1· pound .............................................. ........................ .......... ........... ..................... ...... .... . ...... ..................... .. 280. Fish in cans or packages made of tin or other materia.I. except anchovies and sardines, and fish packed in any 95, 103.32 336, 9i2.57 241,869.25 

other manner, not especially enumerated or provided for in this act, 30 per cent. ad valorem ... ....... ....... .............. . 284. Grapes, 60 cents per barrel of 3 cubic feet capacity or fractional part thereof; plums and prunes, 2 cents per pound .. 25,223.27 

543,404.49 

209, 906. 74 687,870. 02 

28. 611.08 3,387.81 1, 01s;336.59 474, 932.10 262,383. 43 52, 476.69 ~~ ~~lf!i:!, ~t°deii~rp~~~~~~a:::::::::::::::: :~::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::: :: :: ::::::::::::::·::.:::· ::·.:::::::::::·: ::::::·.'.'.'.'.'.:::::."."."."::: :::::::::::·:::::::. &59,832.53 171, 96'.2. 51 

289. Fruits preser>ed in their own juices, 30 per cent. ad valorem ............................................................................ .. ...... . 60, 445. 98 5,442. 60 

2, 155. 73 

90, 668. 97 30,222.99 

295. Bacon and hams, 5 cents per pound ............... ............................................................................................................ .. 13, 606. 50 8, 163. 90 296. Beef, mutton, and pork, 2 c.ents per pound .................. .................................................................... .......................... . 4,311.45 2, 155. 73 

While some Senator has stated that all this is an attempt to pull the 

wool over the farmers' eyes, as I believe the honorable Senator from 

North Carolina [Mr.VANCE] said, by increasing the duty upon aITT"icultural products, the fact is that the record shows that millions upon 

millions in value of property such as is enumerated in the agricultural 

schedule has been imported into this country, and thatthe duties, taking the basis of importations of last year and assuming that the same 

amount will be imported under this bill, would make a difference of 

$6,067,907.41. 

So the record shows that the farmers are interested in a protective 

tariff upon ihe products which they produce, and that if those products are imported into this country to that extent, it interferes with 

the prices of the articles which they have to sell, and protection should 

be given to them as we are disposed to give it to the manufacturing 

industries of the country. 

I did not anticipate consuming one-half the time I have in discn.ssini.,.the question, and beg pardon of the 8ena'te for doing so. The PRE;...,IDENT pro tempo1·e. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Upon that question I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Now let the amendment be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tern.pore. The amendment will be stated. 

The SECREThY. On page 38, line 7, in paragn1ph 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; va.lued M 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 and not exceeding $3 per dozen, 1 per dozen; valued at more than S'-3 per dozen, S2 per doze n; and in addition thereto on all the above, 50. 

And in lieu thereof to insert "45;" so as to read: 

Pen-knives or pocket-knives of all kinds, or parts thereof, and erasers, or parts thereof, wholly or partly manufactured. 45 per cent. ad valorem. 

Mi. McPHERSQ~. This is a reduction in duty from the present 

rate, 50 per cent., to 45 per cent.; and, in order that there may be no unnecessary delay, I am perfectly willing t-0 make my amendment 

also apply to the razor part of that paragraph, and have the vote taken 

upon hoth propositions at once. 

On line 17, after the word ''unfinished,'' I move to strike out down 

to the end of the paragraph and insert "45 per cent. ad valorem." 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated. 

The SECRETARY. In paragraph 159, on page 38, line 17, after the 

word "unfinished," it is proposed to strike out down to and including the word ' ' thirty," in line 22, as follows: . 

Valued at less than $-! per dozen. $1 per dozen; valued at $-!or more per dozen, 51.75 per dozen; and in addition thereto on all the above razors and razor blades, 30. 

And in lieu thereof to insert "45 per cent. ad valorem; " so as to 

read: 

Razors and razor blades, finished or unfinished, 45 per cent. ad va.lorem. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. If there be no objection, the question will be taken upon the two amendment."! together, and the yeas 

and nays will be considered as ordered npon both. 

Mr. V ANOE. Mr. President, I rise simply to express my unqualified admiration for the consistency of the authors of this bill in maintaining the highest rates of duty upon the cheapest articles ana the 

·. 

lowest rates of duty upon the highest-priced articles. That is a system 

which haa some foundation, I suppose, and it is pursued with a persistency and consistency which are entitled to the admiration of the 

world, and I hope will receive it. 

Here are knives costing 2 cent!!, and the duty on them is 100 per cent. 

On a knife costing 4~ cents the duty is 150 per cent.; on a knife costing 

74 cents per dozen-which is about 6 cents apiece-thedutyisl'Wper 

cent.; on a knife costing $1.58 a dozen the duty is 113 per cent..; on a 

knife costing $3 per dozen the duty is 117 per cent.; on a knife costing 

$5 a dozen the dnty is 100 per cent.; on a knife Co.<'lting $6 per dozen 

the duty is 90 per cent. ; on a knife costing $7 per dozen the d nty is 83 

per cent.; on a knife costing $8 per dozen the duty is 75 per cent.; on 

a knife costing $9 per dozen the duty is 72 per cent.; and on a knife 

costing $10 per dozen the duty is 70 per cent. 

So you see, sir, tha.t a boy who has only 5 cents to buy a knife has 

no business being poor, be ought to have a dollar; and a man having 

plenty of money in his pocket to buy a fine knife, costing $10 per 

dozen, is let off cheap by the Government in consideration of the success which he has had in life in accumulating property which enables 

him to buy high-priced goods. This schedule illustrates that glorious 

princi~e of American legislation very thoroughly and effectually! 

Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, I desire to insert in the RECORD, in 

reply to what the Senator from North Carolina bas just said, a table 

which shows the actual duty. I do not know what the Senator read 

from, but many of the items which he read to-day are very much higher 

than they are under this bill. I noticed as he went along, for instance, 

that he gave the duty on a knife which cost $3 a dozen as something 

over 100 per cent., when, in fact, it is now 83 per cent. 

Ur. BUTLER. Where does the Senator get that fable from, if I 

may inquire? 

Mr. PLATT. It is a table which has been furnished me by parties 

who are interested in this business. It speaks for itself, and anybody 

who understands mathematics can see whether it is correct or not. I 

will have it inserted in the RECORD, so that everybody can see whether 

it is correct or not. 

The etatement is aH follows: 

Statement showing ait a i-erage ditty of 73 p er cent. 

Cost pe r dozen. 

SO.I ............................ . .24 ........................... .. ,36 ............................ . .42 ............................ . .50 ............................ . .52 ................. .......... .. .74 .. ......................... .. .86 ........................... . 1.00 ........................... .. 1.12 .. .......................... . 1.22 ................. ........... . 1.36 ......... ~ ............ . -... . 1.50 ............................ . 1.58 ........ ................... .. 

1.82 ............................ . 2.25 ............................ . 2.50 ........................... .. 

, ""' 

Proposed Per duty. cent. 

~.2 1 

• 2·1 . 30 

.33 

. 37 

.76 

• 87 

. 93 1.00 

1.06 

1.11 

1. 18 

1.25 

1. 79 1. 91 2.12 

2.25 I 

117 

100 

&3 

79 

74 

146 

118 108 

100 

95 

91 

87 

83 

113 

105 

94 

90 

Cost p er doze n. 

._. 2. 75 ... ................ ...... . 3. 00 .......................... . 4. 00 .......................... . 5.00 .......................... . 6.00 .......................... . 7.00 ......................... . 8.00 ......................... . 9.00 .......................... . 10.00 .......................... . 11. 00 ............... .......... .. 12. 00 .......................... . 13.00 .......................... . 14.00 .......... ................ . 16.00 .......................... . 18.00 ......................... . 

Proposed Per duty. cent. 

$2.37 

2.50 4.00 

4.50 

5.00 

5.50 

6.00 

6.50 

7.00 

7.50 

8.00 

8.50 

9.00 

10.00 

11.00 

86 

83 

100 

90 

83 

79 

75 

72 

70 

68 

67 

65 

64 

63 

61 

156. 92.. ... . .. . ..... ........... --u5.051--;;3 

*Average duty. 

.-
- . . . . 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-SENATE. 8807 

Average duty: First class, 87 per cent. ; second class, 93 per cent. ; third class, 94 per cent.; fourth class, 68 per cent. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Will the Senator allow me to inquire whether the 

tabJe he now presents to the Senate takes any notice of the increase of 

dutfos on account of the passage of the act known as the customs administrative act? 

Mr. PLATT. Certainly, it does not, and there is no occasion, in my 

judgment, for to.king any particular notice of that, because the cover- ings and packages in which foreign knives are enveloped are paper, and 

of very small >al ue, not affecting the q ue.«.ion of du ties at all, or very 

slightly affecting the question of duties; at any rate there is not so much to be gained in that direction as there is to be lost on an advance 

of duties upon materials which must be purchased from abroad by the 

manutacturers of the.::;e knives, as, for instance, in the making of a pearl-handled knife the duty is now 40 per cent. on the pearl of which 

the handles are made, and in some other respects I think the duty has 

been raised. So I am sure that the additional duty which they will 

have to pay under this new bill will more than compensate anything 

which they might gain by reason of the packages being counted. 

Mr. CARLISLE rose. Mr. PLATT. If the Senator will permit me I wish to say one word more. I do not believe from the best attention and observation which 

I hwe been able to give to this matter-and I have given it a good 

deal of study-that any manor any boy who buysaknifoin this coun- try will have to give 1 cent more for his knife with this increase of 

duty than he gives now. .All there would be about it would be that 

the foreign knifo, which the Senator from North Carolina says costs 2 

cents a boy with 5 cents can buy. So he can, but he pays somebody 

150 per cent. profit. He will be able to buy as good a knife for 5 cents as be is able to buy now, but he will not pay the middleman as much 

profit though the knife will lliwe to be sold atthe same price. I do not 

believe that this increase of duty will add to the cost of the knife to 

any consumer in the United States. 

I ought to say a word more while I am up, and that is this: It is all 

very well to go into figures and say this knife can be bought abroad for 

that price or in this country for this price. We should never _get 

through with that contention. But there is one thing which is indisputable, and that is that the manufacturer of pocket cutlery in this 

country is steadily going to the wall, and that speaks moie and louder 

than the affidavit of any man as to what he can buy a foreign knife for or a simila.r knife in .America. These manufacturers are steadily going 

to the wall, and I should like in this connection to read a letter, re- ceived from a man who has just become interested in the cutlery busi- ness and has not been before any committee. He is not a manufacturer, but be bas got some of this property on his hands and he has 

begun to learn the situation of one of these concerns which has not 

already failed, and I think it expresses this whole matter in so simple 

and direct a way that I ought at least to read this letter. It is from a physician in Thomaston, Conn., and the knife company to which he re- fers is not put among the list of a large nnmber of knife companies 

which ham failed during the past few years and since the passage of 

the tariff act of 1883. 

Eutl want to say something in reply to what was said by a Senator on the other side about manufacturers driving down to their factories 

in their carriages and displaying their diamond shirt-studs and all that 

sort of thing. He will not find any of tho~e manufacturers in the 

pocket-cutlery business. The description of the tin-can-makers in 

Delaware by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. HIGGINS], in which he 

referred to the small concerns and the bard-working character of the 

persons who are engaged in that business, would apply, and apply 

more strongly, to these pocket-cutlery manufacturers than to the tincan-manufacturers. They are people of small capita.I. One of them 

states now, in a letter which I thought I had. in my pocket, that he 

knows them all, and that not one pocket-cutlery establishment in the 

United States has declared a dividend in the last three,years, and not one has earned it, and that of those concerns which make pocket cutlery only one branch of their business not one of them has earned a profit on that branch of the business. Now I want to read the letter 

to which I referred awhile ago. The writer says: 

THOMASTO~, CONN., June 6, 1890. 

DEAR Sm: The statements as put forth by the im.porters of cutlery and re- ported by the papers are totally false. It is not necessary for me to tell you that, however, for, living in Connecticut, as you do when at hom~, you a.re already aware of the fact I mention. There is not a cutlery concern in tho State to-day making expenses in that line ex- clusively, while many of them have gone out of existence entirely. It can not be sn.id that I.bey ha"e done so from mismanagement, for among the long list that ha Ye disbanded one can pick out the names of many who have been very sue< essful in other lines. The American Kni(e Company, which my family ha>e on their hands, was mauaged by two very shrewd antl sharp managers, yet in spite of their best efforts it ran behind until to-day a capital of 865,000 is wiped out and thti com- pa-ny nearly $30,000 in debt. I nm now interested, Messrs. Morse and Pierpont being both dead, in saving 

eomething from the wre-ck: if I can. lfthe cutlery schedule as made up is passed, the industry will again be put on its feet and Connecticut be once again heard from in that line of manufact- uring: it H does not pass, I predict that four years hence there will not be one-third of a dozen concerns in the St.ate in the business. "'e in Thomaston, representing one oft-he biggest companies in the State in thnt line, are waiting patiently the result of the vote, and if not passed will be 

: 

obliged to close out, losing all of the capital and about one-third of the notes, the best we can figure. . If those men will take a trip through the State we can convince them of that fact pretty quick:. The above are facts that can be testified to and you are at liberty to use the above as you wish. I have the honor to remain, Your obedient servant·, 

G. D. FERGUSON. Senator 0. H. PLAT!', Wa-shington, D. C. 

I submit that that is a fair and honest statement of a man who has 

not come before the committee and has not come before Congress, but 

has come to have the property of a pocket-cutlery concern upon his 

bands, or has come to he interested in it, and there is not a man in 

Connecticut, or New York:, or Ohio, who knows anyt.hing about this 

business, ·who would not recognize the justice as well as the plain, 

.simple truth of that letter. 

That is all I desire to say. 

Mr. CARLISLE. The Senator from Connecticut has repeated the 

statement made so frequently upon th~ floor of the Senate during the 

progress of this discussion, that the proposed increase of duty would 

not increase the selling price of the article to the consumer. In view 

of this statement and iU, frequent repetition here, J have been much 

perplexed to know for what purpose these manufacturers are demanding the increased duty. I am wholly unable to understand why this 

gentleman, whose letter has just been read by the Senator from Connecticut, desires to have the duty upon pocket cutlery increased, 

unless it is to enable him to get a better price for his producti in other 

words, how it will ~nable him to car.ry on his business more success- fully than he carries it on now if he be compelled hereafter to sell his 

product for the same price he sells it now. ~foreover, everybody concedes, I believe, that the Government does 

not require the revenue to be derived from this increased taxation upon 

cutlery. There must be some reason, therefore, for the proposition to 

increase the duty. 

What i~ that reason? I have understoodalways thattbe manufacturers desired these increases of duties because they supposed it would 

make their business more profitable, but I have not been able to under-. 

stand how their business can be ma-de more profitable unless they can Rell their products at a higher price than they are now selling them 

fot; and yet we are told day after day that while the Government doe5 

not need the revenue and while the imposition of the revenue will not 

help any manufacturer by enabling him to sell his products for a high&-

price than he now sells them! yet we must go on increasing duties. 

What for? I repeat the question. 

Undoubtedly, l\Ir. President, the imposition of this higher r::i.te of 

duty upon pocket cutlery will at least afford the manufacturers of that 

article in this country the opportunity to charge to their customers a higher price, and unless they desire to take advantage of that opportunity, I submit they can have no interest whatever in the in· crease. If they are to go on hereafter selling these articles at the sanfc 

price at which they sell them now, or at a lower price, and do not produce them more cheaply than they produce them now, I c-an. not see bow they are to be benefited by the increase, and, surely, it will not 

be contended by the Senator from Connecticut or any other Senator that 

the imposition of an increased duty upon the finished proc1uct will rcunce the cost of production, unless it reduces the cost of the raw ma- terial or the waj?;es of labor, and no Senator upon that side will con- tend for a moment that it will do either. 

Therefore the manufacturer, after this increase has been made, will 

stand in the same position-be stands now with regard to the cost of his 

production, unless it be increased, as the Senator has said, by the imposition of an increased duty upon pearl, which is used in the manu- facture of some classes of these knives, and still the Senator says the 

manufacturer will sell the article at the same price or at a lower one. In other words, his cost of production is to be increased by this imposition of duty upon a part of his raw material, and there i9 to be an increased duty upon his finished product to keep out competition from 

abroad, and yet he is to sell his article at the same or at a lower price 

and make more money than he makes now, and his industry, which is 

now languishing and about to become extinct, is to be revived by the 

passage of a law making his production cost him more and under which 

he sells his product for no higher price ! 

I confess, Mr. President, that I am wholly unable to understand the 

philosophy of this proceeding. I am wholly unable to understand, for 

instance, how the farmer who is not making any money now by the 

sale of his corn and wheat and other agricultural products could be 

benefited by the imposition of a duty upon those articies unless it en- abled him to sell them at a higher price. But, certainly, if itaffordshim 

the opportunity to sell for a higher price, and thus make a profit where 

be is now sustaining loss, he will sell at a higher price, and so will the 

manufacturer in this country, 

I submit that Senators on this side can not be deceived by thEl repetition of this statement, that the increase of duty will not increase the 

price of the article. It is done for that very purpose and for no other, 

for, if that is not the purpose, it can be of no possible benefit to any 

manufacturer. 

.Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, I think I can show even the Senator 

from Kentucky how this duty will help the American manufacturer 

.· 

·, 

-.. 

.-. ' 

·. 

. ·' 

··, 
"/ 

•\ 

.. 

8808 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

withoutincreasin~ the cost to the consumer. I will takea knife which 

costs per dozen 36 cent.a abroad. The present duty is 50 per cent. 

That is 18 cents . • That, added here, makes the cost-of the knife here 4~ 

cents. The Senator from Kentucky knows that that knife is sold to 

the boy or to the man in a Kentucky town for 10 cents. There is not 

any question about it: I do not want to repel the idea that the manufacturer is not a robber; I do not want to ~o into that; but there is 

somebotly else who makes more money out- of that knife than any 

mannfc'lctarer in thi'3 country makes out of any article, and that is between the importer and the retailer. · Of course, the retailer in Kentucky ie not going to buy an American 

knife that he can not make as much profit on. He is going to buy a 

foreign knife, which, I undertake to say, is by no means the equal 01 

the American knife, which, as compared with the corresponding style 

of American knife, is simply trash and a cheat every time His sold; 

but if the retailer can make more profit on that knife than be can on 

an American knife, which may be sold for 10 cents and be a better 

knife, the foreigner is going to get the work to do and the American 

producer is not. There is not going to be any difference in price to 

the consumer. 

The price of kni vcs of a certain style is just as much regulated and 

graded as the prices of cigars. You get the cheapest-priced knife at retail at 5 cents, the next at 10 cents, and from that you jump to 20 and 

25 cents, and so on. Knives better than the foreign knives will be produced in this country and sold to the consumer as cheap as the same 

kind of knife is sold now, and he will have a better knife; bat the manufacturer will make very little, and the middle-man, the jobber, or 

the retailer will not make as much as they do now upon the foreign 

trash. 

I think I have shown the Senator from Kentucky, if he desires honestly to see bow it can be done and how it will be done, that such a 

thing is possible as the increase of a duty without adding t-0 the price 

to the consumer. 

Mr. HISCOCK. Mr. !'resident, knives are made of iron, steel, wood, 

ivory, and bone, and, with the exception of ivory or pearl or something 

of that kind, are pQrely an American product. The Senator from 

Missouri [l\Ir. VEST], in the remarks which he made a little while ago, 

intimated that America can not compete with foreign manufacturers in 

making knives, that they labor under some great disadvantages. If 

there is anything in the world with respect to which we can compete, 

it is in the making of cutlery. We have the raw material here, and we fairly compete to-day in the making of good cutlery, though our 

manufacturers are pressed to the wall, I grant, because of insufficient 

protection. 

We have been told by the other side, by at least one Senator, that 

they do not represent the foreign importers. l\Ir. President, they represent the foreign importers upon this question and they represent the 

foreign manufacturers and the foreign laborers distinctly. 

The Senator from Connecticut [l\Ir. PLATT] has referred to the frauds 

which are practiced in respect to these knives. The reputation of American cutlery to-day in respect to most of the grades stands higher than 

does the reputation of the cutlery which is imported here. Foreign 

merchants and importers are accustomed to have American trade-marks 

or names stamped upon the cutlery which they pat upon the market 

and sell as American manufacture; otherwise they would not compete 

with the American knives. 

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE] does not know where 

this price is to be reduced, although he has attended all the hearings 

of the Committee on Finance and of the Committee on Ways and 

Means, which have been investigating this question, and undoubtedly 

has heard all this testimony, when it was proved beyond question--

Mr. ALDRICH. I was about to suggest to my colleague on the 

committee that, not satisfied with that, the minority of the committee 

on the part of the Senate have given several private bearings to the 

importers, ah~ have bad their testimony printed at the expense of Congress. 

Mr. CARLISLE. What was the Senator's statement? I should 

like to hear the statement about the minority of the committee. 

Mr. ALDRICH. That was two years ago, before the Senat-Or became 

a member of the Senate. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I knew there bad been no private hearings by the 

minority since I became .a member of the Senate. 

Mr. VEST. Will the Senator from New York permit me a moment? 

Mr. HISCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. VEST. The Senator from Rhode Isfand refers to some hearings 

that were had by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. VANCE] and 

myself. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes. 

Mr. VEST. That testimony was printed with the consent of the 

majority of the Finance Committee and put in their bands. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Certainly. 

Mt'. VEST. Was there anything surreptitious about that? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I did not say there was. l\Ir. VEST. Then the statement has no effect whatever. 

Mr. HISCOCK. No, there was not anything surreptitious about it; 

but on this question the Senator from Kentucky, after all the investigations which have been had, should be advised. I say it was proved 

beyond any question, and the ev'.dence was not contradicted, that there 

was a cheat and a frand; that foreign knives were labeled with the 

names of American makers or of American firms, and their names 

st.amped upon the blades, and those knives were put upon the market 

here to compete with good American cutlery, and sold up to the price 

or a little below the price, perhaps, at which the American manufacturers could pat their goods upon the market.. They did not have to 

meet honest competition f'om importers, but they had to meet this 

fraudulent device. Therefore I say the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 

PLATT] was right when he declared that to the boy who buys his knife, or for whom a knife is bought, and puts it into his pocket, you may put 

on this tariff or keep it oft~ and there will b.e no difference in the price 

of the knife that he buys, but there will be a difference, an advance 

in the value of the knife that he puts in his pocket. 

This investigation bas ran over two years or more, and the facts 

which I am stating have been advertised to the world for two years or 

more, and they have passed unchallenged and uncontradicted. 

l\lr. VEST. Will the Senator permit me to make a. statement? 

Mr. HISCOCK. Certainly, with great pleasure. 

Mr. VEST. I say emphatically that those facts were challenged in 

this Chamber, and that I produced here two years ago the absolute 

stamps and labels that were used by the manufacturers in Connecticut 

of English brands of knives, with the lion rampant upon them and 

with tile words "Cutlers to the Queen." 

l\Ir. PLA1.'T. That is true, but it was also stated at that time that 

a single cutlery establishment in Connecticut at one time, and for a short period and on a tew goods, did do that thing which they never 

ought to have done, and that is all there is to it. 

Mr. VEST. Now, I make another assertion, which I think every 

Senator who was a member of the Senate at that time and who has 

paid any attention to the debate will admit to be true: That after this 

very same statement was made, which is repeated now by the Senator 

from New York and on which there has been no additional testimony 

taken since I produced here the statement of the importers-and they 

have repeated the same thing in the last hearings before the Ways and 

Means Committee and the Finance Committee-to the eftect that when 

they bad knh-es manufactured abroad the importers put their own 

brands upon them, as they had a right to do, and never used the brands 

of anybody else without authority (which was the substance of the 

statement made by the Senator from New York). And I assert more 

than that; as the Senator bas said that I made a statement here that we 

could not compete with foreign cutleries, I distinctly stated that as to 

the Rodgers and Wostenholm knives we could not produce and never 

had produced such knives in thia country, and therefore .they command a price which is far beyond anything else. There is a knife [exhibiting] that I bought at the Senate stationery-room for $2.50. It is a Rodgers knife. I could buy that same knife of an American establishment-not as good material, but the same-looking knife-for onebalf the money, but it is the Rodgers name upon it that sells it and 

that always will sell it, and it is the same way with the Wostenholm 

knife. 

Mr. HISCOCK. On this question it is always easy in refuting :i 

question for a Senator to do it, based upon some letter which be has 

received or some fact which has corue into his possession, which bas 

not stood the test of examination. Th~ matter of the frauds which 

have been perpetrated bas been investigated by committees; that is, 

the frauds I have indicated here have been investigated in committee, 

and they have passed unchallenged, with these importers upon tha 

stand folly ad vised of the charges which were made against them. The 

retail prices at which they sold their goods appeared in the testimony 

which bas been tak~n, and when yon have traced one of those cheap 

knives through to the pocket of the purchaser at retail, you find that 

he gave for it all that a good American knife would have cost. 

As to the statement which the Senator from Missouri bas made, that 

American cutlery can not compete with good English cutlery, I must 

say that the Senator is not well advised on that question. We can compete with it, and we do compete with it. 

A statement was made here some time ago that the Sheffield Company had announced that they were through contributing to the support of the American Government in the knives and the cutlery that 

they were sending to this country. Outside of frauds which may be 

perpetrated in the way 1 have described, there is no trouble, equalizing conditions with a very moderate tariff, in American manufacturers 

of cutlery C()mpeting with the German, the Belgian! and the English 

manufacturers. 

'fhere is no chance in respect of cutlery to cry "Trust!" "TrU:St ! " 

We have heard upon the other side about the ingenuity of the American manufacturer. The American manufacturer of cutlery is scattered 

throughout New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, 

Iowa, Michigan, and other States. The proprietorship in these different establishments is small, that is, so far as the capital is concerned, 

and it is scattered throughout nearly half of the Northern States, the 

manufacturing States, with no possible chance for combination. 

How often have we heard it said upon the other side that American 

machinery was the best machinery in the world; that American me-
. \ •, ·._ 

I' 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8809 

chanics were the best mechanics in the world, possessing more ing~ 

nuity and with the power to apply their labor more advantageously 

than foreign mechanics, and yet that it is a fact with respect to cutlery 

that we can not compete to-day with the foreign manufactures. The 

tables settle that. 

In 1882 $1,462,500 worth of cutlery was imported. In 1889 $2,006,-

175 worth of cutlery was imported here. In 1882 the total American 

product wa.s $1,320,090; and in 1889 it had decreased to $730,000. 

This tells the story. It is all contained in that statement, with what I 

have said before. With the raw material in abundance, a class of goods 

not difficult to make, with the best mechanics or as good mechanics as there are upon the face of the earth, with the industry scattered through a dozen States, the importations here prove that we can not compete 

with the foreij:!;n manufacturers under the duty which is now imposed 

by law; and what shall we do? It is equally well established that you 

may add this duty, and to the consumer, the final purchaser, the one who uses the knile, there will not be a farthing added to it.s cost. 

Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, as the tables which I submitted were challenged by the Senator from New York, I propose to give my au- thority, and I ask to have it inserted. It is only a brief table. I read 

from the hearing before the Committee on Finance by the Hardware 

.Association of America, the protest of the Wholesale Hardware Association addressed to the chairman of the Finance Committee, and the 

accompanying tables were submitted by those gentlemen, one of which 

I ask to have published. 

I have been a little astonished, l\Ir. President, though I have no right 

to be, at the peculiar logic which this discussion bas brought out. We are told that when a foreigner brings goods to this country he pays the 

duty on them, and that it does not raise the price that is paid by the 

consumer, but, on the contrary, the higher that duty is the cheaper the 

domestic goods will become. The Senator from Comtecticut says that 

many of these knife industries are now about to go to the wall for want 

of a higher daty, which, being translated into the vernacular, means that they are about to perish for want of a cheaper price for the product which they have to sell. 

Knives costing 52 cents a dozen, for instance, abroad, which they 

are manufacturing in competition, they could not make any money on; 

they are about to go to the wall because the price of the foreign article, 

which competes with them, is 52 cents per dozen plus 50 per cent., or 26 cents duty, total 78 cents a dozen. Now, they are about to go to 

the wall at that price, but if we will make the duty 150 per cent. on 

the same article, which this bill proposes to do, then the price of the 

domestic article, according to the logic, will be beaten down to about 

45 cent.s per dozen, whereupon the manufacturers may come away from 

the wall and make money. That is the logic. 

The manufacturer is about to perish, in other words, for the enactment of a law which will lower the price of his goods. It seems that 

he is forbidden now by law to sell as low as he pleases. He can only 

sell at a cheap price when the law permits him to do so. The imposition of a duty will do him no good because it will not increase the 

price, · and therefore he is perishing for the want of something foat will 

do him no good. · 

Such logic, sir, may pass in the immediate precincts of a lunatic 

asylum or perhap.s in Connecticut. It certainly will not pass among 

any people accustomed to the use of human reason whose judgment is 

not warped by their personal interests. If the duty would do no good; 

in the way of raising the price, reasonable men will always inquire how 

it would do the manufacturers any good, for with this article, with 

this peculiar character of knife, costing 52 cents per dozen, I see that 

the foreign importations are about 50 per cent., or one-half of the whole 

consumption of that class of articles, and if the American manufact- urer is losing money and supplying one-half the market at 52 cents a dozen, I can not see for the life of me how be could make money by 

supplying the whole market at less than 52 cents a dozen. 

I have heard, indeed, of a man who apologized for selling so cheap. 

He declared that the suit of clothes he was selling to the customer was j nst $2 below cost on every suit, anJ the only way he managed to keep 

alive was by having a very large trade; otherwise he would certainly 

perish. [Laughter.] 

Now, it seems to me that the protectionist.a ought to blow hot or blow 

cold and keep at it. If they will come up like men and admit that 

the tariff is a tax, and that a duty imposed upon the foreign article 

permits them to add something to the price of the article which they 

make at home, and ask for it for that reason, within bounds, and subject to the necessities of the Government, I am always willing to con- cede it. But when they undertake to make me believe that the foreigner pays the duty, and that the duly when added to the price 

does not.increase the cost of the article, and that, on the contrary, the 

higher the tax you place on an article the cheaper it gets, and that men 

can not live by manufacturing articles at S2 cents a dozen, but can live 

when the price is below that, it is a little too great a strain upon my 

credulity. I resist it because I do not believe in the logic by which 

the claim is supported. I resist it because it is an attempt to take 

money out of the pockets of my people on false pretenses. 

I send to the desk and ask that the table which I have marked be 

inserted. 

The PRESIDENT p1·0 tempore. Does the Senator desire to have it 

inserted in the RECORD or read at the desk? 

Mr. V ANOE. Let it be inserted. I mean. an extract from it, one of the tables; I do not mean the whole of them. 

The table referred to is as follows: 

Table showing the present and proposed rates of duty 01i pocket knii·es. 

Present Foreign cost per Proportion duty (50per Proposed 

dozen. ofimports. cent.ad ttuty. 

valorem). 

Pe7 cent. $0.24 .... .................... 171 S0.12 .to. 2j 

0.52 •••.•.•••••••••••••• ! I 0.26 0. 76 0. 74 ....................... 50 0.37 0.87 1.00 ....................... 0.50 1.00 ], 22 •..••..•••...•.•••.•... l 0.61 1.11 1.58 ....................... i o. 79 1.79 1.82 ...................... 30 0.91 1.91 3.00 ..............•.•.••.•• 1.50 3.50 4.00 .............••..•.•..• 2.00 4.00 5.00 ..............•.•.•...• l 1 

2.50 4.50 

6.00 ... oo•M . 0•0 00 000000000 3.00 5.00 

7.00 ....................... 2-l 3.50 5.50 

8.00 ...................... I 4.00 6.00 

9.00 ............•.......... 4.50 6.50 

10.00 ... •················•· J 5.00 7.00 

Increase of !Proposed pro rosed duty over duty ad 

presentduty. valorem. 

Per cent. Pei· cent. 100 100 

- 100 150 135 120 100 100 80 91 125 113 

no 105 133 117 100 XX> 80 90 

66 83 57 78 50 75 45 72 40 70 

Figured out at the proper proportion of imports for each grade the duty ia over 110 per cent. ad valorem. 

M:r. BLAIR. Mr. President, I have here a letter from the governor 

of the State which I have in part the honor to represent, who is himself a manufacturer and in his own life bas illustrated the best that Ameri· 

can institutions can produce, and who as a business man is as thor· 

ougbly acquainted with the principles and the practical working of a protective tariff as any man within my knowledge. · He is engaged in 

this particular business of manufacturing cut·ery, and I have here, as I was saying, a short letter from him bearing upon this particular par~ 

agraph of the bill, which I will read to the Senate. It is addressed 

to my colleague, who, as we know, is absent on account of ill-health 

and who undoubtedly if present would present it himself. It has been 

in my possession for some time and I now give it to the Senate. It 

is dated at Antrim, l\Iay 17, 18go, and addressed to my colleague: 

ANTRIM, N. H., May 17, 1890. 

DxAn Sm: In the campaign of 18881 spoke with Hon. 0. C. Moore at Lebanon, 

N. H., on the tariff question. I took a. tablirknife with me and held it in my hand, and I said t'1e steel of · which that knife was ma.de would ha.ve cost, in 1860, 10 cents in gold per pound, 

and must he imported from England, as it was not made in this country; that the 

price continued the same for many yea.rs, or until some years a.fter the war. The 

price of 2'old, however, went up so high that we were obliged a.tone time to pay in American currency 25 cents a pound for this same steel, though it was regu- larly 10 cents a pound in gold. Then the tariff made it a little higher. 

The result was that steel industries commenced in this country, and al though onr people did not understand the business and could not make first-class steel 

in the beginning, yet the price being so high they could sell it at a large profit. 

The result was that Pittsburgh sprang up like a mushroom in the night, and 

the steel industry irrew wonderfully for a few years, until finally our people could make all the steel needed. .Alld their competition with each other w~ 

so great, their study of the business was so earnest, that they not only could 

make steel as good as it could be ma.de in any other part of the world, but also 

could make it so cheap that now I buy this steel, or steel of equal quality to 

that which cost 10 cents per pound before the war, for less than 3 cents per 

pound. 

If it had not been forthisgreatstimulusof our American steel industry caused 

by the high price of gold and the tariff, there is every reason to suppose that we should to-day be paying t.he same price that we paid in 1860. I said the Republican idea of the tariff was to admit without duty all such 

things as we needed and could not produce or find in this country. We use considerable block-tin, and, in accordance with this idea, block-tin comes in free, because, until recently, no tin mines had been discovered. We use, also, for common table cutlery, wood c~lled cocobolo, which grows in 

Central Africa, and ebony, which grows in l\Iadagascar and South America. in 

large quantities. Neither of these woods can be found within the limits of the 

United States; consequently, carrying out the same idea, our tariff laws, as they now st.and, admit these woods free of duty. Steel, block-tin, and wood compose most of the stock in the manufacture of 

table cutlery; consequently, if we bad absolute free trade to-day, we could 

scarcely save anything in the purchase of the stock of which these goods are made. 

In 1872, when I commenced the manufacture of cullery, the prices were jus 

about two and one -half times whatthey are to-day. If you make the tariff law sot.hat duties on cutlery are so high that nothing can be imported of the kind, the price of table cutlery would not advanc., ma- terially within the next twelve months in this country, while after that, with 

the competition which would be stimulated by our increased business here, the 

price would gradually begin to decline. \Ve should discover new methods of 

manufacture and be able to save largely in the labor cost of our goods, and 

within ten years I verily believe we should be able to produce cutlery in this 

country and compete in the markets of the world, and still maintain our pres ent labor prices. 

Mr. GIBSON. May I ask the Senator from New Hamp.shire a ques 

ti on right there? The writer of that letter says, if we increase the rates 

of duty on this cutlery even to the point of prohibition, the effect will 

not be to increase the price of the cutlery in the markets of our coun try. If that will not be the case, why should we increase the duty? 

Mr. BLAIR. The Senator has not quite caught the expression used 

in the letter. The writer says: 

It you make the tariff law so that duties on cutlery are so high thet nothing 

·. ~ 

·"' 

- .... ·. 

·. 

- # 

.• 

.· 

.... 
r 

·. 

i . 

.. 

. . -

8810 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 19, 

can bo imported of the kind, the price of table cuUery would not advance n;taterially within the next twelve months in this country, while after ihat, with the competition which would be stimulated by our increased business here, the price would gradually begin to decline. · 

The increase of duty in this paragrapb is not asked for the purpose 

of reaching the point of prohibition; he alludes to that only for the 

purpose of illastration. But this increased protection is asked in order 

to produce the proper development of the industry here, not to prohibit 

the introduction of a foreign article during that period! while the evolution is going on ill our own countryi so th.at while that process is going 

on, until we reach the point where we can manufactare to the extent of 

the entire demand of our own country, the consumer can receive the 

article at the present or a slightly increased price; he goes on to say, 

"while after that," although not greatly raised for the present even, 

the condition of the industry being such now--

While afteribat, with the -competition which would be stimulated by our in- creased business here, the price would gradually begin to decline. We should discover new methods of manufacture, and be able to save largely in the labor- cosL of our goods, and within ten years I verily believe we should be able to p.ro- duce cutlery in this country and compete in the markets of the world, and still maintain our present labor prices. At present, howeverAnd here comes the factAt present, however, with our labor twice or three times as high as it is in Germany, we can not meet the competition outside of this country. At least two-thirds of the cost, to-day, of the table cutlery is the manual labor employed in the production. For the interest of the consumer, of the dealer, and of the manufacturer and tbe lo.borer, I hope you will do all you can to maintain the present cutlel'y schedule as reported in the McKinley bill. 

I learn that some dealers in the \Vest and manufa.cturers in New York: are using every effort to reduce, if possible, this cutlery schedule. Do not be deceived. We only n.sk protection sufficient to enable us to furnish to our O\vn people the Sl,000,000 worth or so of cutlery that is now annuaJJy imported from foreign countries. 

Truly yours, D. H. GOODELL. Hon. WILLIAM E. CHANDLER, Washingtim, D. C. 

I shonld like to have the letter inserted in the RECORD. I do not 

desire to consume the time of the Senate. I think an emphatic, condensed statement of that kind is mnch better thnn any I could make 

myself. 

Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, I do not desire to discnss this question at this late boor, but I want to put in the RECORD a statement 

to go with the statement of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] 

about the failure on the part of our people to make good knives, etc. 

I find in the testimony taken before the British commission in 1886 

that there was considerable testimony given as io the Sheffield manuf!lCtures. It was decla.red there that there were some kinds of cutlery 

that we had sucaeeded in making superior to anything that they had 

maile in that country, and especially that was true of a class of scissors 

that we make in this country. It was also complained that there 

had been great frauds committed by manufacturers in using bad steel 

and cheap steel which they bad improperly marked. I only want to 

Yead a brief statement from one of tbe witnesses, or rather n. brief 

statement that follows the testimony: 

?iir. Wardley at the clo e exhibited some specimens of table-knives, several of which were marked "shear-steel 1' (which brand of steel would cost£45 per ton), and seve.ral were marked "warranted cast-steel" (which would cost, say, £32)., 

-when in reality they were all made from Bessemer, which would not cost more than £10 pe-r ton. Mr. Wardley subject.ed these specimens to a. test, and proved 

that for all practical purposes where evenness ot temper and a keen cutting 

edge is required this class of goods is useless. He also showed some samples 

iwhere the bolsters, Instead of being forged from the solid, were composed of a soft metal and run onto blades fiyed from. common sheet-steel scrap; these also bad mru-ks upon them which he thonght should only be on genuine arti- cles. Mr. 'Vardley also showed samples of handles purporting to be ivory and lmperior in quality, and he asked one of the commissioners to set fire to one of these hand!~. which he did with a match, thus showing the falsity of the arti- cle. 

filr. HAWLEY. Ur. President, I think there is no line of business 

in thi.q country in which there is so mnch old-line fraud and lyini as there is in the cutlery business. There are _sold in this country some 

thirty or forty different knives with names on them implying that they 

me made in the United States. We bad some of the guilty men in the 

Fin .. ince Committee room one day, and the only escape one of them 

could make from it was by saying what the Senator from Missouri bas 

repeated for him, that be sent over there and had his knives made in 

Germany, and hehada.rigbt to put anynameon them hepleased. He 

was not a knife-maker here, be was simply an importer, and he told 

-the knife-maker in Germany, where the workmen get a.bout 40 cents a 

day, to put on the ~ives "New England Cutlery Company," "Columbia Cutlery Company," "Granville Cutlery Company;" I <lo not 

_ know how many of them there are now. They a.re made by workmen 

working at starvation prices and made out of cheap material, and it 

onght to be a penitentiary offense to sell them anyhow, most of them. 

'That is the way many people get ah idea that we do not make a good 

knife in America. I do not know a concern in our State-others can speak for themselves-that makes any knives of that description, and 

l will find for the Senator from Missouri a knife just as good as that 

.Eodgers knife he held up. The Rodgers deserve their name. Their 

good reputation is a. dividend, and they de.serve it. So does Wosten-

.holm also. But I will give the Senator a knife from Connecticut with 

which he may sh...we himself for the rest of the season, or a pen-knife, 

or a. pocket-knife. 

Our men will be glad to be protected in n.n bonest name. They will 

make a knife and put upon it the genuine name of the company or place 

or both, and they will fight for that name. A leading casein the English reports is where a foreigner bears the title of a Connecticut manufacturing company, the Collins A"x Company. They sued the English 

mannfuctnrer for putting "Collins" upon their axes, even the small 

word ''Collins," and, all honor to the British court, they gained their 

suit after a long struggle. There are as many manufacturers in Connecticat in proportion to population and I think really more than you 

will find anywhere else who have made their fight for the name, for 

the man who starts to go in a business and stays in it knows that if the 

article he makes is always of high excellence by and by it wi11 be, as 

I said, a. dividend; he can sell for 6 per cent., or 5 per cent., or 10 per 

cent.. higher tban anybody else. That is the sort of knife we want to 

make. 

By the way, the Senator from North Carolina wanted to know how 

it was that higher duties brought about lower prices and how a high 

tariff could bring us lower prices. That is a perpetual mystery to him. 

Now, the fact is that the manufactmes of the United States as a rule, 

by and large, are cheaper than they were at the close of the war~ A:re 

they not? A.re not the great mass of articles that men use cheaper 

than they were before the war? The great mass of articles that the 

farmer boys, all his manufacturing implements of all sorts, the carpenters' tools, tools of every trade, whatever you want, are a great deal 

cheaper and the price has been steadily going down. 

.Mr. GRAY. .All over the world. 

Mr. HAWLEY. All over the world to some extent, but more 

markedly in the United States than anywhere else. The foreigner 

sees it because he says the Yankee never undertakes to manufacture a thing without getting up a newer process. That is true. You enact 

tbis duty upon tin-plate and yon will not see probably 100 pounds of 

it made as they make it in Europe now, b_y going around and clumsily 

dipping the plate into pickle two or three or fonr times. You will 

soon find a- ma.chine that will travel those plates through from one bath 

after another. You will find it done by machinery. You will fu:Jd the 

processimprovedand thepriceofyomtin broughtdown. The Yankee 

contractor never undertakes to make 10,000 of anything in the world 

without having ten or fifteen or twenty workmen in the shop, all the 

w bile studying as to how they can do it better and cheaper. 

In the great Colt establishment it was a humming hive of invention 

there for ten or fifteen years. All that time when the company were 

ma1.-ing tens and tens of thousands of pistols they used to sublet the 

job to contractors, among them, say, 10,000barrels, 10,000guards, 10,-

000 triggers, 10,000 hammers, etc., to a mechanic, and give him benchroom and power, and he getting so much apiece for them by the ten 

thousand spent his days and nigbts studying as to how he conid get 

20 per cent. more out of a certain machine in a day. The consequence was that nothing in the shop staid the same for three months at a time, 

and after a while they had the best arms-manufacturing machinery in 

the world. 

The concern in my own town bas sold to the German Government 

$3,000,000 worth of arms-making machinery because it was not only 

the best kind of machinery, but because it was the best made. They 

made many improvements there. Their reputation is very high. They 

can charge more. It is known all over Europe. In the language of 

the Englishman, the American invents as the Greek sculptures or the 

Italian paints. It is genius; and we have had the great statesmanship 

and common sense to fo~ter all this by an admirable patent law, which 

has been cheap as dirt com pared with the patent laws of foreign countries. 

Now, give us a chance. Put up a fence for a time; keep out not a 

legitimate competition. I do not care if the margin is so close that some 

ot the foreign goods get in, perhaps so much the better; but it is no fair 

fight when people are compelled to work for 10 or 15 or20 cents a day 

in other countries. rhold it is worth while that we should establish 

those industries in this country • 

Mr. GRAY. The Senator from Conn.:cticut, if he will permit me, 

says keep up the fence for a time. Has he ever undertaken to indicate how Jong th.at time is ro be? · 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, I can go aroun1l the country and find fences 

taken down. I find there has not been a tariff enactment since the 

war that bas not put additional articles on the free-list. 

Mr. VANCE. What has been put uron the free-list that is manufactured in this counh'y ? 

1\fr. HAWLEY. I can find some articles, I suppose, by looking at 

it. I should think I might from the length of the free-list. 

Ur. VANCE. I should be •ery glad to see anything put on the free~list that competes with anything manufactured fa this country. 

l\lr. HAWLEY. One partial answer to some things that have been 

stated is the fact of wh· ch I run just now reminded, that as we invent the~e improved machines tbey steal them a.broad or boy them, and 

then set their men at work for 40 or 50 cents a day making the article. 

Of course thati.s not exactly a fair competition. We have brought down 

the price of articles all along the whole line, notoriously, for example, in 

Bessemer steel, where the moment we began to make it our men began 

.. 
·. 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8811' 

to improve in the processes-all the iron manufacturers know it perfectly well-and they have have been improving the whole line of 

work. Now, here is The London Ironmonger of April 2, 1889: 

Many classes of cutlery wages are deplorably low, about25percent. lessthan a fair average. 

London Ironmonger of October 26, 1889: 

Six dozen can be made in a day of fourteen hours, and the workmen receive 2s. net for a day of fourteen hours. 

Sheffield Independent of March 16, 1889: 

Pocket-knife grinders are working a. full week for 15s. The Lords Commiltee has been taking the evidence of men and women em- ployed at Cradley Heath and Halesowen. the chain and nail districts, respectively. The evidence is in harmony with all that has been said about the hard- worked and badly paid men and women of the Black country. I find, however, some men can earn 15s. per week by working long hours, but I venture to say not for seventy-four hours per week, as do some spring- knlfe cutlers in Sheffield, who e wages are but 13s.6d. per week. That table-knife hafters are working full time for 14s. per week. That some are working without a fan to carry off the injurious bone dust, which depresses the spirit and makes the condition of employment almost unbearable. That the spring-knife cutlers (vide report 'Vadsley cutlers' meeting) are work- ing sixty hours per week for 10s. and l2s. That many table-blade grinders are only earning J.b. and 15s. per week. 

Mr.VANCE. Mr. President, the position the Senator from Connecticut says this country is in is a good deal like that of the bully who 

was boasting of his manhood, that he could just whip all creation; be 

could strike harder blows and he could strike more of them; he could 

scratch and he could gouge; he could bite worse than any human 

being upon the face of the earth, and be never bad met his match yet 

or a man who could stand before him. Or, like the old Irish widow, 

who was groaning over the death ot her husband who had been blown 

up by a keg of powder iu a mine, and after conjuring him and the 

story of .his lovely domestic qualities, she dried her tears and said: 

"Divil a man could ever stand before him in the mine. Surely, God 

.Almighty had to take advantage of him with a keg of powder." 

[Laughter.] And yet, although these countrymen of his are so full of 

invention, and so full of skill, and so full of energy, and so full of industry, and can beat all the workmen of the world, he says, "Put up 

the fence; do not let them come in, if you please; keep them off; I 

could whip them until their mammies would not know them when 

brought home on a shutter, but do not let them come in; keep the 

peace; pot up that fence." 

Ab, ])-Ir. President, it is child's play to talk that way. The question 

is not what American skill and genius and invention can do. They are unrivaled before the world. Hut the question is shall this great and 

maJ?;nificently organized country for human labor and for human production acknowledge it.a inferiority with the same breath with which 

it claims its superiority and beg that the pauper of Europe and his 

production should be kept away, that be should have a ·fair field for 

awhile? They never will mention a time when they are willing to 

let the fence down. They have been talking that for one hundred 

years, since the time this Government was bor.n. Since American political society was organized they have been Wking about that good 

time coming when we should be independent of all the world and be 

able to set everybody at defiance. That time was coming, but it never came. Like to-morrow, it is always in the future. 

They want these duties raised now to 150 per cent., some of them, none of them to less than 70 per cent. upon cutlery. When they want 

the duties raised they say they mast have the tariff. When they want 

to boast of the ingenuity and the skill and the invention of their people, 

they say those have made prices low. Now, either the high duties 

have made everything low or they have not, one or the other. If they 

have made everything low, then I do not wish to hear any more of the 

boasting about the superiority of Americans. If the inventions of 

science,-if the skill of our people and the genius and the energy of our people have made prices low, then let us stand by that mid have no more to say about the tariff. We certainly can not logically claim that 

both have been the cause. Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, what sort of a country does the 

Senator want to have this to be anyhow? I do not know what his 

theory is. Those gentlemen have a certain advantage of us on the 

other side. There are protectionists all around among them, pretty 

nearly straight-out protectionists. There are men who believe in a revenue tariff with incidental protection. There are men who believe 

in a little protection for their particular localities and none elsewhere; 

·and then there are free-traders among them. But there is not a. man among them who will draught a full tariff bill and offer it here and say 

that that is the Democratic idea, for he does not know what that idea. 

is. It is a little different from the one we propose; that is all. 

Nearly every whine and cavil and growl and fault that they have 

had over our bill here could have been applied to the Mills bill itself, 

because that had big duties. It left a great many duties as they were; 

the changes were trifling; in some it clipped off a toe-nail here or something of that sort and called it a reform bill. They said it was because 

they could not do any better at the time; but I should like to have some man draw one and then hang it up for a specimen of what they 

would do if they had absolute power. 

Their argument is substantially this-it can n~t be avoided-that if 

anybody in God's world can make anything che.aper than it can be 

made here, it is our duty to buy it. Now, if there is a meaner word 

in the English language than the word "cheap," I do not know what 

it is. It is mean and nasty, the word "cheap" is. Cheap labor means cheap clothes, cheap food, cheap lodging, cheap morals, and cheap 

human devils. That is what cheapness means. Are we to have it? 

Break down your barriers. Yon do not want the Chinaman in here; 

you have forbidden him; but now carry your machines abroad, and 

they will go by and by to the Chinaman and he will work for 4 or 5 

cents a day with these magnificent American machines, and then be 

will come with ship-loads of stufft-0 sell at less than Europeans or Americans or anybody else. 

Let the Chinaman come, then. That is the Democratic doctrine, is 

it? If it is not, I do not know wha.t is. Yon do not want poor foreign laborers coming over here. You are passing statutes here, I con- sider dirty statutes some of them, to keep men out. Hereis a man in 

Europe now who is a good tradesman, a good mechanic, and he knows 

he can come here and get $50 a month at his trade. He makes a bargain with any one of you gentlemen to come here and he comes here. 

Is not that a pretty good kind of an immigrant? But you keep him 

out, and we bring in ship-loads of men who do not know what they · can do or what they are going to do, and they come in free. You had 

better let the laziest and lousiest of all come here free, because he would 

learn after awhile; and it would be better than life in his own coun- tr_y, where he works for next to nothing, than to send his goods here 

free. Yet you would"take the tariff off and let those cheap goods come in. Is that your logic? What is your t.ariff to be and what sort of a country do you want to have, anyhow? You talk about the British 

tariff. I have found but one man on that side who had pluck enough 

to say that was a model tariff, and that was my friend from North 

Carolina, and he thought that was the best tariff there was going. 

Sir, the Lord Almighty gave us within this country almost everything. I loathe the old Chinese-wall humbug. Sir, build it, and 

baild it a hundred miles high, and we shall live within it fifty years 

and come out rich and fat and happy. You will not have much coffee or much tea; you will not have much silk goods; but there is nothing 

mechanical, nothing essential to human happiness, progress, and prosperity that we would not be able to make within that time. Shut 

Great Britain up for six months and half her. peopl!'l would be in the 

grave. And yet you think the same economic system is good for the 

two countries. 

Great Britain by her own statistician says that she has to bring in 

93 per cent. of her raw material from abroad. The same statistician 

in the same paragraph says America gets the same figure of raw material 

from within her own bounds; and yet gentlemen argue from the British 

tariff to ours. The Englishman could not live a week under ou.r tariff, 

and therefore having cut his tail off or it having been cut off by nature, 

he wants us to cut ours off also. He can not raise half enough to feed 

him. Ninety per cent. of his materials he gets from elsewhere. He 

has to be fed by commercei he has-to live by commerce; and so what 

he has to do he thinks other people ought to do. He goes around the 

world with his ships bullying and annexing and controlling little na- tions, inferior peoples, everywhere expanding his territory, or as one of their statesmen said, " John Bull thinks he is increasing his glory 

by increasing his burdens; he is undertaking to cultivate patches all over the world where bis Lancaster men can sell goods.." That is what 

"John Bull " thinks, and the drum that accompanies the sun around 

the world is the drum. of commerce, the drummer. That is the statesmanship of Great Britain. 

They have to live so. On the other hand we have to live in the 

other direction. If we obey the plain intimation ofwhatis the will of 

the Almighty in giving us these possibilities, it is our duty to cultivate them. Says one of these Englishmen-they occasionally let slip 

the truth when they are arguing about this country-speaking of the 

United States and its glory and progress and material possibilities, 

'' Blessed is the nation that is self-contained and need not be al ways 

asking what other peoples are doingY We can be self-contained, and 

there was no more glorious vision ever placed before a statesman than 

the vision of what these United States shall be under such a policy as the Republican policy in all matters of justice and of material prog- ress such as this country will be, with a variety of industries. The· 

diversification of industry is absolutely essential to the moral and 

mental health, and prosperity as well, of the country. 

The country that is all farmers is beb ind the world. S nrely there is not 

enough to develop all there is in the man the.re. Find a.purely agricultural country, and you al ways find one which is un(ortunate in many respects. Take some ofyourWesternStates, where all you ha.veto do is to 

plow and to sow corn and wheatandgatbercornand wheat, to raise some beef and raise some pork. That is substantially all you have got to do; 

unless you go to work under the tariff and esta.blish industries among 

yourselves there, the whole familyisnotatworkbalfthe year. What 

is to be done in winter bot take care of your cattle and horses, etc.? 

You do not spend the winter in manufacturing your implements of 

agriculture, as they used to do in New England, making plows and 

rakes, and all that; no, you can buy them or anything you want with a few bushels of wheat. Your wheat and y"our corn and your herds of 

,, -· 

., .. 

... 

.I 

' " 

~-

., -

--
• 1' 

. · 

... 

-. 

I~ 

8812 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA~E. AUGUST 19, 

beeves will buy all you want. You raise them. What do you do with your 

winter months? .Are your boys all fitted just for farming and nothing 

else? Are they all made like the ten million rakes they turn out from 

the factory ? 

No, sir; three-quarters of the boys in your houses do not like it and 

want to get away. Where do they go? Onto another farm? No; 

by and by one of them gets down into a factory somewhere and looks 

into the door on great steam engines and hears the roar of machinery 

and it is a trumpet to him. He says, "Dad "-and the old dad did 

not think he was worth raising before-" I know where I am going;" 

and by and by he is a first-rate mechanic and perhaps the owner of a factory. Another boy, where there is a diversified industry, finds an- other work to do, and another, another; and all trades of all kinds are open to the men of all possibilities; and the consumer and producer are brought door to door, and that whole social and material or~anization becomes like one grand organ, where every pipe is there and every 

pipe has its use. That is the result of a dfrersified industry. Yon can not have a good people without it, and yon can not have a prosperous people without il. The infinite rot of the glories of commerce I am tired of. What 

good is there to carry a thing 3,000 miles to get it turned over into 

another thing to bring 3,000 miles back to the man who made the first 

thing? 

But it is quite wrong, they tell us, to have both operations performed 

in the United States. Why, there are two r)ianges, two complete 

transformations of capital when the original thing is sold as a raw ma- terial and as a finished product; one man turns it over to some neighbors inn. neighboring establishment and it comes out a finished product with another operation-two uses of capital. "White wings of 

commerce" and all that sort of thing; they are beautiful if you can not get along without them, but what this world has been trying to 

do for the last hundred years is to get rid of transportation. 

The genius of the world has been devoted to the escaping from this 

calamity of commerce; I would rather use the word '' transportation.'' 

All the hens cackle when there is an improvement in railway engineering or in steam-ships, a little less coal, a better grade, different kinds 

of boiler of some sort or other, an improvement in the track, and every 

successive improvement, little in itself, is heralded as an especially 

good thing. What comes of it? "By and by, instead of 2 cents a ton a. mile for freight it is a cent, and then it is a half a cent, and now it is 

down to four IDills. What does that do? The place that was a thousand miles from New York is then 250 miles from New York, is it not, so far as dollars are concerned? Instead of running even the 250 miles 

to do the transformation of those products made within your own neighborhood and town, these changes at short range were going on, and this 

blessed thing of transportation, this glorious thing called, yes, transportation, commerce-it would be commerce then from hand to bandthis glorious beauty, this desirable thing, toting about, would be practically eliminated out of civilization. 

Mr. VEST. Mav I ask the Senator from Connecticut whether he 

voted for the bill tO subsidize ships? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I believe I did, with great pleasure. We have got 

to trade with some one and got to trade a good deal, thanks to freetraders; and besides there are some things we can not produce, and we are very glad to get them, and some people want to go traveling, and 

I am glad to give them an opportunity to go in American ships also. 

But the ~entleman can not deny that it is an improvement not to carry a baO' to the mill with a stone in one side and grain in the other, and 

yet that is the upshot of unnecessary commerce; it amounts to that. 

It is two payments for freight when neither is nec~ry. The duty of 

these United States is, with malice towards none and charity for all, 

to see if we can not produce within our own lines everything that 

everybody wants, and so the producer and consumer shall be hand to 

hand, and so the man, whatever he does, shall find that he will have 

something to do in some chorus of industry. That is what we ought 

to make out of this country. 

Now, either say yes or no; say" protection" or say no "protection." 

I dislike the half and half business any bow. The man who says he 

is for a revenue tariff with incidental protection yields the whole 

principle. Do not be a coward about it. He yields the whole principle. Incidental protection, half and half, an inch of protection when 

another inch will be life and half an inch is death-that is the sort of 

thing. Be one thing or the other, I say. Yes, incidental protection is 

incidental robbery (thank you, Mr. JONES), and incidentalsmall profit fo~~ . 

So, practically, yon are for protection as a reasonable protection. I 

do not want an unreasonable one. I criticise this bill as we go along, 

from paragraph to paragraph, and I am glad to hear some of you do so, 

and I think I shall vote for some changes. I think, perhaps, some clauses I would have drawn differently; but if you agree that it is not a crime to take care of your own household, then you need not quarrel about the duties too closely, one w3y or another. You will get 

along with perfect harmony if your heart is right on that subject; and 

if you want to have an America worth inhabiting you will not have 

any difficulty. 

Mr. YANCE. I have listened with ·great interest to the Senator 

. ' 

from Connecticut, and I have been enlightened in many respects. He 

told us, among other things, that he despised cheap thin~; that cheap- ness was meanness and nastiness-badness, nastiness-and yet he has 

just been boastinp; how the genius of this country ha.d made things 

cheap, and that all the genius of Connecticut, I am to understand, is 

directly in the direction of nastiness and meanness; the genius ot this 

country tends that way, and the eloquence of her statesman is heard 

here for the purpose of advocating meanness and nastiness. I had a sort 

of suspicion of that, but I was too polite to say so. 

Mr. President, when an orator undertakes to putSenators on this side, 

who are in favor of as free trade as the necessities of the Government 

will permit, in the position of believing that no manufactory whatso- ever could flourish without the imposition of high duties, he yields the 

whole question. His whole argument assumes that if the policy of the 

Democratic party was to prevail there would not be a factory in the 

United States. His whole argument assumes that, from the very nature 

of manufacturing in America, the operator can not be satisfied with the 

price which is fixed by the normal demand for the article, but that it 

must be enhanced by artificial laws, which, strange to say, these artificial laws do not enhance a~cording to their doctrine, when he must 

know that the greatest manufacturing nation of this world or of any 

other world that we have any knowledge of is a country that bas ab.solute free trade in regard to manufactured products. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Then I understand the Senator to repeat, as hedid 

awhile before, tbai the British tariff brings the greatest prosperity to 

the country. I want him to stick to that and put it in the next platform . Mr. VANCE. The British tariff, as far as I remember what it is, 

is one that is imposed upon articles which yield revenue to the Government, and not revenue for private parties. The protective tariff of 

Republican politicians in the United States is one which yields private 

profit and revenue for the pockets of the operators, and not for the 

Treasury, and that your own Supreme Court has said is not legislation, but it is robbery under the forms of Jaw; and for once I agree with 

that Republican Supreme Court. 

If we had a tariff levied upon those things which our people con- sume that did not compete and if we bad a tariff levied upon the in- comes of your millionaires and they were made to pay to the support 

of the Government in proportion to their property which is protected 

by the Government, we should come nearer having a perfect financial 

system than we have here now by the distance which is between the 

heavens and the earth. That is my opinion about a tariff. 

But I was going on further to say that in pursuit of the idea that 

cheapness was nastiness and meanness, I had discovered 1rom the eloquent speech of the Senator from Connecticut the secret of the imposition of the highest duties on the cheap article.a and the lowest duties on the high-priced articles. I have found now why it is that Ameri- can Senators in the nineteenth century, in the midst of our civilization, 

in the midst of the humanitarian sentiment of Christianity that pervades us all, would let in the crepe silk shawl of the millionaire's wife 

at 50 per cent. duty and put 115 per cent. upon the coarse wools that 

wrap the poor man's wife and protect her from the cold; and it is that 

cheap wool is mean and na,sty. That is the secret of it., I suppose. 

I have shown in the course of this debate, or attempted to show 

upon every schedule, that the same policy was pursued. The little 

boy with his Barlow knife has to pay nearly twice as roach per cent. as the ~entleman who, like the Senator from Missouri, displayed a two 

dollar and a half Rodgers knife. He did not want to carry a cheap 

and nasty knife, but the little fellow h!\8 to carry a 10 cent Barlow, 

and the Government comes down upon him because Senators on that 

side despise cheapness; it is mean; it is nruity. 

Well, Mr. President, it is a matter of taste. It can not be called a matter of political economy, for there is no economy in it. It is a perversion of every principle of justice and humanity upon which this 

bill is framed. 

I believe, sir, that is all I 'vant to say. 

l\Ir. HAWLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina 

knows perfectly well what I meant by "cheap and nasty." I meant a country where people live as his slaves used to live and as slaves live 

abroad now. I meant a country where people are much better off than 

they were, who get 20 cents a day and live in hovels and have imperfect 

clothing and no schools, perhaps, at all. There is a cheap country, is 

it not? Can not the poor man live cheaply there? No doubt he can., 

What his neighbor makes for 20 cents he can buy cheaply, and the re- sult of it is a wretched country. The word "cheap" has been misused and abused until it gives to one an idea of the most unfortunate 

and degraded people. 

There is nothing cheaper in the world than can be found in China, 

and yet probably there is no degradation in the world that equals it. 

There may be nothing cheaper, perhaps, unless it be in Africa, where 

it does not take any work at all to live, where you may lie on your 

back and eat the fruit that drops from the tree. Is there a cheap country anywhere that is a desirable country, that you think is a happy 

country socially? Not one. The Senator speaks of the :British tarift. This is not the time for 

that. It may be that I shall make another day's work of that. Tho 
•' \ 

.. '· . -- ........ · . . \ . , .. . 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 8813 

whole British organiza.tion is obliged to take money out of the people 

after the fashion of a poll-tax, man by man. The British tariff is only on four classes of articles, leaving out gold and silver plate, which is 

a small matter here. It is on the liquors, and on the tobaccos, and on the coftee and on the tea, and the duty is the same. It is not an ad 

valorem duty, it is a specific duty, and the poor man uses just about as many pounds of tea and as many pounds of coffee and about as many pounds of tobacco as the rich man. The rich man will smoke $2 a pound tobacco and the poor man will 

smoke 25 cents a pound tobacco, and each will pay his 10 or 15 cents 

duty, or much higher than that. It is 10 cents on tea. So, as nearly as they can make it, it is a poll-tax. In the same manner there is a revenue upon liquors, etc. The rich people do not pay anything, I 

tell the Senator from North Carolina, for buying silks or tapestries or embroideries. 

l\Ir. VANCE. They make them pay an income tax? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes; that is the only case where they aim to get 

something out of the rich man. But, as I say, that is too much of a temptation. I can not go into it now. 

There being no objection, the bill (S. 4312) to provide American 

registers for the steamers Stroma and Marco Aurelia was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed .. 

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 otMr purposes. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays having been or- dered on the pending amendment, is the Senate ready for the question? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I move that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed t-0; and (at 6 o'clock and 6 minutes p. m.) 

the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, August 20, 1890, 

at 10 o'clock a. m. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. TUESDAY, .Attgttst 19, 1890. 

Mr. HOAR. I ask leave to give a notice. I desire to have printed , C 

for the information of the Senate two amendments which I propose to • D T~e House met at 12 o clock m. Prayer by Rev. J. H. UTHBERT, 

offer to the resolution submitted by the Senator from Pennsylvania • · . d d ed 

[Mr. QUAY], which I desire to give notice of now, and have them The Journal of the proceedmgsof yesterday was rea an approv • 

printed. CHANGE OF REFERENCE. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments will be received, if The SPEAKER. The letter of the Secretaryot the Interior embodied 

there be no objection. Co I alid Mr. BLAIR. Let them be read. in Executive DocnmentNo. 457 was sent to the mmittee on nv: 

Mr. HOAR. One of them is a substitute for which I gave notice the Pensions, but should have been referred to the Committee on Military other day. Affairs, as it relates only incidentally to invalid pensions. In the ab- sence of objection, the change of reference will be made. COURTS IX :\IISSOURI. 

Mr. ALDRICH rose. Mr. VEST. I anticipate the motion of the Senator from Rhode 

Island, and I ask him to let the tariff bill be laid aside for a moment 

until I can report a bill which I am compelled to ask the passage of 

this afternoon. 

1\1r. ALDRICH. J yield to the Senator from Missouri for that purpose. 

Mr. VEST. I am authorized by the Committee on the Judiciary to 

report a bill favorably; and I desire to say a word in regard to the exigency of its passage. 

It is a bill entirely local, in regard to holding a term of the Federal 

court in October in Kansas City or in Springfield, Mo., and nnless the 

bill is passed now it will create great confusion and delay. The bill was drawn at the instance of the judge of the coart and I ask for its 

present consideration. 

The bill (S. 4335) to change the time of the sessions of the circuit 

and district courts for the western district of Missouri was read tbP-

.first time by its title. 

The PRESIDENT pro len~pore. The Senator from Missouri asks that 

the unfinished business may be informally laid aside that the bill just 

reported from the Committee on the Judiciary may be considered. It 

will be read at length for information, subject to objection. 

The bill was read the second time at iength, and considered as in 

Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

CHARLES F. :BOWERS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following 

message from the President of the United States, which was read: To thB &mrite of the Un iterl States: In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant (the House of 

Representatives concurring) I return herewith the bill (S.1293} entitled ".A.nact 

for the relief of Charles F. Bowers." 

BENJ. H.A.RRISO!\. EXECUTIVE 1\lL'iSIOX. Jime G, 1890. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This message has been lying on the 

table. The bill to which it refers was defective in containing no provision for an appropriation, and a bill upon the same subject has been 

passed containing the clause that was omitted. If there be no objection, the Chair will direct the signature of the President of the Senate 

to be erased, anrl the bill will then be returned to the House of Represeniatives. The Chair hears no objection. 

STE.A.MER STRO::\IA A.ND l\IARCO AURELIA. 

Mr. GIBSON. I ask leave to call up a bill reported from the Committee on Commerce by the chairman of the committee this morning, 

with a recommendation that it pass. It is a bill to provide a register 

for the steamers Stroma and Marco Aurelia. These two steamers were 

wrecked in the Gulf of Mexico and they were repaired at the expense 

of more than two-thirds of their value, and under the law would be 

entitled to this register from the Treasury Department, but theywere 

wrecked more than three miles from the shore. and therefore it re- quires an act of Congress, which is recommended by the Committee on Commerce. I ask for the present consideration of the bill, which 

is Senate bill 4312. 

"' ,. 

, ' 

There was no objection, and it wa.s so ordered. 

ANN BRYAN. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House a message from the President of the Unit.ed States, returning, in compliance with the concur- rent resolution of the House of the 23d instant, the bill (H. R. 5702) 

granting a pension to Ann Bryan. 

Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be recommitted 

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The motion wa.s agreed to .. 

PRIVILEGES, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the resolution (S. R. 116) 

extending the privileges of the Library of Congress to the members and 

secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission. . M:r. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent to take up this resolution for present consideration, a~ the 

House committee has reported a similar resolution in identically the same terms. · 

The SPEAKER. The joint resolution will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: · 

Beil resolved, etc., That the Joint Committee of Congres.'t on the Library be 

a.uthorized to extend the use of the books in the Library of Congress to the 

members and secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission resident in 

Washington, on the same conditions and restrictions as members of Congress are allowed to use the I~ibrary. 

l\Ir. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I am also authorized by the com- mittee to offer the following amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

.A.mend by inserting, a.fter the word" Commission," in the fourth line, the 

words "and the Chief of Engineers of the Corps of Engineers, United States 

Army." 

The amendment was adopted. 

The joint resolution as amended was ordered to a third reading; and 

being read the third time, was passed. 

The title was amended to conform. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania, moved to reconsider the vote by 

which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion 

to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported 

that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following 

titles; when the Speaker signed the same: 

A bill (H. R. 8584) to increase the pension of Edward Healy; 

A bill (H. R.10126) making appropriations for the current and con- tingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty 

stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year ending June 30, 

1891, and for other purposes; and 

A bill (H. R. 11491) for the relief of the estate of Charles F. Bowers. 

FOG-SIGNAL, BOOTH :BAY HARBOR. 

Mr. DING LEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge 

the C-0mmittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union from the 

further consideration· of the bill (S. 3064) to establish a fog-signal at 

~ . ·' 

, 

··, !-• •• 

·. 

·-

', 

.... 

. ~. 

... . - . 

, 

•• f 

·-

.. ,,