Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-07-16
Total, 81 so % 267 6S a. so pa % 129 81 10
High. LOao. High. Loo. High LOD. High. Lo,o

81 90 AZ 1S5 49, % 3S7
Comparing 1916 with 1912, each section of the
country shows a handsome relative gain in favor of
low duties except the South, where there is gain of
two votes in the opposite direction.
Nine States, viz. New Hampshire, South Carolina,
Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri Michigan, Illinois,
Florida and Texas, are unanimous in favor of the
present bill, far represented by actual votes and
six States unanimously against it, viz Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New jersey,
and Delaware.
New York is tie-16 for and 16 against. Pretty
well for State which has always gone strong here
tofore for a high tariff She gave only votes
against the tariff of 1876 only against that of 1924
only against that of 1892 and only 10 against that
of 1912.
Mr. Wilmot, of Bradford and Susquehannah coun-
ty, gives the only free trade vote from Pennsylvania
In 1912 there not solitary vote from that State
against the bill.
The Washington Union estimates that it will pro-
duce revenue of S2S,000,000. Gross revenue is
probably here intended. Our Washington cOrrespon-
dent says,-"According to Mr.. McKays estimate,
the bill, as amended, would give twenty-three mil
lions and half of net revenue which, with the adj
dtion of two millions and four hundred thousand dol
lars from lands, would make revenue of S25 900,-
COO. Mr.. Mckay thinks this will be sufficient for
necessary purposes, the Mexican included but
should the war expenditures require moSe, he will,
under the instruction of the committee of Ways and
Means report bill authorizing the issue of Treasury
Notes. There is scarcely doubt, according to pre-
sent appearances that there will be speedy
sity for such bill.
SHOW far this new tariff bill is of an ant-reStrct-
i've character, is question of dispute. 1t is
free trade measure TO this extent,-that 1t throws
nearly the whole revenue of the country upon pro-
tected articles and substitutes Gd UdlOre protective
duties for specific protective duties. 1t may be said
that the bill is great improvement on the tariff of
1912, and that 1t is approximation to system of
a more liberal kind, which must ultimately prevail,
and would prevail but for the existing state of
son the morning of the day 0ast Friday) when
the was TAKEN generally believed that the
Ohio delegation had to the phrase attributed by
Mr.. Rathbun to Mr.. Wick, been whipped in" and
that they would for the BILL and that its passage
was certain. The great difficulty apprehended was
that the decision in favor Of making salt free of duty
and repeating the fishing bounties, would hazard the
bill, both in the House and Senate; for it would ali
enate New Hampshire and Maine The democratic
members found that they had committed fatal
in excepting Salt from the duty of twenty per cent,
and in repeating the fishing bounies. They there
fore proceeded to repair it, which very difficult
matter The struggle that ensued, was very ami
mated and close one.
"The salt duty, when struck out of Schedule D.,
still remained among the non-enumerated articles,
and Inject to duty of twenty per cent. But the
committee, by another amendment, have put salt on
the free list.
1.-THE House concurred with the committee in the
amendment striking out salt from Schedule d. 105 to
95,-the Wings and opponents of the bill voting in
the affirmative, with view to the defeat of the
sure, by rendering it odious to the Maine and New
Hampshire members. A Western Democratic men,
ber (AIr. Bowling seeing that the bill destroyed
promptly moved reconsideration. This was lost
l0l to los.
''Next, the question arose concurring in the
amendment putting salt in the free list. This
carried,-105 to 102. So it appeared that the loss
of the bill was certain, unless of the free trade
men would give way.
"a motion to reconsider This vote was carried
lO4 to lO2 Then came the question, "Shall salt be
put in the free list p? and it decided in the mega
tve,-yeas lO4, nays los. Thus by one vote the bill
was saved.
1.-THE House then refused to concur with the COM
mittee in the amendment striking out tie provision
for the fishing bountieS and the contest iras ouer"