The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-14

fHIslnH
revenue it is utterly impossible arrange it M Syod
incidental protection But understand my ffiend from
Ohio he is for sucha measure as will give full protection
to domestic manufactures This importsnt consider
alton with hun Protection is the principle revenue the
incident, Ia bis theory.
Mr. CAMPBELL, Of Ohio believe we have the consti-
uioal power TO pass bill for the purpose of protection
alone. But propose nothing Of the kind agree with
my colleague the committee tia. il is important that
We should deplee the treasury and do it speedily and m
doing that desire simply to discriminate for the purpose
Of protecting all the industrial branches Of this country
and not TO discriminate, the gentleman has proposed
and the tariff Of ls4e has done unjusy and in man
oppressive to the great interests of this country
Mr. LETCHER shall endeavor, before get through
TO demonstrate that the gentleman from Ohio is for pro-
tectng the manufacturers and not the farmers mechanics
apd laboreis Under his bill the benefits go the
feturersthe burdens fall the consumers. In the first
place find that the schedule of ono hund cd per cent in
the tariff of 1896 which applies brandy distilled spirit
&C, is reduced fifty per cent in his present BILL always
supposed that the doctrine of the school OF politicians to
which the gentleman from Ohio belongs was that uxures
should be made certain extent to bear re burdens of
the government Bat it seems that he is willing 70 make
a reduction of fifty per cent upon liquors. codias, and
other luxures of that character wbe articles of prime ne
cessy remain at the present rate duty cannot account
for tits uiess it he that my friend from Ohio consult
ing his taste and my own 1T hs time this reduction was
proposed Laughter
MIR. CAMPBELL OF Ohio was certainly cohsulttag
the taste OF my colleague, we'll that OF my
became satisfied that the effect of the tarii Of 1916 to
bring int, this country medeatcd drugs and aduterated
spiris which were productive of great evils supposed
inasmnch my colleague anxious to reduce the
nue. If he could have purer and better arceone mere
paatabe his accomplish the time the
object he fai in view he would unite with me. Laugh
ter
Mr. LETCHER. / am mitch grati6ed to find that my
friend very consderate but still think he will as
certain about the time get to the country, II His bill
shall become law, that the people will have something 10
say about this question of taste and will demand the
which justify large reduction OF the duties
upon liquors while iron and the manufactures Of iron
untouched So far adulterated and drugged liquor
concerned, my observation is that the dealers import
f.la ptirt 10 Hptnn ohllfn qA nf
gets here The vendors OF liquors. like all other classes OF
traders desire to make large profits possible aad
largely their profits Such has been the past OF
many of these liquor Dealers and such will be In future
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee With the permission of tue
gentleman from Virginia, will tell him how am in
formed they manufacture brandy here. A man goes
France and buys fine brandy has it put up at sort o!
mock auction, bids it of at low price brings it here al
that invoice, aud pays duty only upon that invoice s
Mr.. LETCHER. | have doubt my friend from Ten
nessee as looked into all these matters, aughte and
am obliged 10 him for the suggestion he has made.
Mr. EUSTlS would ask my friend from Virginia
whether the duty of hundred per cent upon brandy
has been the greatest nducement to the manufacture
OF false brandy in the United States .g..a
Mr., LETCnER. l do not know get good brandy
when desire il, but it costs pretty strong price
The schedule is b at thirty per cent 1t contains
the articles which embraced in The thirty yper-cent.
schedule of the tariff of 1886 with transfer to it OF
of the ARTICLES from the higher schedule of tory per cent
do not hk there has been any transfer from schedules
lower than thirty per cent TO that rate of duty The
schedule are. ~ .Naa
Aabas.er and spar ornaments anchovIes ,rdines and
all ether Hsh preserved in oil comts sweetmeas or
r. e e @
spd S s1 :. Of proyasd sss' an sna
not otherwise provided for &c Ca
oSaeco :na Ind wines Hargandy Champagne Caret Ma
deira PORT Sherry and all other vines and limitations OF
Wines"
Nearly ALI these articles enumerated are known luxu-
es and been reduced rs per cent by their transfer
from the forty to the thirty schedule Let the
committee bear this fact in mind we proceed with the
examination Of the bill OF the majority.
MY friend from Ohio Mr.. CAMpBELL says that in the
preparation of this bill he has been looking to all the great
interests Of the couhry that he has been looking to the
agricultural interests TO the manufacturing interests ana
TO a the important interests of this hand. We have no
article in this whole country that is in more general use
which enters more largely into the consumption OF ts
people of all classes than IRON ana the manufactures OF
ron and yet my friend from Ohio does not propose 70
make any change in the duty now imposed on the article
Of iron Of any character description whatsoever, for
the relief Of the farmer the mechanic or the la6orer
But how is it in regard to another article Take for
example the item of hemp which, under the bil s re-
duced from thirty TO ten per cent This is production OF
the West and has as strong claim protection
the article Of iron Why is it struck down to ten per
cent? If the great object Is to protect MI the interests
eqaally and fr Of this land, why is it that so far rs
iron s concerned there is not some reduction made IN a
particular article Why is it that the gentleman from
Ohio for striking down sugar also to len per cent an
article produced exclusively in the South, WHILE at the
same time he 10 for retaining the duty on iron which
is produced almost exclusively in the middle and northern
States Why this mvdious discrimination in duties i'm
posed leading articles chiefly produced in different sec
tions of the nation s.t. 81. 4.
Mr.. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. / would simply say very
brefyfor do not want to nke up the TINS of the gen.
tenanhat under the tariff of 1886 the production of
sugar has proved to be totally inadequate to the wants Of
the country. ~ za5 f4sa+s ea
Mr. LETCHER, The production Of sugar is like every
thing else subject to ucuaton from another
doubt not from my observation and reading that there
have been fluctuations which have operated the sug
crop OF the southern portion Of the Union and which have
perhaps for the last year or two somewbat reduced the
quantity compared with the product of previous years.
But how does the argument Of my friend from Ohio Mr.
CAMpBgLL work. He he will not protect sugar be-
enough Of it produced in the South for
the consumption Of the country and yet he will protect
the manufactures wooen goods and OF iron while there
not enough them produced here for the consumption
of the country and while the mporaons are large for the
purpose supplying that deficiency Now that exactly
fair operation? Is it doing equal and exact justice to
a2 Is it placing the great interests OF the country North
and South equal and fair footing? IL any one in-
terest in this land be judged of by the vcsitudes
which have attended itf the production OF five years
agoa year Of very great prosperity to be taken as
which future estimate TO be based may II not
operate according to his theory in the most monstrous
injustice to particular Interest," If in consequence of
any other casualty the quantity produced
should be diminished in any year after that time,
would he undertake TO strike it down that accounts
Yet this according to the argument oy friend from Ohio
is the assigned for striking at sugar. ~
But how Is It in regard 70 hemp Has the production
Of hemp diminished have examined the statistics
but am correctly advised the production of hemp is
steadily increasing II this be SO, how is my friend to
reconcile his argument In regard TO sugar2 lie strikes