The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-24

large extent our home Industry 10 the extent
that this amount Is levied on articlas that may
be produced in this country to that extent it
operates for protection. The rate of duties to be
levied on article, OF this kind under this bill
will not be less than so per cent ad valorem, IL
is manifest then that the main object of the
Tariff bill is to produce Sl4O,OOO,O00, wemay very
properly leave the question of the protection as
matter of detail, because il would be impossible
TO frame a Tariff bill without protection; 10 is
sometimes said the present Tariff bill Will pro
duce that amount, because during the last fiscal
year IL produced Sl70000,000; this is not correct
During last year our importations sWelleu
beyond any former experience in Ihls couhIIyi
ityielded us n revenue of Sl79OO0,0OO, but under
the very same law the year before 1t was only
The cause Of this great increase is easily ex-
planned. When the war closed the southern
States were depleted of everything produced by
foreign as well as domestic manufactures. Mer-
chants in the North had been leJtlng thelr
stocks get low, and with the sudden IalI IN
gold which followed the close of the war, they
Imported very largely, We cannot depend for
the next fiscal year upon the present IarliI 6ili
it will not raise more than Sl25,OOO,OOO or $780,
100000. The pending bill proposed an advance
of about ten per cent, in manufactures.
Mr.. SHERMAN then examined the details OF
the BILL explaining the motives that acIuaCed
the committee in adopting the different rates
Mir, FEssESDEN opposed the amendment OF
Mr. Sprague and in the course of his remarks
said that commerce was great arm of national
wealth, and in protecting manufactures ~ must
not be destroyed. Although he was protec-
tive tariff man, he did not go SO far as TO say it
was nd visable Whatever might be the condition
of the country, whenever particular interests
sprang up to place such duties upon the foreign
article as would prevent its IMPORTATION. lie
thought it best TO proceed gradually in all such
He hoped Mr.. sprague's amendment would
not be adopted. He had great respect, he said,
Tor the manufactures of this country, but he
could tell the Senate now that, rom the teSti-
mony before the committee, from ali he and
that committee knew, ii would not do to leave
the formation OF the tariff to the manufacturers;
they have too much interest in II, and, as II has
been said, there is great deal OF human nature
in men.
Mr.. JOHNSON spoke in favor OF the principle
of protection as essential to the welfare of the
country at the present time.
MIR Spragues amendment was disagreed to.
MIR SPRAGUE moved TO amend by Increasing
the duty on jute, hemp, &c, from three to six
and half cents per yard, and from thirty to
thirty-five per cent. ad valorem. Disagreed to.
MIR. SPRAGUE moved to amend by increasing
the duty threads, patent threads, Sadlers'
threads, &c, from thirty to thirty-fve per cent
! Mir. SPRAGUE moved to amend by increasing
the duty on seines or nets made of hemp, &c,
from thirty to thirty-tive per cent.
Mr.. FESsENDEN said That amendment had
already been passed. Disagreed to.
Mr.. SrRAGUE moved to amend by increasing
the duties on fish lines from thirty To forty cents
| per pound. Disagreed to.
Several other amendments for increasing the
| duty on articles of linen manufacture were Of
! fered by Mr.. Sprague and disagreed to.
Mr.. FOSTER moved to amend by reducing the
! duty on salt, in bulk, and rock salt, from
| twenty-fOur to eighteen cents per hundred, and
/ on salt, in bags or sacks from thirty to twenty
| four cents per hundred.
I.
| posed by Mr.. Foster were as the Committee
| originally reported on the subject
Mr.. FOSTER advocated hls amendment in q
! short speech. The present duty on salt, he
! said, was one hundred and sixty per cent. on
! it's value at the place whence it was imported.
| Mr.. CHANDLER said the salt manufacturers of
| this country held meeting some time ago. and
| concluded that it would need forty cents per
! hundred to protect them. Salt was an article
| produced entirely by labor. In 1856 it could be
| produced in Michigan at seventy-fve cents per
, barrel: now il could not be made except at a
| loss of two dollars per barrel. He would move
to make the duty thirty and forty cents,
instead of eighteen and twenty-four cents
Mr.. FOSTER said the great danger was that
home manufactures would be protected to death.
If the cost of living was increased as in this
item of salt, 1t would be impossible to carry on
our manufacture,
Mr.. CHANDLER congratulated Mr.. Foster on
the stride he had made in reducing the cost of
living. Every man consumed about Ten pounds
Mir FOSTER proposed to reduce the cost of liv-
| ing exactly one-tenth OF SIX cents per annum:
MIR. WILLIAMS said the duty on salt must be
| increased with the duty on other articles: The
/ representatives, of this interest had been before
! the Committee on Finance, and had, by their
! statements, induced the increase now in the
Mr. WILEY favored the duty reported by the
! Mr. MoRGAN said the industry of the country
was abundanJly protected in this bill. He be-
leVed the salt duty passed the House precisely
as it was IN the bill, and he hoped the Senate
The amendment of Mr.. Foster was disagreed
to- Yeas, IL; nays, IS,
L.
/ in the free list books charts, maps, &c, i'm
ported for the use of public libraries ana col
| Ieges, schools, philosophical and literary socle-
Pending Reconsideration of this amendment
the Senate adjourned at five o'clock, IL having
| been ascertained on call of the roll That there
was not quorum present.
House of Representatives.
Mr.. ROGERS (N.J) desired to ask question
Mr.. boutwell, declined to YIELD and con
tinued his remarks. He quoted section 80 of the
Judiciary act OF l1o9, to- the effect that IN al
courts of the United States the parties may
plead and manage their own cases, personally
or by the assistance OF such counsel or attorney
at law by the rules of the court shall be per
mitted 10 manage and conduct cases therein
He contended that were IL not for that act th'
Court would have no constitutional or lega
| power TO admit attorneys to perform their func
tions Therefore, by the Constitution and law
he claimed to have established the several lega
| PROPOSITIONS on which directly and ineVitabl,
the right Of the Court to pass this rule was de
| rived, and Justice Story mad, many years ago
| recognized the authority Of Congress in LIN
matter in the case of Keary and others agains
the Farmers and Merchants Bank of Memphis
reported in 10 Peters, page "a.
1t was on these various Constitutional AM
legal propositions, in conformity to the law O
the country, that the Judiciary Committee de
rived the authority to pass any rule deeme
necessary and proper for the performance of tn
duties that are devolved by the Constitution
and laws ON any department of the Govern
ment If Congress had authority TO give TO tn
| Courts power to make their own rules, IL ha
| clearly the authority in any particular case /
4 prescribe exactly and definitely the rule b.
which the Courts shall be governed. on tina
statement he submitted the matter to the House
| The House then proceeded TO vote by yeas AM
nays the passage of the bill. The vote re
sulted-yeas, los; nays ~, So the bill was passed
and the title was changed so as to make IL read
: "a bill to prescribe a rule concerning member
OF the Bar, and for other purposes"
The following is the vote in detail:-
YEAs-Messrs, Anderson, Ashley Nevada
. Ashley (Ohio), Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker
NafuVgn a