National Republican., 1883-02-20
Inc T0IIOwIng Is the vote upon the adoption
Of the amendment:
YEAS

YEAS
Aldrlob, Hnl, Miller Of n. Y.
Allison, lloar Mitchell,
Anthony, ingalls,, Morrill,
Cameron Of Wis.Jolcs, New. Plat,
Davis, Of H., Iaphani, Rollins,
Dawes, Logan, Sewell
rye Mcmillan, sherman,
iiawicy, Miller, Of Cal, Wndom-oo
NAYS
Beck, Hampton, Pugh,
Call, Harris, Ransom,
Camden. Jackson, Slater,
Coke, Johnston, Vance,
Davis ofw. va,Jonas, Van Wyck,
Farley, Jones, Fla, Vest,
George, MaNey Voorhees,
GornIun, M0rgnn, Walker
GroImc, Pendlpton, Wllliums-2S
Grover,
In reply to Mr.. Morrill,. Mr.. Beck said i
was absolutely untrue that he entcrtainc,
any hostility to American manufacturers o
manufactures, or that he had ever sought I,
bring down any duty below the point n
which the people of this country could com
pete successfully in manufactures with al
the world. When such charges were mad,
against him, he would be content 10 kceI
barely inside the parliamentary rules in re-,
plying TO them, and, if he were outside th,
senate, he would dcnouncc them in more wig
Orous terms.
Mr.. Sherman moved to strike out the words
for in this act 30 per cent. ad valorcm," in
order that such steel might he provided foi
elsewhere in the bill at 40 per cent. After
debate the motion was lost-aycs 2G noes 2s
Mr.. Beck, in the debate read q passage
from the american, of Philadelphia, n pro.
tectionist paper, criticising Mr.. sherman fol
helping to reduce the rest of tho metals
schedule because he had failed to get the
rates on Ohio iron fixed rs he desired In
RnM m I,s
said the american, g that Mr.. Sherman has no
presidential aspirations s."
Mr.. HOar here Uninterrupted the reading with
point of order, that IL was in violation of
the rules Of the senate to read n newspaper
article criticising or attacking II senator by
name.
Mr.. Beck said he had not intended to vio-
late any rule, and would not read further
but the senator from Ohio had taken sub.
stantially the position attributed to him in
this article, and when he Mr.. Beck was ac-
cusod of hostility to manufacturers and OF
acting in the interest of importers, he thought
1t proper TO call attention TO this explanation
of the conduct of that senator
Mr.. Van Wyck asked for vote on bis
amendment offered some days since. reduc-
ing the duty on sawed boards, plank deals,
and other lumber of hemlock, white wood,
sycamore, and bass wood from Sl00 to 80
cents per thousand feet. Lost--aycs 10, noes
10.
Mr.. Van Wyck asked also for n separate
vote on his amendment reducing the duty on
other sawed lumber from 500 to 81 90 per
thousand feet rs a test of the sincerity of
senators in protesting to desire to reduce the
burdens of the people. Lost-aycs 1s noes 80
Mr.. Mcpherson moved to strike out the
provision relating to wire rope aud wire
strand Of iron or steel wire, &C., and insert
the following:
There shall be paid on galvanized iron or steel
wire, except fence wire, and except, also, tin
alSs, lerne plates and taggers tin herein6efore
provided Tor, when galvanized or coated with any
metal, alloy, or mixture Of metals by any process
whatsoever not including paints, - cent per
pound In addition to the rates provided for in this
per pound in addition TO the rates imposed on the
wire OF which u is made. On steel wire rope and
Wire strand, cents per pound in addition TO the
rates imposed on the wire from which IL is made.
Mossrs. Dawes and Hoar opposed the excep.
tion of fence wire, and Mr.. Hoar moved TO
strike out the exception. Mr.. Coke advo-
Gated 1t in tho interest of the farmers of the
country.
Mr. Jones, of Nevada, addressed tho sem
ate. Not more than two or three of the ar
ticles embraced in the tariff were produced in
the state that he represented In part, and
therefore, he would not address himself to
the question of raising or lowering the duty
forth some reflections upon the general reasons
underlying the policy of protection. Pro-
lection ought to be given TO every industry
to which this country had such natural
adaptation that the product would cost no
more labor, no greater expenditure of mental
and physical force here than elsewhere pro-
yided always that there was no obstruction,
legal or otherwise to full and free compe-
teton among home producers. He should
be in no wise deferred from giving
protection from the fact that the
product could be permanently imported
at a. lower money price He would not
protect production which could be monOpO-
lized under patent, or in which the raw
material could be mOnOpOlizcd by reason of
its scarceness, or which from any ciTcum-
stance could only be carried on in some mar
row and confined locality. But he would
give protection in cases where the situation
was such that capital and labor could be freely
engaged in IL over large sections of the coun.
try. lie would not protect product in which
other countries had such an invincible supe-
riority in climate or other natural advantage
that the United States could never hope to
achieve equal results with an equal amount
OF labor. In such case our best policy was
to appropriate TO our own use the special ad-
Of other regions and that was effect
ually done by free importation. The labOrers
OF this country ought not TO have their wages
lowered to the standard of less favored Coun-
tries by the free importation Of the same kind
Of products which cost no more labor at home
than abroad. To permit this to be done was to
permit an injury and an injustice to labor, the
on which rested our freedom aud
In order TO continue mauufac-
lures in this country under free trade, the
operatives must accept the conditions priva-
tions, and scale Of living Of foreign operatives,
which they would never do SO long as there
was In this country an unoccupied acre of
tillable land. But while he advocated pro-
lection TO labor, as a measure of justice, he
fully believed that it was also advantageous
to those who bought labor and the products
Of labor. The dearest thing in the world was
cheap labor 1t was high wages and not low
wages that had enabled American farmers to
overcome in the markets of Western Europe
the competition of the boundless fields of
Russia, worked until recently by serfs, and
still worked by very pOOrly-paid labor 1t
was great merit Of the protective system
that II was the means Of educating large classes
Of the people. Even should ii involve some
tegree of cost to tho country, it was deiensi-
Die on the same ground upon which IL was
leemed good policy to provide educational
acilities for the rising generation.
There was no danger that eXtravagant
Profits could be realized by manufacturers
where there were no conditions existing 10
give them monopoly, Nothing was more
certain than that competition would prevent