National Republican., 1883-01-29
Members Of Both Houses Now TOiling With
the Tariff in Dead Earnest
The General Question Very Generally
Discussed IN the House.
Mr.. Mckinley Bntsrtains the Marquis Of Lome With
His Views on EnglishCheap Labor.
The Beauties OF Cheap Cotton Ties-Pro-
Ercss OF Work I'm the Senate.
TIIE HOTGE.

hill.
Mr.. Bland criticised the action Of the domi-
nant party in the house for its delay in bring
ing in n tariff bill, and in attempting to choke
the pending measure through the house and
senate without due consideration when even its
friends and advocates were unable to tell what
effect 1t would have upon the industries OF
the country and the revenues of the govern
ment. II had been whispered around that
unless this congress passed this OF similar
bill that the President would call an extra
session. That was the threat which was held
over this congress to prevent due considcra-a 4
ton of tho subject.
for that statement?
Mr.. Bland. have seen 1t so stated in the public
Mr. Kelley. OH yes
Mr. Reagan. II was so stated TO mo BY n genntor
md by two other senators who had IL from the
Mr. Kelley. don't think that tho President nro..
poses 70 oner bfibo to tho democratic party 10
prevent legislation on this subject P'''' W
Mr.. Bland, passing to n consideration of the
bill, said that if it was The best measure this
congress could draft, any parliamentary rules
resorted to for its dei,.,a would be iustifable,
anu iliuoJu, ut ueina-rdod by the people who had
M iSo'ou uVe' men to consider tho subject.
-iOlS anu RullCrlcS OI inc capitol
@ o""i ed with the agents of millionaires and
~ >hopolists urging the passage of this bill,
which meant death to the agricultural inter-
ests of the country; and, according to the
newspapers the lobbyists were thicker in
Washington this session than they ever had
been before.
Mr. Russell believed that the bill would af-
feet advantageously the manufacturing, min.
ing, and agricultural industries of the country.
Replying to some statements in Mr. fuckers
speech commenting on the large profits made
by manufacturers, Mr.. Russell quoted from
tabulated statement to show that fifty-one
corporations representing u capital of S51, ,6i7-
900, had paid during the past ten years an av-
erage dividend of only $50 per cent.
Mr. Carlisle inquired whether the gentle
man knew how much of the earnings of these
establishments had been invested in increas-
ing their machinery, their plant, and their
property generally, and how much had been
paid out to stockholders in the form of sala-
ries for services as officers.
Mr.. Russell replied that the amount paid to
officers was ono of the incidental expenses of
carrying on the business. He had no means
Of knowing how much had been spent in ell
larging the plants, but he believed that these
increased investments did not more than bal
ance the deterioration of the original invest
mcnt. 1t would thus be seen that the manu-
tacturer only made fair profit and If large
reduction of the tariff were made the price of
labor would be directly struck at lie claimed,
however, that the committee bill showed
great reductions from the rates proposed by
the commissions:
Mr.. Converse, declining at the present time
to discuss the provisions of the bill, addressed
himself to the question of the constitutional
power of congress, which was involved in the
subject of tariff. On the one side il was as
serted that the constitution gave congress the
power to pass laws for the protection of manu-
factursrs; on the other it was denied. Where
was the line of power? Not In the provision
giving congress the power to lay duties and
imports, because that power was limited to
certain defined objects. But congress had
the power TO regulate commerce, and in his
Judgment the power TO protect lay there rs Il
simple question of power, separate and dis
tinct from the question of policy. He desired
10 draw broad and distinct law between the
power, which was u legal question, and the
policy, which was question of craftsmanship.
t Mr. Carlisle inquired 'if the gentleman
could point to single instance in which the
supreme court, In defining the extent of con-
stitutional power to regulate commerce, had
included the right to impose taxes
Mr. Converse replied that there was nosuch
+. case.
! Mr. Tucker inquired whether If the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations
involved the power to prohibit importations,
the power to regulate commerce between the
states involved tho power to prohibit impor-
tatiOns from one state TO another.
Mr.. Converse replied that he did not but
he desired to ask the gentleman where he
found the power to exclude foreign vessels
from participating in the coastwiso trade, un-
less il was in this power TO regulate com
merce. That was an example of exclusion,
and exclusion was therefore a question of dis
cretion not of power. N.+
Mr.. Converse concluded his constitutional
argument with the declaration that though it
Nuti In npNN Of pAfnffp f, tapl
special industries, it was not the proper policy
to be followed. q. -
Mr. Rosecrans said that tho pending bill,
so far rs real relief was concerned. was u de.
lusiou and snare aud sham, and had not
been framed in conformity TO right principles,
If it could not be amended so rs to afford sub
stautial relief, the house would have to de-
d eide whether to take the humbug as it was or
wait for better times.
Mr.. Herbert specified many items of the
bill on which the duty had been raised in
order to show the fulfllmcnt Of the prophecy
made by him during the last session to the
effect that the result of tho wUrls of the tariff
commission would be an increase in the bur
den of taxation. IIo claimed that the bill
Disseminated in favor of the manufacturer,
and asserted, as an illustration of the evil
features of the measure, that the duty placed
on cotton ties was practically prohibited. lie
ridiculed the changes of the free list made by
the committee on ways and means, and criti-
oised its action in taking quinne from the
free list and leaving upon tpttar Of roses.
Mr. Mckinley, member of the ways and
means committee, recognized the general de-
mand for revision of the tariff. The minor
ity of the house insisted thnt the revision
should be made on the basis OF recognition
of revenue and revenue only, and IL was there
that the two parties divided The majority
sentiment in this house believed not only in
II tariff for revenue, but in u tariff for protec-
ton as well.
The committee on ways and means repre-
sented the dominant sentiment, and the bill
which the committee had brought TO the
house recognized fully land he desired to
make no conceament) the doctrine of protec-
ton. While the bill was protective in its
character and in its features, yet recognizing
the reasonable demand of the country for
reduction of the revenues of the country, the
committee had made reductions in the inter
est of diminished revenue, wherever it
could be done without injustice to existing
industries. While this reduction might not
be all that every member might desire, il
must be borne in mind that in approaching
the national revenues congress should he
cautious and conservative He was justified
in believing that the Senate which had the
internal-revenue bill before it, would pass,
that measure. The reduction in the revenue
taking both the measures together, would
amount to fifty million dollars.
. Much criticism had been indulged in on
account of the increase of duty ON cotton ties
A cotton tic was nothing hut hoop iron, and
all the bill proposed to do was TO declare that