Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-01-27

not done so because it regarded the est
mate as unreliable. The minority of the
committee did not propose any radical re-
form in this tariff system. They recog
niZed the fact that, under the protective
system, industries had grown up and CAPT
tai had been inv. sted in such forms, and it
would not only be wrong but bad states
manship for any one to attempt to break
them down by changing sudden
ly the protective system into
revenue tariff system. All they had
attempted to do-all they would attempt
to do-was to diminish the enormous prof
it of the manufacturing industries of the
country, which they derived from tribute
levied Oh the consuming class. The bur-
den of the consumer was double in its
character. He bore the burden of the tax
levied on imports, but that was burden
which he bore cheerfully, as it went to sup
port his government; but he also bore
burden which resulted from system of
prohibitory duties, which by preventing
importation enhanced values, where
the amount of the diminution
of tax proposed by the bill was measured
these two burdens must be taken into
consideration, and it must be found, not
only how much revenue was diminished, but
also how much tribute to the manufactured
was diminished. Take the duty on cotton
ties, they come in now at a duty of 80
per cent, but the pending bill proposed a
duty equivalent to 80 per cent. Under the
present duty the revenue was collected by
the government. Under the proposed duty
there would be no revenue. The effect
would be that the gentlemen would say
they had relieved the South from taxation
by the hook of the treasury, while by the
crook of prohibition the burden of
cotton ties would be doubled in the interest
of monopolists. Passing on to discus sion
of the relations existing between labor and
the tariff, he asserted that the declaration
that protection had any effect on the price
of labor was fallacy. So far from high
tariff being the cause of high wages, it was
high wages that was the cause of protec-
ton. Mr.. Tucker then proceeded to dis
cuss briefly some of the more important
changes in The bill, especially criticising
the sugar schedule. The reduction of the
duty on refining sugars was at least 40 per
cent. but the duty on all sugars that went
into consumption was positively prohibi
tory. Such legislation was not only
unjust, but viciously unjust, as it laid the
whole agricultural interests under contri-
button to a few manufacturers of the
country. At the conclusion of his speech
Mr.. Tucker received the hearty ap-
plause of his party associates.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr..
Kelly moved to limit the general debate to
o'clock to-day, but accepted an amend
ment of Mr.. Randall extending the time
until tomorrow at o'clock.
Mr.. McLane, of Maryland, moved to
make it Tuesday at noon.
Mr.. McLane's motion was lost-yeas, rs;
nays, 143, and Mr.. Kelly's motion, as
amended by Randall, was agreed to, so the
general debate will close tomorrow at
o'clock.
The house then went into committee of
the whole,
Mr.. McLane, in the course of q speech,
referred to the action of congress on the
subject of the tariff thirty years ago, when
the gentleman from Pennsylvania kelly
and himself were on different sides of the
question, as they were to-day.
Mr.. KeIly-No, u was foolish enough
then to be a Democratic free trader.
Laughter.
Mr.. McLane said he had noticed no free
trader ever became a protectionist who
was not suffering from great confusion of
mind. It was the gentleman from
Pennsylvania who had said the inter-
nal revenue system should be removed, and
yet he came into the house to SUPPORT this
bill, which reduced the duties on imports
and perpetuated the existence of the inter
nal revenue.
Mr.. Kelly said the bill to reduce that tax
passed the house last session and was now
in the senate. He could not be put in
false position because he voted to lay aside
the internal revenue bill in order to reach
The tariff bill.
The committee then rose and the house
adjourned.