National Republican., 1883-02-02


keep up high duty on this article Of lead
because Of the poor lead mines of the country.
He was n protectionst for national interests,
and not for private interests. It was not tho
principle of national protection TO go down to
the poorest enterprise the country could show
and make that profitable. That was bounty
TO individuals, and he was opposed to it. The
tariff commissioners had put lead at rate
which protected the average lead Interests,
and he hoped that those members who were
for the protection of tho nation, and not for
the projection of individuals, would not be
crowded to the wall on this question of pro-
lection. Ho was willing to 20 to the utmost
length TO protect national interests He was
not willing to go TO the length of making n
bad investment good one at the public ex-
pensc. Applause on the republican side.l
Mr.. Belford did not agree with the senti-
ments of the gentleman from Iowa. OF what
did national interest consist except of COM
bination Of individual interests. The house
had no right to ask him to vote to protect pig
iron or wool and then strike down the para
mount lead interest of his state.
Mr.. Horr entered his solemn protest against
the theory laid down by the gentleman from
Iowa, arguing that if acted upon it would
strike down tho bulk of the great interests Of
the country.
Mr., Herbert argued in support ofthe amend
ment and Mr. Robeson, of New Jersey, op-
the democratic party to strike down the
struggling industries Of the country.
Mr.. Townshend denied this assertion, de-
claring that it was fragrant misreprosenta-
tion of the democratic position,
Mr.. Kelley appealed to the committee to
stand by the rate on lead as fixed by the COM
mittoe on ways and means declaring that it
was essential in order to build up the lead in
dustries of the west.
Mr. Tucker also denied Mr.. Robcson's as
sertion that the democratic party wished to
strike down struggling industries A revc-
nue. tariff man as he was, he was only for
such reduction from the present high rates
as would limit tho enormous profits which
the manufacturers were making at the ex-
pense of the consuming class. As to his pend
ing amendment, it was equal TO a duty of 60
per cent. on acetate of lead, and surely that
was sufficient.
The amendment was then lost--S0 to 9G--
Mr.. Kasson and Mr.. Anderson voting with
the democrats, and Mr.. Cassidy; Mr.. Jones, of
Texas, and Mr.. Frost with the republicans
Mr. Morrison moved to reduce the duty on
white acetate of lead from to 8 cents per
pound.
Mr.. Morrison said that the debate had dis
closed tho true character of the bill. The
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Kasson) supported
reduction of the duty on lead, on the
ground of incidental professionalism pro-
WHICH TGSulJeu lTO0l luNluR on our
competitors n tax for revenue. That was not
tho tariff proposed by this bill. 1t disclosed
the purpose of the protectionists Of the pres
ent day, not to be content with incidental
protection, but with that protection which
came from law. The protection given by this
bill was more eXacting than that Of the pres
ent law.
Mr. Henderson announced his concurrence
in the principles laid down by Mr.. Kasson,
believing, as he did, that there was quite a
difference between reasonable and just dis
elimination on the one side and prohibition
on tho other. He believed that the rate on
lead recommended by the tariff commission
was sufficient, and that the difference between
that and the rate of the committee would be
for the benefit of bonanza kings and railway
kings.
This assertion was vigorously denied by
Mr.. Belford, of Colorado, who regretted to see
his friend going over to the free trade party.
Mr.. Morrson's motion was lost
On motion of Mr.. Kelley the clause impos-
ing a duty of 10 cents per pound on white
acetate of lead, fit for medicinal use, was
struck from the bill.
Mr.. Cox, of New York, moved to reduce
the duty on dry white lead from 3 to 2 cents
per pound.
After a long and uninteresting debate, which
took a wide range, and was not addressed to
the item under consideration, the motion was
lost-65-S2
Mr.. Willis moved to reduce tho duty on
white lead mixed with oil, from to % cents
per pound. In the course of the discussion
Mr. Anderson resented what he claimed to be
| an attempt of Mr.. Belford, of Colorado, Ia
| read him out of the republican party. Every
one of the Pennsylvania democrats voted with
the high tariff men. Had they for that rea-
son turned republican? And there was his
greenback friend from Pennsylvania Mr.
olg bn nj
church staple tariff. He gave notice that he
should claim 1or himself the right to do his
own thinking He should do so as republi
can, and it was not in the power of any man
to rule him out of the party
Mr.. Brumm denied that tho democratic
members from Pennsylvania had voted with
tho high tariff men. Ho had noticed that
they had passed between the tellers in every
instance in support of free trade propositions.
The company they kept told what they were.
When Mr.. Kasson and Mr., Anderson claiming
to be protectionists found fault with every
item in the bill he doubted their protection
policy and he doubted their sincerity. The
time had come when tho friends of the bill
should stop quibbling and finding fault with
trifcs.
4 Mr.. Randall said he stood here and spoke in
his own representative relations. He rccog-
niZed tho fact that there could not be free
trade between nations where the wages of
labor varied In SO far rs the tariff was con-
cerned, he would make it so that it would
cover the gap between foreign labor and the
labor Of the people of the United States. He
did not believe that congress need 90 much
further. 1t was question which ought to
be settled on business principles. Taking the
three bills and Comparing them, he had de-
liberately come to the conclusion that the
commission bill was far preferable to tho
ways and means bill, and he had voted in
every instance in favor of imposing the duty
recommended by the commission, The senate
bill was preferable to either. His object was
| to so regulate the revenues that they would
| give incidental protection to the people of his
state and nothing more.
Mr.. Cox, of New York, said that he believed
incidental protection was but incidental rob-
| berry. The only difference between incidental
and regular protection was that one was burg
larry and the other highway robbery. GEN
tlcmen on the other side talked about the
democrats being in favor of free trade. That
was not so. Every man was for freedom, of
course, and was for trade of course but for
what was known as free trade, never. They
were for that kind Of freedom which would
take the shackles from industry, and pay for
a frugal administration of the government
| That was their position, He suggested to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Alr. Kelley,
since there was disorder in his camp, to with
draw his forces and discipline them.
Mr.. Kelley. What dsorder2
| Mr.. Cox. Call caucus and discipline your
members
| Mr.. Kelley. What members?
| Mr.. Cox. The gentlemen from Iowa and Kan
/ ". .-., -.....