National Republican., 1883-01-17
THE SENATE AND HOUSE.
Old Ben HoIladay'S Claim Finally Obtains
Little Consideration,
And then Gives Way for Vigorous Dis
cussion Of the Tariff Bill.
A Plan for a Library Building on any Government
Reservation in Washington.
Tho House Tariff Bill Rcportcd-Tho
Massachusetts Claim.
THE SENATE.

MIR. HOar gave nOtlce yesterday morning
that as soon as tho pending bill for the relief
of Ben Holiday should be disposed of he
would ask tho senate to take up the bank
ruptcy bill.
Mr.. Platt said ho wished to have the bank
ruptcy bill considered but he thought there
was greater urgency for the passage of the
bill to regulate practice in patent suits, which
he would, therefore, endeavor TO have con-
sidered after the pending measure.
Mr.. Harrison agreed with Mr.. Platt, and
spoke of the hardships now suffered in con-
nection with patent suits, especially by people
in the west.
Mr.. Blair protested against any understand
ing which would delay tho consideration Of
the educational bill.
Mr. Plumb, from tho committee on appro-
nrations. roported tho postofice appropria-
tion bill and gave notice that he would move
rs consideration Immediately after the formal
morning business.
Mr.. Miller, of New York, introduced bill
TO authorize the construction of railway
bridge across the Niagara river; also, two
other bills for the same purpose.
At the close ofthe morning business the sem
ate on motion of Mr.. Jones, of Nevada, re-
sumed the consideration of the bill for
THE RELIEF OF BEN HOLIDAY.
Mr.. Cameron, of Wisconsin, in support Of
the bill, pointed out some errors of fact into
which he said Mr.. Morrill, had fallen in his
remarks in opposition to it.
Mr.. Morrill, insisted that the errors were
very slight and did not affect the substance of
his argument.
Mr.. Plumb reviewed at length the history of
the claim, and opposed the bill. He believed
that this claim had been given peculiar
standing before the senate by the use of spe-
cia1 and perhaps political, influences, and that
IL the case were that of a poor soldier or from
tiersman, the claimant would receive but cold
comfort from the committee on claims or the
MIR. Frye charged Mr.. Plumb with treating
the case unfairly, and asked for the evidence
that political influences had been used in favor
of the claim.
Maine felt sensitive on the subject he would
take back that remark.
Mr.. Cockrell moved to reduce the amount
named in the bill from $330,00O to 100000.
Lost-ayes 81, noes 81.
At the close of the morning hour the bill
went over.
Mr. Hill, from the committee on postofhces
and post roads, reported favoraby the house
bill to modify the postal money order system,
and for other purposes.
Mr.. Miller. of New York, introduced q bill
to prevent tho importation of adulterated
teas Referred to the committee on COM
merCe.
The senate, at Ito, resumed the considera-
ton of
THE TARIFF BILL.
The pending question was on the amendment
offered by Mr.. German to make the duty on
bichromate of potash three and half cents
per pound. 'l1
Mr.. Beck moved to amend the amendment
SO as to make the duty 25 per cent. ad valorem,
which, he said, would be about equivalent to
three cents per pound, the rate in the bill.
Much had been said in connection with this
bill about the opportunities for fraud under
system of ad valorem duties, and the greater
safety of specific duties, but he proposed to
show that this bill was not only worse than
the existing law, but worse and more produce
tive of fraud than any ad valorem
system ever heard of, by reason of
its compound cassifcations and its spc-
cifc duties based upon valuations.
This system was carried so far that he did not
see how there could bo an, honest collection of
the revenue under the provisions of the most
important parts of the bill. Specific duties,
even when not levied on an ad valorem basis,
often worked great injustice, but specific
duties on the adj valorem basis were much
worse, and were tho great vice OF this bill.
The provisions relating TO Steel for instance,
were cunningly devised to increase duties
and at the same time to open wide the doors
to fraud. Under the present law, If the mer-
chant aud the revenue officer should combine
TO defraud the government by entering at five
cents a pound steel which actually cost i've
and quarter cents, they would make only
$l.6S per ton--rathor small inducment TO
take the risks of cheating; but under the pro-
posed rates of duty the same fraud would
give them Sl6.S0 per ton and the government
would of course be cheated out of that sum-
Again, this bill made four classes of iron or
steel wire instead of two, as under the exist
ing law, and the rates were SO arranged that
the duty upon ton of one size of wire would
be Sl6S0 less than the duty upon another
size which could not be distinguished from
il by the naked eye! In case of an attempt
to cheat the government by bringing in wire
of one size at the lower duty payable on the
other how could the importer or the govern
ment officer be convicted of the traudY Yet
on an importation of thousand tons the gov
ernment would lose S16,S00, and the parties
would have that great temptation to fraud.
SO in the cotton schedule seven class
ifcations of cotton yarns were substituted
for the four classes existing under the law as
il stands now and the same criticisms applied
here as to increased temptations and induce
ments to attempt frauds upon the revenue.
And if he had time he could show that the
wool and woolens schedule was the worat of
all. There could be no honest system of spe-
cfc duties resting ON an nd Valorem basis
yet this was the system applied by this bill
on all the schedules of articles containing most
money.
Mr.. Morgan asked Mr.. Beck whether he
knew of any instance in which specific duty
was necessary for the protection of the (eyenue
or was preferable to an ad Valorem duty?
Mr.. Beck declined to answer the question
directly, fearing that an otfhand reply to SO
comprehensive u question might not be satis-
factory even TO himself All he sought to
show now was that system of specific duties
on an ad valorem basis was the worst possible
system.
Mr.. Morgan sAid his question was merely
whether the senator in his studies of these
subject had ever found Il case in which spe-
cifc duty was necessary or preferable to an ad
Valorem duty for the protection of the reve-
nue., or for the protection of anybody except
the manufacturer.
Mr. Beck said il was certainly true that un-
der specific duty tho manufacturer held on
TO his protection no matter how much the price
OF the article might fall, and rs the tendency
of the improvements constantly making was
to bring down prices, a system of specific du'
ties did tend TO prevent the consumer from
getting the benefit of the fall, and operated
mainly to the advantage of the manufacturer
He then called attention to section 29OO, and
denounced us actually cruel" certain
of its provisions relating to under
valuation. Under these provisions, if q
merchant bought abroad goods valued at f4L
sterling per bale, and, by reason of u war OF
any other cause, these goods rose in value tC
ego sterling per bale before they were shipped
to him, if they were entered at 9l0 sterling
urou11 bn "a