Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-06-19
REMARKS OF HON. w. ID. HILL.
On the Morrison Tariff Bill, Delivered
in Congress May 9th.

closes desire to state in as few words
as possible my reasons for voting
against striking out the enactlng clause
of this bill. On a former occasion l
voted for the motion of my colleague
TMr. CoSvERsE to restore the duty
on wool. did it because | believed
that the Forty seventh Congress hal
committed great wrong on the WOOL
growers of my State by reducing duty
on wool from 80 to 81 per cent. at the
same time increasing the duty on the
manufactured article From the day
that took my seat in this Hall in De-
cember | have labored and worked for
the passage of the bill tprestore the
duty on wool.
But, sir, :hls House refused to pass
that bill, and now, having failed to
aid the wool-growers of my district
upon the only protected article which
they have to sell, consider 1t my du-
ty to relieve them all can on more
than 1000 other articles which their
necessities compel them to buy. The
Morrison bill is not exactly what |
would like; but it is one great merit,
it reduces taxation, and that alone is
sufficient to command my vote This
debate has developed the fact that there
is a surplus in the national treasury OF
Sl50,O00,O 900 and the estimates of the
Secretary OF the Treasury make its 100.
600, 600 more &C the end of each fiscal
year. The Platform cf the Democracy
OF my State declares that the revenues
of the Government should be limited
to the necessities thereof economically
administered.
With this fact before us it is univer-
sally conceded that the revenue are
not so limited nor will this plll so
limit the revenues of the Government
but, it reduces the revenues S30, ,0OO,-
900 a year, which is step in the right
direction. | shall vote for this bill.
sir, because | know that the interest Of
every stave and hoop factory in my
district demands that should so vote.
They are manufacturing their wares
now at less than cost price, and their
employees and employers alike are suf-
fering from low prices and a limited
demand. This bill reduces the duty
on sugar 80 per cent, not 20 per cent,
The sugar -refiner of the United States
when he purchases the raw material Is
required by the laws of this country to
pay duty on it of so per cent.
The sugar-refiner of England, when
he purchases the raw material, pays no
duty at all IN his own country, and Is
thus enabled to uudersell the Amerl-
can manufacturer so per cent. The
result is that the American is confined
to his own country for market and
cannot manufacture pound beyond
the necessities of his own country,
while the Englishman has the whole
world for market, because having no
duty to pay on his raw material he can
underseIl his American competitor. l
am in favor of free sugar and free
salt. lam opposed to making American
laboring men pay tax on the salt they
eat in their bread, and nearly 40 per
cent. on sugar, which is an article of
food and universal consumption.
Now, Mr.. Chairman, while this bill
does not put sugar on the free list 1t
does take off one-half the tax and
helps the consumer to that extent. |
also desire to relieve my constituents
of a little of the taxes they pay ON
their agricultural implements, the me-
chanic on his his tools, the manufac-
turer on his machinery, and everybody
on their clothing and theil blankets.
I hear great deal about protecting
the laborer on his wages. Will any
body tell me where and how labor is
protected? Is there any duty on labor?
Are not our ports open to every labor
er in Europe and the civilized world
who desires to come here and 60 to
work? And are they not coming at
the rate of 900 year? Is it not
a fact that white men have been driven
from the railroads on the Pacific coast
and the shoe-shops of Massa chusetts,
and Chinese laborels employed in their
places at greatly reduced wages?
The fact is, Mr.. Chairman, the
price of labor is regulated by the law
of supply and demand, like everything
else, and the manufacturers and mon
opolist of this country always employ
a laborer as cheap as they can get him.
The present tariff laws of this country
were passed in 1861 to maintain the
most extensive war the country has
ever witnessed. The tariff on every
article, all the necessities of life, were
raised as high as Congress dared to do
it, in some instances SO high as to pro,
hibitory. And yet during these TWEEN,
ty-fve years, without any decrease OF
duty, the wages of laboring men have
been reduced time and again to star
vation prices. If high duties make
high wages, why is it this country has
been so frequently afflicted with labor
strikes? Why is it that laboring men
are nearly all poor? tits because these
high duties on sugar, salt, hats, shoes,
blankets, clothing, and everything
which the laboring man buy to sup
port h. aself and family rob him every
payday of the wages which he has
earned. Now sir, if a Republican