Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1884-05-06
MIR, HURD'S GREAT SPEECH ON TARIFF
REFORM.

~ VI IL IN IL AV - -
MIR. HURD'S GREAT SPEECH ON TARIFF
REFORM.
THE PEOPLE DEMANDING AN I'M.
MEDIATE REDUCTION IN GUS
TOMS TAXES.
MIR, HIsCOCK'S PLEA FOR PROTECTION AND
MR.. HURD's IN FAVOR OF LOWER TARIFF.
The brilliant speech of Mr.. Hurd in the
House last Tuesday was of character to
attract the attention and admiration of all
who heard it irrespective of party. The
Washington Post says of it: Not merely a
splendid personal triumph, of which any
public man might well be proud, but the
complete vindioation of a great cause, was
achieved by Mr.. Hurd in his speech on the
Morrison bill, delivered in the House of Re-
representatives. Tuesday. In the broadcast
sense of the word, and measured by any
standard, it was a great speech, and one OF
those events which stand out in the history
of Congress as cathedral spires rise above
the level of surrounding objects. 1t was a
speech that cannot be entombed in the Re
cord, but will take permanent place in our
literature. 1t will be read in millions of
homes, and passages from it will be declaim-
ed by the school boys of generations that
will enjoy the blessings of free trade-of
trade freed from all burdens except such as
are absolutely necessary to defray the ex-
penses of honestly administered govern
ment.
The effect of Mr.. Hurd's eloquence on his
hearers was something that cannot be put
into words, The friends of the Morrison
bill felt that their hour of victory had dawn
ed. The advocates of protection knew that
their cause was suffering irreparable injury.
But all of his auditors yielded to the influ-
ence of the moment, and paid due tribute
to the power of the orator-a power based
ON his sincerity, on his thorough belief in
the righteousness of the doctrines that he
preached. He spoke in the interest of the
toiling poor, pleading the cause of wage
workers of the United States, and building
a granite wall of argument, against which
tho selfish sophistries of protection cannot
prevail.
During the long speech of Mr.. Hiscock,
little interest manifested, for Mr.. Hiscock
dealt mainly with statistics, and did not
handle them with remarkable skill. But
Mr.. Hurd had not spoken two minutes be-
fore he had the undivided attention of every
person on the floor and in the galleries, and
he held that attention to the close, and
might have kept it for hours.
The Baltimore Sun says Mr.. Hurd had
the largest number Of listeners that AIRY
member has had in the House this session.
Even those who do not concur with him
in his liberal views on the tariff question
did not hesitate to admit that as an ora
torial effort it was the finest delivered in
the House this session. The revenue re-
formers in the House contend that it is un-
answerable. 1t has become the habit among
members during the tariff debate to use as
many tables and statistics in their speeches
as they can collect. The result is that the
speeches are not only uninteresting, but are
tiresome. Mr.. Hurd's speech was plain
argument, and its facts were clearly stated
and not loaded down with puzzling and mis-
leading statistics, in this respect was dou-
bly, refreshing. The applause given him
was very liberal, and after he had conclud-
ed all kinds Of business was suspended for
some minutes while members, irrespective
of political parties and diverse views on the
tariff bill, filed by him in long line and
congratulated him.
THE pEBAPE
The House on last Tuesday morning vast
ed but little time in entering on the debate
on the Morrison Bill.
Mr. Hiscock, republican, Of New York,
was the first speaker, and spoke against the
bill. He instituted comparison between the
condition of the business of the country
prior to the tariff of 1861 and its condition
at the present time, and from the COMPARE
son deduced the conclusion that the protec-
tive system was the better one for the peo-
pie. Agricultural products, he maintained,
secured higher price now than they did
twenty years ago--a result which was at
tributable to protection. The policy which
the other side sought to initiate might have
the effect of giving the farmer a market
abroad, but it would do it in only one way,
by turning out to agriculture larger pro-
portion of producers and lowering the prices
of products. At present prices the American
farmer could not compete with foreign pro-
duction, and must depend on the home mar
ket for the consumption of his products. In
advocacy of the protective system he assert
ed that it organized manufactures and labor,
melted the inventive genius of the people
and gave capital opportunity for safe in
vestment, and he denied that it had had the
effect of building up monopolies.
MR.. MORSE FOR THE BILL.
Mr. Morse, (dem., Mass pictured the
dangers which attended large surplus rev.
enue. When revenue was collected equal
only to the needs of the government it was
carefully husbanded and only appropriated
for subjects legitimate and proper, but if it
was large legislators were tempted to ex-
pend it on what was not legitimate or con-
ducive to public wealth. He was not free
trader, because the time had not yet come
for free trade, nor was he protectionist,
for the necessity for protective tariff no
longer existed. He would suggest reduc-
ton of taxation by limiting the national in
come to ordinary needs of the government,
the cessation of silver coinage, the passage
of national bankruptcy law, free ships,
free coal, free potatoes, free sugar, free raw
material. He wished that he could support
a bill which would reduce the revenue $fOO.-
600, 900, and he would vote for the Morrison
bill because its author had informed him
that it would result in the reduction of $780,
100000.
MIR. HURD ADVOCATES THE BILL.
Mr.. Hurd, (dem., Ohio, took the floor in
advocacy of the bill. While the tariff. he
said, was first paid by the importer, it was
ultimately paid by tile consumer. When it
was levied for the purpose of government it
was called revenue tariff; when it was
levied for the purpose of aiding individuals
in business enterprises it was called a pro-
tective tariff. To the first, when laid fair
ly and without discrimination, he had no
objection, but to the latter he was unalter-
ably opposed. On what ground should the