St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-05-07
Four Republicans, All of Minneso-
ia, Vote Against the Kill
ing fthe Bill.
FOrty-one Democrats Vote With the
Republican Pr0tectionists Against
Tariff Reform.
The Debate Closed with Elaborate Speeches
by Randall, Blackburn, KassOn
and Morrison.
Great Excitement on the Floor and in rile
Galleries During the Vote.
Ind the Result 4pllauded by Republican
Mem6eIs a,sd the Galleries.
The Senate.

The Senate.
WASHINGTON, May 6.-Senator Vest re-
ported favorably the bill to provide for the
erection of a public building at Detroit. 1t
limits the cost of the site to 5000, 600. The
original limit was 81, 1,5OO,O ,OOO, but the senate
committee on public buildings and grounds
reduced it as above.
Senator Bayard and others presented
memorials fayoring the suspension of the
coinage of silver dollars.
Senator Cockrell introduced bill to facili
tate the negotiation of bills of lading and
other commercial instruments and to punish
frauds therein. Referred to the committee
on commerce.
Senator Hill gave notice that tomorrow
morrow morning he would ask unanimous
consent to address the senate on the bill re-
lating to the forfeiture of the land grant of
the New Orleans, Baton Rouge 81 Vicksburg
Railroad company.
The morning business disposed of, Sena-
tor Frye moved to lay aside the calendar and
take up the shipping bill. Senators Riddle
berger and Harris pressed for the regular
order. The first bill on the calendar was for
free bridge across the Potomac river. 1t
was important, they said, that the bill should
be acted upon at once.
Senator Frye withdrew his motion, and
the free bridge bill was taken up. A substi-
tute for the original bill was offered and
passed.
On motion of Senator Sherman the senate
agreed to attend in body, on Saturday, the
ceremonies of the unveiling of the statue of
Chief Justice Marshal, in the capitol
grounds.
Senator Vance addressed the senate in sup
port OF Vests amendment providing for free
ships and free material. He said the party
in power had left the country absolutely help
less. With its high tariff We had no navy,
no merchant marine, no Notifications, no
guns, nor anything else that would stand for
tWenty-fours before modern war ship and
modern guns By an importation duty of 100
per cent. we might be able to keep out foreign
ships bearing merchandise, but $50 per cent.
duty would not be sufficient to keep out ships
bearing Krupp guns. We had neither
ships, nor commerce, nor sailors. We
could not long continue to tax the
American people in the interest of the little
stump tailed monopoly, and neither orators
nor newspapers could succeed in their SLAM
derous and contemplate cry of British gold.
Were our people not capable of self govern
ment? If they want free ships, why should
the senators say maya Did not foreigners
come here and engage in every American
industry.
Senator Vance read from the London
Economist a list of some twenty great Joint
stock companies that own millions of acres
of American lands. He also read from
statistics to show the reduction of our wheat
exports within few years owing to the de-
velopment by England of wheat culture in
India, induced by our high protective tariff
Senator Mcpherson inquired, whether the
reduction was not partially due to the great
wheat ''corners,'' by which wheat was kept
back in the expectation of higher prices.
Senator Vance said, when he found a great
cause operating in the most patent and palp-
able form, he was not going to hunt up the
small causes to account for the results
Senator Hoar asked, whether the sudden
developments of wheat culture in India was
not due to the recent completion of a large
railroad system in India, and whether Vance
thought England would stop railroad build
ing and wheat growing in India, if we re-
duce our tariff.
Senator Vance replied, if our duties were
down to a reasonable point he believe our
exports would keep every farmer in the
country busy. No nation that had repealed
its old navigation laws had gone back to
them. There was one way in which we
might, perhaps, revenge ourselves on our
great rival, England, we could refuse to let
ships, bringing foreign goods, land on our
shores. Of course, foreign countries might
retaliate and refuse to let ships bearing
American goods land on their shores. That
might not seem quite so reasonable nor
proper.
Senator VOORHEES, favored the bill and op-
posed Vests amendment. Free ships, he
said, meant free trade. Our navigation laws
had been ninety years on our statute book,
and the Democratic party had had the ad-
ministration of those laws for forty-eight of
these years. He did not, therefore, see why
he, as Democrat should be expected to-,
all of sudden, and without
any conyocation of Saints or Arch
deacons party to subscribe to repeal
OF those laws as measure of party fealty.
Free ships meant revolution, and would
put all the shipping of the United States
In the hands of England, an unfriendly
power. If we are to have free trade, we
should not begin with ships and rich ship
owners, we should begin with salt and other
articles, which the poor man had to buy.
Senator Call favored Vests amendment.