Morning journal and courier., 1884-04-30

The amendment proposed by Mr.. Miller
or California, under instruction from thu
Committee on Foreign Relations providing
Tor the inspection of meats for export ane
the prevention of the importation Of sdul
tersted food and drink was next considered
Mr.. Plumb moved to lay the amendment
on the table, stating that it was mot germsne
to the bill and would require extended con-
| sideration:
MIR. Miller spoke in favor of his amend
ment and claimed that pleuro-pneumonia and
foot and mouth diseases were imported here
from Europe, and that no case OF the latter
disease had ever been known west of the Al
| leghanies.
After some further debate the amendment
was laid on the table by 81 yeas to IA nays.
After another speech against the bill by
| Mr.. Morgan it Yves passed in the shape sum-
married. in these dispatches yesterday; 81
| yeas, 8 nays. The negative votes were:
Messrs. Brown, Coke, Farley, Groome, Hamp-
| ton. Jones of Florida, Maxey, Morgan and
Ransom.
The shipping bill was then placed before
the Senate, which at $40 p. m. adjourned.
HoUsE.-The House went into Committee
| OF the Whole on the tariff bill MIR. Hiscock,
of New York, gave statistics to show that the
tariff had kept up the price of agricultural
| tured articles. He felt willing to go before
| constituency entirely agricultural on this
| issue forced by the Democratic party
Mr.. Morse, of Massachusetts, declare d
himself neither free trader nor protectionist,
but in favor of cutting down the surplus and
Of free raw materials.
Mr.. Hurd of Ohio, then spoke in advoca-
cy of the bill. The tariff increased the cost
of transportation because it made the cost of
constructing and operating the railroads
higher, all of which came out of the price
the farmer received for his products. The
I A. r. IsAs-
getting his grain to the foreign market where
the price was fixed and which fixed the price
at home.
Mr.. Hurd quoted the increase of the
wheat expectation in India from nothing
Ave years ago to forty million bushels last
year and prospect of exporting seventy
millions the present year. The eff
feet of this, he said, had been
to reduce the price of wheat in
Chicago to eighty cents per bushel, the low
est price ever known there. The only way
to meet the emergency about to come was to
reduce the cost of living by cutting down the
tariff duties. He warned protectionists that
if they did not accept compromise now, the
farmers within less than year would rise In
their might. He believed that four-ifths of
the successful manufacturers in
the country owed their success to
the patent laws and being pro-
tected by patents their true interests
cost of their plant and material less. Mr..
Hurd argued that the tax upon the manu-
facturer imposed by the tariff was equal to
the protection given him by it. II manu-
sacturer could be left free with the markets
of the world open to him there would be no
over production, for over-production meant
limited market nothing more, Free
trade, he said, had given an
impetus to manufactures in Eng
land never before seen in the history of
the world. If the abrogation of the tariff
there brought such results why should it not
bring the same here? Our facilities, he said,
were far greater than England's in the pro-
duction OF iron and coal, cotton and wool
It was shame that England and not this
country controlled the markets of
the world. Day laborers, artisans and
mechanics, he continued, could net
be protected by a tariff and the effect
of the tariff upon them could only be to in
crease the cost of what they consumed. He
admitted that labor was higher than in the
old countries of the world, but this he at
tributed to the peculiarly favorable condi-
tions of labor in this country. Intelligent
labor, he argued, would always be higher
than pauper labor and on the score of labor
Americans had nothing to fear. Taking into
consideration the cost of living, the
unsteadiness of work and the great
er capacity for productivenes of
the American laborers, he said,
they should receive double that paid the En-
glish, while the actual difference was but
trifing. That protection did not sustain the
price of labor was shown by the price of
labor in free trade England and protective
Germany. Labor in this country, he said,
was depressed every where and was due to
hieh-priced material which had forced the
manufacturer to cut down the price of labor.
Whether the bill reduced the revenues not
it would reduce taxation. Would it be op-
posed by Democrats when it was Thomas
Jefferson that declared for free commercial
relations with all the world? Would any
Democrat say he was opposed to the national
platform of a tariff for revenue only !?
Would any Democrat say he was opposed to
the Ohio platform? Would any Democrat
refuse to take off the war taxes
of twenty-five years ago? The con-
| f1ict could not be long delayed and
the result could not be doubted. At the
conclusion of the speech MIR. Hurd was earn
nestly and warmly applauded for prolonged
period an5 there was much confusion caused
by members on the Democratic side congrat-
ulating the orator and one another.
Mr.. Geddes. of Ohio, and Mr. Turner, of
Kentucky, followed in favor of the bill.
Mr.. DingIey, of Maine, spoke in support of
a protective tariff, insisting that labor was
protected thereby. He proceeded to expose
a number of what he called free trade falla-
| cies and without concluding yielded for q
motion that the committee rise and at p. m:
the House took recess until O'Clock.
Prior to the recess Mr.. Forney reported
| the army appropriation bill, which was Or
dered printed. CT appropriates 1924, Pa, $50
| against estimates of 1926 800, 103 and approx
priations of last year sggregating 1924 ,es2,-
| $50
| As the night session Mr.. Winans, of Wis
| consin, defended his vote for the Converse
| wool bill and advocated the Morrison bill as
the best tariff bill that could be had at this
| session.
There being no other speakers the House
/ at S:l5 D. M adjourned