The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-12-13
cONeREssIoNAL NEWS.
rOoesdings of National Importance Under Con
alteration in the National Congress.
SENATE.

SENATE.
WASHINGTON, d. C. December H.
The senate at 1910 resumed considera-
tion of the tariff bill, the pending ques-
ton being Harris amendment to re-
duce the duty on beams, girders, ETC.,
from I-10c per pound to6-l0 of a cent.
German said that he. had never
taken an extreme view, either as to
the reduction or increase Of duties.
The country had expected. however,
that theirs would be a uH6Ierate de-
crease of revenues SO as to remove the
INEQUALITIES in the present tariff with
out interfering with the capital invest
ed, or with the labor employed
in manufactures. But i'll the
midst of a presidential cam
paign and for political purposes
the senate substitute had been framed.
its purpose being a reduction of the
taxation on two or three articles. prin-
cipally sugar and tobacco, and an in
crease of taxation on all other products
for the purpose of increasing unduly
profits of certain manufacturing inter
esCs in the north, and the senate, he
said, was now met with the statement
that there could be no moderation or
reduction of the rates proposed. and
Der would vote solidly to keep the suJ
stitute as it is. AS to the item under
consideration, he had no question from
his knowledge of the iron and steel BUSH
ness, that one cent per pound would be
ample duty on steel beams, and prOba-
bly, that rate would be more than was
necessary to protect that industry and
all the labor employed in it. His im-
preston was, however, that the rate
I'd IN,
of a cent per pound would be too great
reduction.
Aldrich-As one member on this side
of the chamber, disclaim entirely oc-
cupying any such position as the SEN
ator from Missouri suggests.
Gorman-I accept the statement of
the distinguished senator from Ohio
(Shermanl to the effect of the substi-
tute must be accepted in its details.
Allison-I entirely agree with the
senator from Maryland, that this bill
should be discussed in detail on the
merits of each item, and so far as l am
concerned as a member of the finance
committee, l disclaim any idea that the
bill is immaculate in it's details. and |
expect that the finance committee it
self will offer good many amendments
to it. think there are several defects
in it, and think that these steel beam
pCOp1C OcSn kCU c1ObS Will q NusN VI L
cent pound on steel beams, and at
some proper time shall be glad to offer
that amendment for myself. Idisclaim
presenting a bill that is to be put
through on party lines or through party
purpose. l shall listen with pleasure
to any criticism on the details of the
bill. The bill in its general frame work
is intended to protect American indus
tries and American labor, but as to its
dot i1G I ofond rssa6U liSfnn
to any amendments and to vote
| for them if the convincing Judgment
was that the rate is either too high or
low. think some of the rates pro-
posed are too low and shall vote to
raise them and think that some others
are too high and [ shall vote to reduce
them.
Gorman-I am very glad. even at
this day. to have that statement from
the senator from Iowa. well under
stand why this senate substitute was
framed, and we all understand that IT
was framed for a political purpose, and
[ am not complaining of that. You
succeeded All the election and carried
the country. 1t was well and magniti-
Gently done and / have no right to
complain of it, but now the election is
over and now that your party has sue
ceeded. and is soon to come into pos
sion of every branch of the government.
lit is the height of unwisdOm to insist
on these unduly high rates. There is
no excuse for the senator from Iowa
voting with his party las he has done
! for the last three days. as unit on ev-
cry item. If the senator is convinced
that this bill is imperfect, if he be-
lieVeS that there are items in it
which ought to be amended, why not
re-commit the bill and bring in a
measure that is somewhat perfect.
Why does he vote down every amend
ment offered by a democrat. whether
it be right or wrong and hold out to us
only the hope that hereafter the
finance committee may offer amend
ments covering these cases.
ment TO reduce the duty on steel beams
from lilo to Clio of cent per pound,
was rejected, yeas 20 nays %.
The rate was then on motion of Vest
and with the support of Allison and
the republican, fixed at one cent
per pound.
An amendment offered by Jones, of
Arkansas, to make cotton ties free of
duty gave rise to a long discussion par
ticipated in by Jones, Berrey, McPher-
son and Vance on one side and by
Dawes, Aldrich and Stewart on the
other. 1t was not disposed of, the SEN
ate going into executive session and
soon adjOurning.
WASHINGTON, D. c., Dec. 11.-After
reading of the journal the house went
into committee. OF the whole Nc
Creary, of Kentucky, in the chair on
the direct tax bill
Allen. of Mississippi, could find no
warrant in the constitution for refund
| ing the direct tax The advocates of
tols in oHn al
limitations, but thought that the hmi-
tatiOns should be on somebody else and
not on themselves.
Seney, of Ohio. supported the bill
| and whose purpose, he said. had been
grossly miSrepTeSented. In the news
| paper and political gatherings it was
stated that the bill was mere raid by
| the loyal states on the treasury, but an
| examination OF the facts would show
that the socalled disloyal states would
receive their proportion of the money.
It was true that the bill would take SIT,
O00, 600 out of the treasury. but the
| money belongs to the people and the
sooner it was legfslated out OF
the treasury and into their pockets
the better for the people. The people
needed it and the government had nc
use for it. If the bill passed it would
place the people where they were before
i Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, argued
against the policy of taking money
from the national treasury for distri
button among the states.
Elliott. of South Carolina, generally
favored the bill, though ne thought il
should be amended in some particulars
Herbert, of Alabama. opposed thu
bill on constitutional grounds. and be
cause it would work an injustice. Pass
ing to a discussion of the cotton tax ht
argued that it was unconstitutional il
that It was not uniform. A tax on cot
ton was q tax on the only industry OF
| which the south must live.
Grosvenor, of Ohio, said that thu
validity and binding force of the act O
imposing direct tax had never beeI
questioned. A direct tax was an un