Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-05-19

cotton planter could get hoop iron tor his
cotton bales FREQ Of duty, while the farm
er Of the West must pay for the same
iron u cents per pound if be
wished to bind his thatch or his pail.
What in the world had the Mills bill
done for the people any way? What
had it,done for the farmer? 1t had tax
en- the duties practically off everything
he grew off every prol.ct OF his farm
1t took the duty off his wool. What did
it give the farmer in return? Every.
thing he bought was dutiable; the Goa
be wore, the hat that covered his head
| his shoes, his stockings, his sugar
his rice, everything is dutiable
but everything he raised was put
on the free list. The duty on wool was
gone. What had the Democratic party
given to the former in return for this
The slaughter OF his interests. He look
i ed up and down the bill and would tell
what it did for the former. 1t had given
him free sheep dip, a preparation used
on sheep and composed largely of the
ends OF tobacco. The bill made tbs
farmers wool free, but made him pay Al
per cent. for the shears with which he
clipped his sheep.
/ PLEADING FOR PROTECTION.
Passing on to q discussion of the
peneral effect Of the protective system on
tue people, he said he cared not whether
the present prosperous condition of the
country was the result of protection OF
not. The fact that that condition had
come with protection ought to make
Congress hesitate long before it aban-
doned the system. The gentlemen might
| try protection by any test they might try
/ it, not only by the individual prosperity
of citizens, but by the advance the coun-
try had made in intelligence and inven.
ton; and by any standard it might be
tried the protective system would show
results that surpassed all others. New
England's prosperity was due largely to
the protective tariff, and her prosperity
had been positive benefit to everyone
OF the sixty million people OF the United
States.
| He cited statistics to show the large
amount Of farm products Of the North
and West which were consumed in New
England, and asked If New England was
not better market than old England for
the people OF the United States. Was
not Boston better consumer than Lon
don? New York than Liverpool? Pitts
burg than Manchester? Cincinnati
than Lincolnshire? The opportunity
of the people OF this country was next
November; for if the people OF this
country want free trade, it was their
privilege to have it, but they must vote
for full, fair and candid discussion
The majority OF the Representatives on
the floor of this House we're authorized to
vote for this bill by the election of
| 1886. The House was not elected on
| that issue. He challenged the authority
of the gentlemen under the instructions
given them by the people two years ago,
to force this measure through the House.
He asked the members OF the present
Congress to go back before the people
and ask to be elected to the
Fifty-first Congress on this bill and
| the Presidents s message. Then il the ma
jority is returned to the next House they
will be authorized, aye instructed to vote
for his bill. Do not dodge, but meet the
the issues squarely, make your platform
in Connecticut the same as in Carolina.
In New Jersey and New York the same
as in Mississippi, Missouri and Tennes-
see. Then if the majority comes back
you will be instructed to accept the Brit
| ish system and abandon the American
! 1t is not important about the details OF
the bill. 1t is the system that is on trial.
! 1t is whel her the American system should
\ be maintained or the British system
substituted.
Continuing, he said: While we were
seeking to find objects to relieve from
taxation, and other nations were engaged
| in exploring the fields of human enter
prise and human production, to find new
objects of'taxation, all were agreed their
action should he reduced; the only con-
tention being as to the manner of that
reduction.
CONTRASTING THE TWO POLICIES.
| He sharply contrasted the tariff. for
revenue policy Of Democrats, and the
tariff-for- protection policy OF Republi-
cans He maintained that the one
meant the free admission to this country
of foreign goods, which could be pro-
duced here whenever the line OF exces-
sive revenue was reached, and conse-
quently the destruction of American in
dustry. The other meant protec-
ton as we'll as revenue; it meant
stimulation to our industries and
the protection of our labor in the fruits of
its work. There we're many illustrations
Of Democratic doctrine in the bill. Wool
was ole of them. Cotton bagging was
another. The bill meant that Calcutta
and Dundee should supply us with cotton
bagging, and the countries of the East
| with wool. The Democrats, since De-
cember, have been letting our own peo-
pie take care OF themselves, and trying to
llsgslate for other and foreign people
When Mckinley concluded he was
greeted with round after round of ap.
plause, and was Immediately surrounded
by his party colleagues, who were profuse
in their congratulations. 1t was some
minutes before order was restored and
Breckenridge, Of Kentucky, recognized,
and then the storm broke out afresb, the
gentlemen on both sides Of the House
vieing with the galleries in hearty well
come to the Kentuckian
4 No BRECKENRIDGE TALKS.
Breckenridge began with a review ol
the situation so far as the surplus in the
treasury was concerned, and the danger
attendant on further accumulation. He
then sketched he work of the Ways and
Means Committee in framing the Milk
bill. The committee, he said, lad re-
jected the proposition to increase the
duties for the purpose Of reduc
ing the revenue OF the Govern
ment, and increasing the revenue o.
manufacturers, and the propositions te
repeal the internal revenue system, ant
had attempted to frame bill which
would reduce the revenue by SAFE
amount, and would relieve as far as pos
, sible the evils Of the present unequa
, system. The Inequalities of tn,
| present tariff tend to promote
, American industries by givini