Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-09-22

upon in this caucus. Under these
circumstances, then, it would be expected
that there would be no delay in its fina
massage. 1t was, under the rules, in the
hover of the chairman of the committee
to move the previous question, close de-
hate. and bring the bill up for final vote
1t was in the power of the Democracy to
consider it just as long or as short time
as it desired But, notwithstanding all
this power, all this urgent necessity as
urged by the president and the speaker, II
was not brought to final vote until July
% 1888. more than four months after ii
had been reported to the house, more than
three months after it had been taken W
for consideration, and nearly eight months
after the meeting of congress.
What do you think of this evidence as
furnished by the recorde Was the presi-
| dent sincere in the alarm he sounded!
| Was the party sincere in its attempt to re-
wise the tariff?
! Let me call your attention to some fur
Their evidence Why was this bill held
| back in the house of representatives until
July % before it passed and before 1t could
be sent to The senate for action? The long
session of congress usually adJourns IN
July. But few sessions in the history OF
| the country have continued longer than
the middle of July There was an object
| in holding this tariff bill, and it was in line
with the one attained by the presi-
dent when he made the surplus
and the tariff the sole burden of his mes
sage That party, after they had passed
| it in the house did not want Republican
senate to take it ND and consider it. That
was one reason why it was held back I'M
til the last days of July. The hot streets
of Washington, pleasant in winter, III
! spring and in autumn, are fearfuily IN
comfortable and unhealthy in the July
and August days If the bill had been
| Nav
part of June. there then would be danger
Of it's consideration by the senate; but Ii
held back until the last days of July, GER
tainly, then. that body would not stay
during the hot August days. As soon,
therefore. as the bill passed the house
every effort was made by the party to
bring about an early adjournment. A bill
had been
FIXED UP To CATCH VOTES.
The attention of the country had been riv
tied upon the Mills bill. Now, Cleveland
thought his record was safe; now the DEM
ocrats thought the attention of the coun-
try had been completely drawn away from
the extravaganza and crimnaiity of his
administration, but ''the best laid schemes
! OF mice and men aft gang aglea. The
house could not adjourn for more than
three days without the consent OF the SEN
ate, and a Republican senate refused to
fall in with the idea of adjournment.
That body, as soon as 1T received
the bill, referred it to COM
mittee, and its sub committee began
its session with open doors, giving to eacn
part of it's careful consideration. Repre-
sentatives of every business interest, OF
every agricultural interest, of every labor
interest, were carefully and consclen-
| tiously heard What contrast! The
house committee held its sessions IN
secret: it refused hearing to any and ali
interests; representatives OF labor organf-
cations were turned away from its doors
unheard; all hearings refused. The Dem
ocratic portion of the committee did, in
secret, give an audience to the king OF the
sugar trust, Mr.. Havemeyer, of New York
City, and to Parsee Moore, an agent OF
large British manufacturing interests.
But American industry, American labor,
although asking time and again, could get
no hearing. Not so in the Republican sen
ate All interests were granted hearing
and their doors stood open: and the first
session of the Fiftieth congress will not
adjourn until the Republican. senate have
passed and sent back to the house a wise,
just and equitable revision of the tariff.
But another danger threatened Demo
cratic success. Admitting devotees had
chrstened the message OF the president
a free trade message. He doubtless did
not know at the time whether 1t
was or not He did not care: his aim was
to direct attention to the tariff and surplus
so as to hide his own executive deformity.
The British papers said 1t meant Tree
trade. The British manufacturer, who
had long been trying. in vain to conquer
the American market for his wares shout
ed for JOY. The southern planter, who
wanted cheaper labor on his plantation,
said, Great is Free Trade Grover" and
these praises and laudations from England
and English Interests continued until the
great business interests OF America be-
came alarmed. The swelling tide of de-
lection from Democratic ranks in New
York state aroused the president and his
free trade adherents; they became fearful
that even the bankers money could not
save the state for Cleveland. Then it was
that requests were sent to British papers
to stop their glorifcation or it would in.
jure their cause in America. Then it was
that the London Pail Mall Gazette said:
England free traders would be we'll
advised if they moderate the ecstacy of
their jubilation over President Cleveland's
message Every word which they say in
its favor will be used as a powerful argu-
ment against the adoption of its recon-
mendations."
Then it was that great Democratic
meeting was held in New York,
and Speaker Carlisle and Tex
as Mills went in haste to
speak and declare, that the president did
not mean free trade; that the Mills bill
did not mean free trade, and that the bust
ness interests of the country, including
the farmer and the laboring man, had been
unnecessarily alarmed about it.
Since that time every Democratic stump
speaker N and out of congress, has used
large portion of his eloquence and logic in
trying to convince the people that the Mills
bill is not for free trade.
do not care for the purposes of this
argument whether it Is for free trade or
protection. One thing | do know and |
challenge any man to deny it, and that is.
that, so far as most of the articles il which
the Kansas farmer is interested, it is a free
trade bill, because II put them on the free
list, and deprives them of all protection.
II protection is good for rice, why is it
not good for flax? If ii is good for sugar,
why is it not good for salt? If it is good
for tobacco. why is il not good for wool?
If it is good Tor whisky. why is it not good
for milk? Is there any reason why fax
raised outside of the United States by
farmers who pay none of our taxes, and
who have no interest in our country,
should be allowed TO come in
here free and compete with fax
raised by our farmers OF Kansas and Iowa?
II there is, why should not the rice from
Madagascar and Ceylon and Java and
China be allowed to come in free and
compete with the rice raised in South
Carolina Rice is All article of food that
we use daily on our tables. Is there any
reason why salt manufactured in foreign
countries and used as ballast for ships
should be
ALLOWED TO COME IN FREE?
And sugar from Germany and France
should be compelled TO pay duty? We
use both of them daily, and sugar costs us
SIX cents pound, and salt costs us, six
pounds for cent. If either should be
free, then, certainly. sugar should be free.