National Republican., 1888-05-04

nation why a man in Mauc is worth only
two.thirds of man IN Connecticut.
Laughter and applausc.l
Mr.. Boutelle reiterated his question, but
Mr. Wilson declined to answer 1t and con
tinucd his speech.
Mr.. Dngley, of Maine, discussed at
length the Presidents aud Mr.. Mills's as
sumption that duties on imported articles
which can he produced here TO the extent
Of our wants were tax, which increased
the burdens of the consumer TO the extent
or nearly to the extent Of the duty, and he
argued that on the contrary such duties
benefited the consumer by encouraging
home Industries and securing products for
less labor or service. lie asked on what
ground bill which profcssed to remove
taxes on nccessaries of life had placed q
duty of 100 per cent. on southern rice and
6S per cent on southern sugar.
The bill proposed TO place wool, lime,
wood pulp, manufactured lumber, and
Canadian farm products on the free list on
the ground that they were raw materials, but
left duty on such articles as coal and iron
ore. Why, he asked, should the labor of
the farmer In producing WOOL potatoes
beans, &c, and the labor of the workman
in manufacturing lumber, wood pulp, and
lime be unprotected and labor in other in
dustrics protected?
Referring to the charge that protectionists
were hostile to foreign trade, he said this
was not true. They did oppose surrender
ing our home markets, which were the most
valuable in the world. Our home market
consumed more products per capita than
the United Kingdom consumes and exports,
As matter of fact our foreign trade and
our exports had increased since the war as
never before because our people had been
more prosperous and had bought more arti-
cles they could not produce.
Referring to the charge that protection
had destroyed our foreign carrying trade,
Mr.. Dingley said 1t was true that this has
declined, but no more rapidly since the war
than six years before the war. The de
cline in our foreign carrying trade was due,
not to protection, but to want ofsprotec-
tion. Our foreign carrying trade had been
the only unprotected business in the cOun-
try since 1850, and, in contending on free
free trade principles with foreign vessels, II
had been driven to the wall at the same
time that our protected coastwisc trade had
lourished. This should serve as an object
lesson to Congress and the country TO stand
by protection, and to extend 1t to our ship
ping in the foreign trade by means of direct
aid.
Mr.. McKinney,'of New Hampshire, said
that he came to the discussion of this ques-
tion not as free trader. lie believed that
the best means Of collecting the funds ncces-
snry for the support Of the government was
by tax on imports, but he believed that
that tax should be levied, as far as might
be, on luxuries, and that, rs far as might be,
the necessares of life should be placed on
the free list. lie was not In favor Of any
radical change in the tariff laws, for the
business of the country was now on a high
tariff basis, and any radical and sudden
change would disturb the business interests
lie advocated the placing of wool on the
free list.
At the conclusion of his speech the com
mittee rose.
On motion of Mr.. McShane, of Nebraska,
the bill was passed authorizing the construc
ton of bridge over the Missouri river at
or near the city Of Omaha Neb.
An amendment to this bill was agreed to
on motion of Mr.. Lyman, of Iowa, provid-
ing that the bridge shall not be located less
than one-third Of a mile from any other
brldge now built or in process of construc-
tion.
The House then, at $3.50, adjourned.