St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-07-22
BY A BAKERS DOZEN.
The Mills Bill Passes the
House by Thirteen Ma
jority.
knute Nelson Had No Fears
Of the Party
Lash.
His Vote Went With His Con-
victions for the
Bill.
It Speaks for Itself, He Says
Other Opinions Regard
ing 1t.

WASHINGTON, June 21.-Crowded gal
ferries and a good attendance OF men,
bers on the floor greeted Chairman Mills
this morning as he rose in his place to
close the debate on the tariff bill.
Promptly at IL 80 the bill was called up
and Mr.. Mills, after Offering two amend
ments, intended to correct the typo
graphical errors in the bill, moved the
previous question on them and they
were adopted. He then proceeded to
address the house, beginning by stating
the condition of the finances of the gov
ernment, placing the surplus at S129, ,0O0,-
600. This, he said, should arrest the at
tention of the country. 1t represented
unnecessary taxation drawn from the
people and piled up in the treasury. 1t
was taxation levied upon the product OF
labor. 1t was iniquity. This enormous
amount of money was constantly lower
ing prices and piling an enormous load on
labor and increasing the benefits of
privileged classes. How long would it
be before Stagnation would occur and
bankruptcy and ruin flock together over
the land? The majority had attempted
to bring before the house bill to re-
duce this taxation and lessen the inflow
of money into the treasury. BY the
amendments which had been made III
committee of the whole the total reduc-
ton of duties had fallen from S53,000,000
to $50, ,000,0 900; the free list from S22, ,00O,-
300 to S2O,OOO,OOO The relative rate of
duty had fallen from S47.10, not to $40,
but to S42.49, and yet this measure, SO
very moderate, was characterized as a
free trade measure. Was S42.49 on
every 500 free trade? 1t was an
ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TAXATION.
it was tax which the people of this
country would not permit to stand for
moment. State taxation was levied on
lands. houses, stock, bonds, horses and
cattle, and the property owners would
not permit any party or administration
to remain in power an hour which would
levy tax of $50 Oh the hundred. Yet
this bill, carrying tax of S42.4 was
characterized as free trade measure.
The term free trade seemed to have
double meaning. Some gentlemen
seemed to understand that free trade
lIt UUSOiulC ulllCbOSllilS VI iOA
eign commerce from all taxation. The
Democratic party had used the
term free trade as term eX-
pressing the freedom of our COM
merce from all obstruction save
that of just and necessary taxation to
support the economical administration
of the government. [Applause.] The
tariff of 1876 had been called free trade
tariff, and he had himself spoken of the
decade from 1850 to 1860 as the free
trade period, because in that time COM
merce was not restricted by obStruc-
tions thrown in its way by capitalists
and monopolists. He then proceeded to
take up and discuss in detail the various
schedules of the bill, beginning with
those dealing with chemicals. The
present duty on chemicals, he said, was
32.S7 per cent. The proposed bill placed
it at 2S.17. reduction of little over 81
in hundred. Gentlemen called that
free trade. The next was the earthen-
ware and glass schedule. The duty un-
500. The bill fixed it at S52.17. That
was free trade, too, he supposed. IfS52
taxation on every 500 was free trade,
in Gods name
WOULD SOME ONE TELL HIM
what was meant by the term protection?
IApplause.] Sugar was found at duty
of 7S.15, and the committee reduced it
to 6231. There was nobody making
much fuss about the enormity of the re-
duction. The bill cut down the revenue
from sugar S11, ,759, 900. This was next
to the largest reduction made in any
schedule in the bill. 1t had been con-
stantly charged that the bill was sec
tional, that it barely touched sugar, and
that the committee threw its arms
around the sugar industry to shield it,
yet the reduction in sugar was only
second to one in the whole schedule.
There ought to be high duty on sugar,
because Democrats believed that taxa
tion was the tribute required of citizens
for the support of the government and
because they believed that in laying
taxation, it ought to be so laid as to be
as little burdenSome as possible. By
the tariff on sugar, the government got
SIS, ,000, 900 with Sc, 100000 protection. In
order to get SIS, 100000 into the public
Golfers, it cost S6,0O0,000 protection to
the sugar planters. But in order to get
s5S, 100000 into the treasury from iron
and steel and woolen goods, it cost the
people over S400,000,000. Why then
SHOULD Ille Quly OH sugar Do Iepcdlcu
in order that more burdenSome tax,
at higher rate on woolen and cot
ton goods, and iron and steel, might
be retained. The duty on provisions
under existing laws was 24.33. The
committee left it at 23.39. Yet it was
charged that this was a free trade
measure. The existing duty on cotton
was 1899; the bill fixed it at 309O
Where did the free trade come in on
that? The S12,000,00O revenue on cot
ton had been reduced only S2,377, ,OOO
The duty on hemp, jute and flax was al
present 2S.l0. 1t was left at 21.94. This
reduction of only per cent was brought
about to a great extent by the putting
of large amount of jute and hemp and
MANILA on the free list. The present
duty Oh woods and woolens is 5SS1
The committee bill left it at 3S.69. &
reduction of $50 ON every 500 of tax
alton
THIS REDUCTION SEEMED LARGE,
but it was caused by the placing of raw
wool on the free list. The reduction OF
dutiable woolen goods amounted II
S12,000,000, but the Woolen manufacture
was not injured. He was benefited
This bill gave the manufacturer fret
wool and 40 per cent taxation, and still
it was said to be free trade measure
The duty on books, papers, etc., wa
now 2213; the bill left it at 22.O6, les
than 10 cents reduction. The duty OF
steel rails was reduced from SIT per tOl
to Sl1 per ton, and although the dut,
was left at 81 per cent, it was charged
that the Democrats were irving to rull