Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1888-04-27
House.

WASHINGTON, April 2I-Four tariff
speeches occupied most of the time of the
House, yesterday. Senate bill was passed
for the relief of the Omaha tribe of Indians
in Nebraska, and to extend the time OF
payment to purchasers of land of said In
dians. A resolution was adopted calling
on the Secretary of the Treasury for infor-
nation as TO the number of persons en-
gagged in manufacturing and agricultural
pursuits who are subject to foreign compe-
titition.
The House then went into committee of
the whole on the Tariff bill.
Mr.. buchanan. of New Jersey, criticised
the composition of the committee and the
secresy with which it had formulated the
pending measure, and arraigred the COM
mittee for its refusal to grant hearings and
% consider petitions. Referring to the
Presidents message, he said the President
did not advocate the repeal of the internal
system of taxation nor manifest deep con-
Germ that this country should feed its labor
ers rather than foreign country; but ne ad-
vised that import duties should be reduced
and in some instances abolished altogether
He asserted that the bill, instead of remoy-
ing the inequalities of the tariff, increased
them. He protested against the reduction
of the duty on earthenware, and read a
number of petitions from workingmen in
nts utsulNt oGdlilsN tIS llltlSiptSo
in the bill. 1t struck a blow at almost
every industry in his district, and in its
details wss vicious, inequitable and illogic-
al, and declared that in the contest between
free trade and protection he would be
found on the side of that policy which for
many years had broGgnt prosperity and
happiness to his native land.
Mr.. Hemphill, of South Carolina, con-
tended that Congress had the constitutional
49,, H. IL, g. l..
only and every time il went beyond that
limitation it was fiagrant violation of that
privilege. A tariff for protection was il
logical and unjust Under it the entire
people were subjected to monopofies. The
only difference between home monopoly
and foreign monopoly (adm tting that
there could exist such thing as foreign
monopoly was that the people had to pay
heavy additional percentage for the privilege
OF having their masters on this side of the
water. The protection accorded by high
tariff was protection against the right of
the American people to buy when and
where they pleased. That protection was
demanded by the manufacturers, not
against any wrong but against the right of
their own countrymen-denlande in order
that enc citizens privilege should be in
creased by having those of another cur
tailed
Mr. terklns inquired Wnether, II the gen
tleman believed that the American citizen
should be permitted to buy where he
pleased, he did not also believe that he
sholiG ue allowed to hire labor where he
pleased. Mr.. Hemphill replied in the af.
frmative and expressed his belief in free
dom in all things and called attention to
the fact that the high protectionists had
never attempted to protect the labor Of the
country from the importation Of the So
called pauper labor of Europe. Human
ingenuity, be said could not conceive sys
tenn more unjust, more unreasonable, more
unfair and more unrighteous than the pro
tective system.
Mr.. Osborne, of Pennsylvania, opposed
the bill, which he characterized a. Q blow
at the dignity of labor, an attack on . sys
TEN of taxation which had brought comfort
and even luxury to thousands OF homes In
this country. The object Of q protective
duty, Mr.. Osborne said, was not to raise the
price Of seeds bat to secure . market toi