Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-04-30
Questions and Answers Fly from
From One Side Of the
House to the Other.
BreckenridssUses Unparliamentary Lam
6uaSe and Reed Calls Him to Order.
The Mills Bill Declared a Party Measure
for Party Purposes.
WARRINGTON, April 20

/ lor prOtectiOn sake. lie belonged To tina
school Of politics which believes in the co
lection from the pockets of the America
| people of so much money as was necessar
/ for the proper and economical admnistrs
ton of the government. and of not one do
lar beyond. He and gentlemen on his sid
of the House were not free traders; the
were fair traders; they wanted simply t
equalze the burden of taxation. The pre-:
ent tariff was oppressive to farmers.
Mr.. O'Neill of Pennsylvania said that h
was sorry that Mr., Tarsney was not preser
at the launch of the Yorktown today, an
seen the commencement of the navy.
he had been there he would have seen tn
product of thousands of men who are en-
gagged at good wages. If the excursionist
watched they would see Roach's yard a
Chester and Cramps yard at Philadelphia
These yards would be closed by the passag
of the Mills bill. These great hives of in
dustry would be stopped, and the families OF
the workmen would be the sufferers. ii,
wanted to say, for the information of tn,
members present that there were 200 90,
people in Philadelphia engaged in the manu-
featuring industries who bought their farm
products from farmers who brought thei
products to their doors. By industry and
economy these POO 900 people were enabled
to live in houses of their own, and yet the
gentleman from Michigan said that protec
ton had not been a benefit to the individua
man. If the gentleman had been present a
the launching he believed he would have
come back with his mind changed, and h,
thought he could be convinced that the ten
dency of free trade was to destroy, while
that of protection was to build up and fos
ter.
The discussion then took a colloquia
turn, the conversational method of debate
being inaugurated by Mr. Russell of Massa
cbusetts with the suggestion that Cramp &
Sons were now engaged in the construction
of cruisers for the American navy, and h,
Inquired whether Mr.. O'Neill meant to say
that the passage Of the Mills would result il
the closing of their yard.
MIR. O'Neill replied that the construction
of these cruisers only furnished temporary
employment. Cramp & Sons had the con
tracts because they were the lowest bidders
and because it was well known that Phila
delphia's iron ship builders were the best in
the country. But, if Congress passed the
free trade bill now before it, and supplement-
ed it with the free ship bill, which had been
favorably reported by the committee OF
merchant marine and fisheries, the ship
building industry would be destroyed
Mr.. Mcmillan of Tennessee inquired
whether the gentlemen regarded the Morril
tariff bill as a free trade bill.
Mr.. O'Neill replied in the negative.
Mr. Mcmillan inquired whether the rates
of duty under the Mills bill were not as high
as under the Morrill, bill.
Mr.. O'Neill replied that he thought not,
but that, al all events, the Morrill, bill was
framed under circumstances entirely differ
ent from these now existing.
Mr.. Miller said that the difference wal
this: That then we had an immense war
which was an excuse for high taxation. while
now there was no war and no excuse for high
taxation.
Mr.. ONeill replied that now there was nc
one demanding change of existing tariff
rates except Democratic free traders
MIR. McMillan-have we not an excess of
revenue now?
Mr O'Ncill-Yes.
Mr.. McMllan-Do you oppose all tax re-
ductiont
Mr.. O'Neill-I propose the repeating OF
the internal revenue law to great extent.
Mr.. McMillan-That system would leave
us deficiency of $50, 900, 900. How does
the gentleman propose TO do that?
Mr. O'Neill-I propose that we get by a
tariff for protection sufficient money to carry
on the government and to protect American
industries.
MIR Bavne-My colleagues disposition i.
that the Mills tariff bill, coupled with the
free trade bill. would result in the discharge
of workmen in the shipbuilding establish
ments az Philadelphia.
Mr. Bynum of lndiana-Iiow would the
tariff blll destroy the industry of construct
ing ship ? Would 1t not benefit the ship
builders by having cheaper material?
Mr.. ONeilI-They would be benefited il
they would build on the theory of giving
cheaper wages to American workmen.
Mr., Bynum inquired whether Mr.. O'Neil
was in favor of tariff revision.
Mr. O'Neill replied that he wanted the
tariff revised when there was a republican
President He wanted it revised in the
House of its friends. Laughter.
Mr.. Ford of Michigan-Would not the
gentleman lust as soon call on Bob Ingersol
to write a revision of the New Testament as
to call on the republican party to revise the
tariff? Laughter
Mr.. ONeill-This is a tariff destruction
not a tariff reduction.
Mr.. O'Neill of Indiana inquired how i
was that, if the tariff made wages high. all
persons employed in manufactures in New
York received 10 to 100 per cent. higher
wages than those employed in Philadelphia.
Mr. O'Neill of Pennsylvania replied that il
was because the price oe living in New York
was higher than in Philadelphia.
Mr. O'Neill-That being the case. why il
it that the cheap labor of Philadelphia doe,
not break down the high priced labor of New
York?
Mr.. O'Neill of Pennsylvania-The cheal
labor of Philadelphia as the gentleman calf
it. is sufficient. The laborer gets a reward
for his toll which satisfies him, which give
him good living. In New York the people
do not live in houses as they do in Philadel
phia, but in big tenements.
Mr.. Mcmillan inquired whether the gen
tleman held that it was not the tariff tina
made high wages, but the cost of living.
Mr.. O'Neill of Pennsylvania-Not at all
The tariff for protection to American indus
try protects American workmen. Should I
be the misfortune of this country to live urde
the mills tariff bill, many of you will CONF
back next session depressed, because yol
have reduced the wages of the laboring maj
and taken away from him the opportunity o
labor.
Mr.. Milliken of Maine-Is it not true tha
there has been no revision of the tart n e1
cept by the republican party, and is 1t no
.bsoIu,eIy true that democratic Houses yea
,f,ar year have never succeeded re-reducini
it? 8.
Mr.. Russell-You never succeeded Il
lowering it; you always raised it.
Mr.. Bynum-Did not your tariff commis
sion recommend a reduction of 20 per cent.
and did not you, under pretence of reducin
it, increase it!
Mr.. Bayne of Pennsylvania-We found o
examination that the recommendation OF tn
commission was not the proper thinl
daughter
Mr.. Russell stated that high wages paid
Massachusetts, were paid in industries thi
were not protected. The workmen in tn