The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-10-09


ten days or two weeks would be sufficient
for general debate?
Mr.. Allison hope so.
Mr.. Harris-Thcn | will ask unanimous
consent to close general debate on this bill
in ten days.
Mr.. Allison-Iwoud not like to consent
to that at the very beginning. 1t might
be found that We wanted eleven days or
twelve days
Mr.. Allison then proceeded with his
statement as to the bill. There were some
things which ought TO be made clear in the
very beginning OF the discussion. There
We're a few salient points which ought to
be presented. One was that the Senate
bill proposed 10 reduce the revenue be-
tween S63, 600 900 and S73,0OO,OO0. This
was the first opportunity that the Senate
had had 10 consider the great question OF
the reduction OF the revenue since the re-
vision of 1888. The iirst opportunity came
to the committee on finance on July 81, OF
this year, after the usual time OF adjourn
ment in a longsession. The House had occu-
pied eight months in the consideration of
the question, but within little over sixty
days the Senate committee on finance had
produced the bill now up. The House
had spent eight months not for the pur-
pose OF Strengthening the industries OF the
country, but Tor the purpose Tor, he ought
10 say, perhaps, with the effect OF greatly
disturbing these interests. That was q
mild phrase. IL was an easy thing to tclr
down, but it was not so easy to build up.
lie regarded a reduction Of from $50, 0OO,-
900 10 $4,000, 900 of revenue rs being rs
great reduction as could he safely made
and therefore he trusted that no amend
mend would be adopted looking TO
greater reduction. He calculated from
the report OF the Secretary OF the Treasury
for the first quarter OF the present fiscal
year that there would be reduction OF
-, 900, 900 in receipts from imports this
year, ms compared with last year,
and reduction OF Sl7OOo,OOO rs
compared with the Sccrctary's est.
mate. Taking all the revenues Of the
government for the iirst quarter of the
current fiscal year, they have fallen OF
| 5000, 600 as compared with the first quar-
ter oi last year. lie made this statement
for the purpose of showing that the enOr-
nous surplus in the treasury wasn't likely
10 be increased by anything TINT was too
sour during the present fiscal year. by
the provisions OF the Senate tariff bill
there would b. no surplus revenue unless
| the sinking fund Tor this year were left en-
| tirely ont OF consideration. The Senate
bill contemplated, and II might ~ well be
understood in the beginning, that Tor the
current fiscal wear and Tor the fiscal years
| that are 10 follow Immediately there was
not likely to be a surplus Tor the sinking
fund. There certainly would not be a
surplus beyond the amount necessary 10
redeem the a per cent. bonds falling due
October |, 1891. According TO the report
Of the Secretary Of the Treasury there was
on the iirst of the present month a surplus
| OF SaB, OOO, 600 in the trcasury-no not IN
the treasury, for Sj7,OOJ,0DO were In the
national banks. lie did not TO rccur 10 the
management Of the treasury NJ respects
the accommodating surplus from year 10
year. hut Tor tie life Of him he could not
understand why II was that n surplus Of
Sg6, 100000 was not used 10 retire the I
per cent. bonds that were presently 10 be
paid of by the government There was
not time in the history Of the affair when
the government could not have purchased
bonds so a. to have made per cent. in
terest on the money. by what process Of
fnancicring was II that the administration
instead Of paying oil these a per cent
bonds allowed so, 900. 900 OF surplus 10 re-
main with the national banks without re-
cciving any intenst from III
Passing ON 10 the general features Of the
hill lac said that the Senate bill differed
from the House bill in the fact that IL pro.
posed 20 deal with all the schedules Of the
Tariff, while the House bill did not. The
House hill did not deal with the tobacco
schedule, the silk schedule. or the wines
and liquor schedule, and had dealt but
lightly with the sugar schedule. The
senate hill had been made up on the prin-
ciplc Of protecting American labor and
American industry. That was iis aim and
purpose. The Senate committee on finance
hal sought to care for every industry In
the country. Referring 20 the question OF
tobacco, Mr.. Allison said the only differ
encc between tile House bill and the Sen.
ate bill in regard 10 tobacco was that the
senate bill made a reduction Of sl.O pei
thousand on manufactured cigars, aud alEC
took OF the tax Of II on retail dealers iu
tobacco.
The House bill reduced the sugar duly
is Der cent and the Senate 80 Icr cent
Even with the latter reduction the duty
on sugar would remain at II per cent.
al yalorcm. sugar was NJ essential h
every household as bread and II there wa
any article that should have n low rate o
duty imposed on Il, IL was the article o
sugar. lie believed that whatever en-
rouragcmcnt there should be- for the pro-
. ductiun Of sugar from sorghum OF b5U,s
was still LETT Ia the fair protection gyct
by the senate bill II had been the boas
Of the Democratic party that II would ~
ducc the duties on thc neccsHirics III life
: but what was greater necessity Of liiI
/ than sugar. Aud yet the House bill only
proposed a reduction Of the existing dut,
on sugar by Is per cent lie argued tia
the effect VI the House hill In regard q
> the sugar schedule would be 30 lcgislat
. S6,OOO. 90 year into the pockets Of thu
+. sugar trust ~ " per cent. on their capita
4 and o. take that amount out Of tie peck
. cts II tie people. And yet the Rcpub
, lican party IL denounced aud this Hulsti
! tutr II denounced ~ inyOnng trusts. Con
Q sistcncy u n jewel that h not found 10 thu
, minority report any more than u u ioun,
4 In the report Of the senator from Ken
. lucky (Mr Beck.
Q AZ 20 silk and silk goods, the Senate bil
z substitutes specific duties for al yulorcr
]. duties. but In this the committee o
J. finance has followed the rccommondntio
Of Secretary Manning. lie believed tia
Q the effect would be To- increase somcNha
II the duty on silks II had been the inter
ton II the committee on finance las IL ha
y been. hc believed, that Of Secretary Man
i ming 10 make the specific duty on I'll
J. correspond exactly With the al yalorci
u rates. In comparing the two bills VI
Il Allison said that the senate bill was q Gle.
c and distinct measure OF protection