The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-04-28
TGH TARIFFS A HYDRA.
7nr7cTION AND NOT ABOLITION
THE ISSUE OF THE DAY.

p BreW6r RralS6S bn0 O0IuOCTdCS LOT
coming to the Front with Their
Policy, and Then Advocates a Con-
tinuance of the Existing Evil-Its
Evils Exposed by Mr.. Ford.
WASHINGTON, April 27-After short
sc,ssion as to whether it was competent
r the House to proceed to-day to consider
ionof private business, the House went
n committee of the whole with Mr..
,rirger, of Illinois, in the chair, on the
riff bill.
Mr.. Brewer, of Michigan, gladly well
med the issue presented by the pending
easllre. In times past, the Democratic
rty had sought to evade the issue. In its
atform of 1884, it had declared for pro-
ction, for free trade, for incidental pro-
ctiou. for a tariff for revenue and
"a tariff only for revenue; so
at the voter could construe the platform
sIit his own convictions. In Kentucky
10 platform meant free trade, in Pennsyl-
mia. New York and Connecticut and
ew Jersey, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
mia (Mr RandalD was able to make voters
,eve it meant protection. By reason of
aud and intimidation practiced in one
ction of the country, and by means of
ception practiced by the Democratic lead
5 in another section, the Democratic can
date for President had been elected. For
rec wears of the Democratic administra-
N. the Democratic party in the House
d PLAYED fast and loose on the great tariff
estion. until the necessities of the govern
mt had compelled the administration to
le some decided position, and he honored
President for having forced his party
stop its double dealing and define its
itude. He then advocated the protective
item as one which tended to increase the
ges of labor.
REDUCTION, NOT ABOLITION.
dr. Ford, of Michigan, said that the
sstion presented now was one of tariff
Iuction, not abolition. 1t was true that
, bill reported by the majority of the
mmittee on Ways and Means proposed
enlarge the free list but the main object
the measure was to reduce not abolish
, tariff. II considering this question
ngress should not seek to build up the
.ustries of any one State at the ex-
lse of other parts of the country.
at the present tariff law did
+, in its application, add TO the prosperity
the great mass of people must be evident
every tair-minded dunprejudiced:man. A
if which gave a comparatively small
mber of men the right and opportunity
tax millions of our ci tizens AZ per cent.
re than their goods would bring in open
rket could not fail to have the
ult of building up and maintaining
st monopolieS and trusts, where enormous
fits were swelled and Increased by the
butte which the tariff authorized them to
y from the pockets of the people. Con-
hoA M ri IN toll I,O A,.fD Df
lnufacturers against tho great body of
nsumers. But that was just what has
en- done. Our war tariff declared for
IN prices for the producer of iron; low
ices for the producer of corn; high prices
the producer of glass; low prices for the
oducer of wheat
NOT A FAIR DEAL.
The present tariff tax aimed to secure to
ew manufacturers disposal of their goods
large profit. To do that their prices
ust be raised. To raise their prices the
pply of their foreign competitors must
; diminished To diminish the supply
as to create scarcity. The fact of
ematter was that the tendency of prices
as to cheapen constantly, not on account of
.xes imposed by our war tariff, but owing
the improved means of transportation
ud production. Prices had declined every
ATiC, anu Jil6 pIlCtS VI pro-
buttons, which our war tariff did not
hal declined out of all proper
tin to those of manufactured
Commodities; and, as usual, the farmer had
g9t the worsl of it. Prices had declined
Tie world over; they had declined in free
t'ade England and i'll China as well as in
heUnited States. The price in this country
q nearly every article on which our war
tariff was imposed would be a good deal
c1eaper to-day if the tariff were reduced
he rldIculed the position taken by the pro-
tteectlonlsts that high eariff increased
the wages Of American workmen. No in
dustrles, he said, showed more poverty,
more destltution, and more strikes among
thelr worklngmen than those so-called pro-
tected ones. There was not a hod-carrier
IA the United States but who earned more
wages than the average person engaged in
Ine Ie industries benefited by the war tariff
ne attributed the existence of pools to the
continuance of the high tariff.
GoFF's OPPOSITION.
Mr.. Golf, of West Virginia, spoke in op-
position to the bill. The reduction of the
arm, he said, should be made by the
Hiends OF the protective system, and not by
lS avowed enemies The Mills bill, he said,
was conceived by minds impregnated with
economic vlclOusness. Its passage would
Og Og tne death knell of protect on. 1t was not
a.. az mat its friends hoped for it was in the
nhe OF legislation they long had sought, and
1aloqrned because they found it not He
uevIared himself a protectionist.
Mr Landes, of Illinois, submitted an
argument in support of the bill and in OPP
POSITION to the protective theory. While
earthly advocating the BILL he regretted
INA. snat 1t touched whisky and tobacco taxes,
Hnich, instead of being reduced. should be,
~, hg ohought, increased. He holed that tho
u uliI would pass, and that every member
VINO VINO voted against it for the purpose Of
t.;onllnuing the granting of enormous boun-
U.s.! US 70 manufacturers, would meet with
RboIiLlcaI p death ard would be buried under
. .ue DaIIot i'll November next below the
resurrection line.
.. me committee then rose, and the House,
w. ~ 0cl OK, took a recess until So'clock, the
osseullS os session to be for the consideration
"a private pension bills.
BAYARD NOT TO RESIGN.