The new North-west., 1888-10-12


Q their promise to the letter. Under the Cor
stitution call bills for raising revenue sha
''originate in the House of Represe natives
e "but the Senste may propose or concur wit
amendments, as on other bills" Th
! Senate, therefore, could not propose reve
, nue. bill. If Republican should propos
one in the House it would be referred to
committee, the majority of whom would b
Democrats. Hence, the Republicans had t,
wait until the Mills bill passed the Hous
and was presented to the Senate, when
substitute bill could be offered, which ha
: been done. The Democrats took eigh
: months to prepare the Mills bill j; the Senat.
finance committee prepared its substitute IL
sixty days. ......
Now, what are the differences in the two
bills? The Democratic bill is for progressive
free trade; the Republican bill is for protec
tion. The Mills bill largely retains internal
revenue taxes, which are levied and paid by
ourselves on American products and indus.
tries, and admits many foreign products and
manufactures in competition with those Of
America, free, or at greatly diminished tariff
rates, while the Republican bill cuts down
the internal revenue tax, will diminish the
surplus, and maintains q just protective tariff
on foreign imports which come in competi-
tion with American products and manufac-
lures. This is the vital distinction.
The majority report of the Senate COM
mittee submits that the public demand for =
reduction of the revenue is the more urgent
because the Cleveland administration will
not redeem bonds with the surplus and re-
store the surplus to the channels of trade.
but is loaning 1t out to favored National
banks without interest; that the Mills bill,
while purporting to diminish Tie revenues
$78,O0O,OOO, would increase rather than
diminish them; that it invites and gives i'm
| munity to fraud by substituting ad valorem
for specific duties, and that it does not rem
edy any of the defects Of existing laws.
With the exception Of silks, wines, liquors,
tobacco and sugar, every tariff schedule is
invaded with hostile spirit and nearly ali
our industries would feel its blighting effect
Of the 104 items placed on the free list by
the Mills bill, 43 are manufactured articles,
16 are agricultural products, ~ have been
heretofore free or are without commercial
Importance, and 21 are articles that now pav
small duty. The manufactured articles to
be placed on the free list by the Mills bill
employs 300, 900 men and $500, 900 600 capi-
ia. They have been sacrificed to free trade
simply because neither the interests of q
section nor the political control Of Con-
gressional district demanded their preserva-
ton. The admission of "tin plates" free,
used in most cases for oofing and other build
Ing purposes, and for other purposes where
galvanized, or sheet iron o.. steel is now used.
would annihlate large and established
American industries. Wool has been dntia-
BILE since 1916. No administration since.
until Clereland's, has proposed to make it |
free The product aggregates $1OO, ,0OO, 900. |
Nine-tenths OF the woolen clothing used |
in America is new manufactured here. The
radical change could not but iniuriously
effect that industry. If it is made free, and
the tariff on manufactures Is reduced to one
of revenue, American wooden manufactu-
rers cannot compete with foreign manufac-
turers, except by reducing wages. 1t would
close factories In which millions of uouev
are invested, turn ont Al army of operatives,
and force down the wages of all other labor.
The loss would far outweigh the gain.
The Senate bill, on the other hand, pro-
poses reduction Of 100000. OF this
It is estimated $27, 900 comes off the in
ternal revenue on tobacco, and S., ,O0O, 600 on
alcohol used in the industrial arts. The
reduction Of tariff on sugar will aggregate
under the Senate bill, as against
bl1, 100000 under the Mills bill, and the free
list Of the Senate bill is Sc, 500 900, as against
S22,o0 1000 proposed by the Mills bill. The
Senate bill also provides . reduction of about
be same amount on dutiable goods as the
Mills bill does, with this distinction kept
learly 10 view and adhered to throughout
That the Senate bill imposes . protective :
ariff on oil importations that come In com
etitton with American products and manu- Ii
actures, and reduces the duties on articles 6
not luxuries) that do not 90 compete with |
american industry, while the Mills bill puts I
n the free or destructively reduced tariff / d
lot imports that aggregate in value $1,O0O,- Fo
OO,OOO annually and In the production Of r
'hich 2,00O,0O men and women are engaged Z
J the United States. The one is for "Pro- =
,ction to American Industries" the other '
II ''progressive free trade" q
The Senate theory is in the interest of the y
merican people; the Mills bill theory Is in n
,e interest Of foreign producers and manu- n
We see it stated in Eastern Il
apers, and we believe it Is correct, that v
any Democratic Congressman who, under n
le political lash Of the administration, voted +,
Il the Mills bill, are free to say the Senate N
III Is the best, and there seems little doubt II
ut on the vote upon it, which will not Il
:cur In the House at least until after the H.
ection, the Senate substitute for the Mills NJ
ii will be passed. The Senate bill main n,
ins the protective tariff on the great indus Of
les Montana is interested in the Republic n
IN party has declared for bi metallic q
'rrency and for every interest OF Mentana, II,
face of the direct hostility or studied in nj
ference Of the Democratic party. Mr..
arter espouses the cause Of Republicanism
id protection; Mr.. Clark defends or ex- b,
lses the wrongs the Democratic admins D
alton would in6ict upon us. Let US be OF
ne to our own interests and the party that so
'fends them by resenting these attempted hi
rongs at the polls and sending to Congress wi
hos. Il. Carter, who is in thorough sym. to
thy with protection of American interests, en
ID will ably voice the sentiment Of Mon th
:. =