The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-04-28
Fridays Work in the House
of Representatives.
DISCUSSION ON THE TARIFF.
Messure-MisceIIsne News
Paragraphs.
HOUSE.

|
and fisheries, reported, and the House
adopted resolutions. calling on the
Secretary of the Treasury for informa-
| ton relative to seal fisheries in Alaska.
After short discussion as TO whether
] it was competent for the House to pro-
csed o-day to the consideration of
private business, the House went into
committee of the whole on the tariff
bill.
Brewer, of Michigan. gladly well
coined the issue presented by the pend
Ing measure. In times past, the Demo
cratic party had soughs to evade the
issue. In its platform of 1884, it had
declared for protection, free trade, incl
dental protection. for tariff for revenue
only, and for tariff only for revenue,
SO that the voter could conslrue the
platform to suit his own convictions
In Kentucky, the platform meant free
trade; in Pennsylvania, New York,
| Connecticut and New Jersey, the gen
tleman from Pennsylvania (RandaIl)
was able to make the voters believe 1t
meant protection. By reason of the
fraud and intimidation practioed in one
section of the country, and by means
of deception practiced by the Demo-
cratic leaders in another section, the
| Democratic candidate for the Presi
dency had been elected. For three years
of the Democratic administration the
Democratic party in the House had
played fast aud loose on the great tariff
| question, until the necessities OF the
! government had compelled the admin
istration to take some decided position,
and he honored the President for has-
| ing forced the party to stop It's double
dealing and define It's attitude. He
| then advocated the protective system,
Us one which tended to increase the
wages of labor, and in support of his
! proposition he cited various statistics
1 prepared by Commissioner Wright. He
was especially earnest in hi opposition
| to the free wool clause, which, he said,
would ruin an industry which was ma
| tional in its Importance. He o0ntrasted
the condition of the country under
| free-trade and protection. The former,
he said, had brought the government to
a state of bankruptcy, while the latter
| had rendered the country prosperous
! and glorious.
Ford, of Michigan, said the question
presented now was one of tariff reduc
ton, not abolition. Congress had to
take the part of few manufacturers
against the great body of consumers.
| But that was just what had been done.
The war tariff declared for high prices
for tae producer of iron, low prices for
tbs producer of corn; high prices for
the producer of glass, low prices for the
producer of wheat. He ridiculed the
position taken by protectionists, that
high tariffs increased the wages of
| American workmen No industries, he
oh
tuition and more strikes among their
workingmen than those so-called
protected ones. There was not a bod
carrier in the United States but who
earned more wages than the average
person employed IN the industries ben
Gifted by the war tariff. Referring 10
the claim that the home marAet Was the
best market, he said the result
of this home market sWinde
is that the farmer was most beautI-
fully deluded. The high tariff party
gets his vote; high trusts aud monopo-
lists get his money and the farmer gets
the hot end OF the poker.
Golf, of West Virginia, said the action
of the tariff should be made by the
friends Of the protective system and
not by it's avowed enemies. President
Cleveland's cold blooded indifference to
the benefits OF the people was entitled
to precedence over all the emanations
from the Executive Mansion IN all our
history. From such a spirit as Presi-
dent Cleveland exhibited, dominating
almost with single impulse the Demo-
cratic side of the House, he (Gof)
would save our industries and our
homes. The Mills bill was conceived
by minds impregnated with economic
viciousness; its passage would be the
death knell of protection. If they sue
ceeded now, they proposed next year
to take another step and gradually, but
surely, the people were to be marched
into the camp of those who commended
for tariff for revenue only. That sys-
tenn, as far as labor was involved and
industries concerned, was as bad as free
trade. George Washington was grandly
right when he suggested and approved
the first tariff provisions. Grover
Cleveland (who, he hoped, would be
our last free-trade President) was
shamefully wrong when he suggested
and used the power of his great Office to
secure the destruction of the protective
system. The people had been deceived
in the last Presidential campaign by
the declaration that Cleveland was a |
protectionist. The hand of Esau would |
be offere again. but the people would |
not again be deceived. He did not be-
lieve in free law material. There was !
no such thing as raw material in the |
sense in which it was used IN this dis
cusslon. Coal unnined was raw ma
terial, but when it was mined it was the |
miners finished product, and en-
titled to "a protection the same |
IS to iron ore. 1t was as much entitled |
to protection as the rice fields of the |
south and the sugar plantations of the |
Mississippi Valley. Wool clipped from
sheep was not raw material, it was the !
farmers finished labor, and the farmers
had made up their minds that it had to
be protected. The duty of 1867 should |
be restored. and an industry SO essen
tial to the prosperity of the people and |
our Independence as nation should he |
stimulated. In the discussion, be said, |
the protective system enabled the gov |
ernment to perfect system of finance |
which was the marvel of the age. It |