Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-07-16
THE NATIONS CAPITOL
The House Considers the Amend
ment tothe Post office
Bill,
But Soon Relapses Into Wool
Gathering on the Mills Bill.
the Pallacies Of the Percentage Argument
In Quoting Statistics.
Comm ander FoStr to be Sent Abroad to
Complete Ills Education.
Congr sssman Randall Still in Precarious
Health.
the Pallacies Of the Percentage Argument
In Quoting Statistics.
Comm snder Fosler to be Sent Abroad to
Complete Ills Education.
Congressman Randall Still in Precarious
Health.
WAsHiSGToS, July IA.
HOuAe

lHhculdtCty Aitti tut Ttduluk VI Tile Jour
nal the House resumed the consideration OF
the subsidy amendment Of the Senate to the
post office appropriation bill.
Mr.. Peters of Kansas, favored the motion
made by Mr.. Bingham of Pennsylvania, to
concur in the amendment reducing the ap-
preparation from $500 900 to S450, 900. He
answered the objections made by the oppo-
nents of the proposition, and expressed his
contempt for the argument that because a
few Legislators in yearsIpast hadlalowed their
skirts to be stained with bribery, the car of
American progress should be stopped. If
the amendment was subsidy the present
law was a subsidy, and the English monopo-
lists were the beneficiaries of that law. If
he had to choose between granting subsidy
to an American gambler and granting it to a
foreign gambler he would give it to the
American gambler every time. That was
the kind of an American he was.
Mr. Rogers of Arkansas, spoke briefly in
opposition to the system of subsidies.
Mr.. Bingham of Pennsylvania. said that
his amendment simply broadened the law of
1858.
By vote of l4l nays to 81 yeas the House
further insisted on its disagreement to the
Senate amendment and further conference
was ordered.
The House then went into committee of
the whole on the tariff bill, the pending
schedule being that relative to wool.
Mr.. Othwaite of Ohio, ridiculed the asser-
ton that the effect of the tariff had been to
increase the number of sheep in this coun-
try. He thought that the natural fecundity
of the focks had something to do with the
increase. He proceeded to argue that the
high tariff had no influence upon the price of
wool, which was regulated by the law of
supply and demand He quoted statistics to
show that under high tariff the price of
wool had steadily declined. He did not
claim that the decline was attributable to the
tariff but to the increased supply of wool.
He quoted remark to him by sheep grow
er in Ohio, to the effect that he would sur
render all the benefits which he derived from
his clip on account of protective tariff for
the privilege of buying one pair of untaxed
pantaloons. He contended that the wooden
manufacturers had nothing to fear from the
WOODEN schedule. The bill presented fair
proposition, a proposition to make a reduc-
ton on wooden goods equal to the reduction
which would result from putting wool on the
free list.
Mr. La Follett of Wisconsin criticised Mr.
Carlisle's speech upon the bill, especially that
portion in which the speaker endeavOred to
show the prosperity of the country during the
low tariff decade from 1850 to 1860. To do
this. said Mr.. La Follett, Mr.. Carlisle had re-
course to the percentage argument, and had
shown that the percentage of increase in the
woollen, cotton, hardware, hosiery, boot and
shoe industries had been very large. The
trick of the percentage argument was that a
manufacture might be SO small that any in
crease would make percentage showing.
No argument based on percentages could be
relied upon unless all the facts were stated.
The gentleman, in selecting the articles
upon which to show the percentage of increase,
had taken care to select those articles which
with one exception) were not touched, or
only slightly, by the act of 1876. The gentle
man had said that the tariff of 1916 had been
so beneficial that in 1857 every representa-
tive from New England who voted at all had
voted for bill making an almost uniform
reduction of 20 per cent, and that among
them was Justin S. Morrill,. This was ar err
ror so gross and unjust as to demand a cor
rection and rebuke to the gentleman from
Kentucky who used it with such emphasis
and telling effect. He challenged the gentle
man to mention a single reduction on any i'm
portant article of manufacture which was
made in the bill of 1857 as it first passed the
House, when Mr.. Morrill, and the other New
England representatives voted for it.
Mr., Whiting of Michigan denied that the
price of wool was less in Michigan than last
year.
Mr.. Grosvernor replied that it was so in
Boston and elsewhere, while Mr.. Dingley of
Maine confirmed the state ment as true of
Maine.
Mr.. Springer inquired if Congress had
caused that state of affairs.
Mr.. Grosyenor replied that the menace of
the Mills bill had done it. If the gentleman
would run back ov the history of the mar
ket he would find that, after the Republicans
aided by all but one or two of the Ohio Dem
ocrstic members, had stricken out the enact
ing clause of the Morrison BILL the price of
wool had sprung up from to cents per
pound. Would any sane man strike down
this great industry for the sake of reducing
the revenues by few million dollars. He
would make prediction that, if the Demo
cratic party dil this--if they struck down this
great industry which feeds and clothes 5,000,-
600 people->then the Democrat who came
back here next December would feel like one
who treads alone some banquet hall de-
serted
General Congressional News.
The following statement in regard to the