The Portland daily press., 1888-04-26
SEVENTEEN DAYS or SpEECHMAkING.
Agreement Reached by the ways
and Means Committee.
Each Side to Have an Equal Length
OF Time.
Yesterdays Talk Kept Up from Noon
Until Bedtime.

WASHINGTON, April 25.-The House ways
and means committee have agreed TO limit
the general tariff debate to II days after to-
day, and two evening sessions weekly, and
to an equal division Of time between the
Democratic and Republican speakers.
The House today went into committee Of
the whole on the tariff bill and Mr.. Bynum
of Indiana, supported the bill. He declared
it no longer possible to put of reduction.
The bill did not meet his unqualified appro-
val but he was willing to consider II in a
spirit Of concession and compromise and
join in the construction Of a measure which
yielded something to the production Of every
locality. The present law was onerous and
framed In selfshness. He advocated such
reduction as would give larger markets. He
admitted that wages had increased under
the protective tariff, but denied that this
was on account Of the tariff, because the
same increase had taken place In Great
Britain under free trade. The country had
grown great In spite OF protection. The
price OF labor was regulated by the law OF
supply and demand and not By the tariff.
Want OF markets was the trouble with the
country. American labor should have a
chance to compete with foreign labor ana
could take care of itself.
Under high protection on wool the price
had steadily fallen and the tariff was an Inn
portant factor in It's decline Inc people
consumed six hundred million pounds OF
w00lens year and more than half had 10 be
purchased abroad because the high tariff had
broken down all the woolen industries.
Mr.. Brown OF Indiana,
replied. The surplus did not frighten him.
1t was an evidence Of national prosperity
and had been gathered into the treasury
without opposition or complaint. II under
the control of wise craftsmanship. IL would
be national blessing, but as 1t was safer to
reduce 1t than run the risk Of i'll advised ex-
penditure, he was anxious to reduce TO the
lowest limit Of national wants. The Presi-
dents plan of reduction would entail disas-
ter. The Democrats, for party reasons, had
provided for the reduction Of the internal
revenue in the face Of the Presidents state
ment that no fault could be found with that
system. They hoped to prevent strike In
Virginia and other Democratic states. He
would support the internal revenue part OF
the Mills bill on certain conditions. His
constituents approved the tax on tobacco
and liquors but the spirits used IN
arts and manufactures should be free. Feel-
ing against the internal revenue system was
growing rapidly and particularly In the
South. He quoted figures to show that
the domestic wool product had Increased
enormously under 20 years Of protection,
while by the reduction Of 1888, the industry
had been well nigh ruined. 1t was a little
singular that while wool was put upon the
free list, sugar was to be protected by an an
nual tax of fOrty-hve millions.
Mr.. Bland, of Missouri, suggested that all
the duty on sugar was revenue duty which
went into the treasury:
Mr.. Brown replied that this was true but
the Democratic party had not attempted to
impose duty on tea and coffee, the revenue
from which would go directly into the treas
ury. The trouble was that sugar voted the
Democratic ticket In Louisiana and tea and
coffee did not Laughter.l He congratu-
lated the President upon having compelled
his party to take issue on the tariff question.
The masquerade was over The question
was free trade or protection. The bill was
the vanguard Of free trade.
Mr.. Dockerey OF Missouri.
spoke fayoring the bill. He said that both
parties were under solemn pledge to re-
duce taxation. The question should be
approached in a spirit of moderation, pre-
cedenee and patriotism. A surplus was re-
quired in the channels OF trade, but II not
reduced it would be squandered. III the Re
publioans could show that the protective sys-
TEN was beneficial to the wOrkingmen OF
the country. He was willing TO waive his
objection 10 it. But they could not. Many
higher wages than the protected establish
ments. He had statistics to show the i'm
mense bonus which the protective tariff put
into the pocket Of manufacturers, but which
did not 90 into the pockets OF the working
men. The protective system had built up
an aristOcracy OF monopoly and placed an
enormous aggregation OF capital In the hands
Of few men. Going on for q quarter OF
century this had assumed such proportions
as TO occasion serious alarm. 1t had been
estimated that If wealth continued TO aggre-
gate in the hands Of the few, la the next ten
years, 90 per cent Of the entire wealth Of the
country would be in the control Of one per
cent Of its population. He quoted from the
census statistics, contrasting the increase in
individual wealth in manufacturing states
with the decrease in agricultural states.
This was due to the discrimination Of the
protective tariff against the West. The
Democratic party proposed to favor reye-
nue. system which would give all the ineiden-
tai protection that the manufacturers needed
but did not propose to continue system
which levied an enormous tribute on agri-
cultural states for the benefit of manufac-
turing states.
At the conclusion Of Mr.. Doekerey's adj
dress the committee rose and the House ad-
journed until s p. m. when the tariff debate
was resumed.
Mr.. Shaw Of Maryland, at the evening
session, made an elaborate argument in sup
port of the tariff bill, dissenting from the
proposition that Congress had power to levy
and collect taxes for any other purpose but
revenue.
Mr. Glass Of Tennessee, spoke at length
ia support Of the bill. The House at 1925
adjourned.