The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1888-07-26

amendments intended to correct typographical
errors in the bill, moved the previous question
on them and they werea6opted. He then pro-
ceeded to address tho House, beginning by
stating the condition of the finances of the Gov
eminent, placing the surplus at 1929, 600 900.
This, he said should arrest the attention of
the country. 1t represented unnecessary taxa
tion drawn from the people and piled up in the
Treasury. 1t was taxation levied upon the
product of labor. 1t was an iniquity. This
enormous amount of money was constantly
lowering prices and piIing an enormous load
on labor, and increasing the benefits of the
privileged classes How long would it be be-
fore stagnation would occur, and bankruptcy
and ruin flock together over the land. The
majority had attempted to bring before the
House bill to reduce this taxation and lessen
the inflow of money into the Treasury. BY
amendments made in Committee of the Whole
the relative rate of duty had been placed at
$3.50 on the hundred. This moderate bill
had been met by storm of den1nciation and
characterized as a free-trade measure. Was
$i2.99 on the hundred free trade? What State
had per cent. rate of taxation? In the
majority of the States it did not exceed 81 on
the hundred. The tariff of 1916 had been
spoken of as a free-trade tariff.
Mr.. Mills then took up the bill in detail, be-
ginning with the chemical schedule, where the
rate of duty had been reduced from $32S7 to
$2S.17. On earthen and crockery ware the re-
duction had been 81 on the hundred. They
called that free trade. If $50 on the hundred
was free trade, in Gods name what was pro-
lection? Sugar showed next to the largest re-
duction in the bill-larger than in hemp, jute,
iron, and in everything except wool. Yet the
bill had been called a sectional measure. 10
get six millions of protection on sugar the
Government had to collect SO millions of tariff
duties. In provisions the reduction was ST in
a hundred. More free tradel 1t was less than
10 81 hot, 10 fn,0
The duty still remaining at $39.07. In woods
and woolens the reduction was $50 on the
hundred, and most Of that had been caused by
placing wool on the free list. The manufac-
turer would get free wool and 40 per cent. pro-
lection, or per cent more than he now got.
And still they said the bill was a free trade
measure. Articles amounting to $20000000
had been placed on the free list, and ST, 100000
of that was WOOL Cotton had been the chief
product of this country, yet the Republican
party had put it on the free list. And they
were right. But when it was proposed to touch
wool the combination that made the protective
tariff was struck, and they said, :" You shall
not touch it," The next article on the free list
was tin plate, So 100000 Not pound OF it
was produced in this country. The committee
proposed to give this money to the con-
sumers, yet their action was called fee
trade. If that was free trade, make the
most of it. Salt was the next. Because
few people were interested in its manufacture
the committee was stigmatized as free traders
for putting it on the free list. Burlaps were
not made IN this country. 1t had been placed
ON the free list. Hemp and jute made up 81, 100
900 of the free list With all the milk that
could be given this baby industry it had failed
to grow. 1t was dying and must soon disappear.
The Republicans had used the same argument
in favor of striking down the sugar industry.
Opium paid $4680O0. 1t had been placed on
the free list. Cotton ties and bristles (the
latter produced in Russia) had also been placed
on the free list. A food product -currants-that
concerned no laborer in this country, had been
placed on the free list. Yet the committee had
been tainted with being free traders. Their OPP
ponents said: I" If you want anything free, take
free drink Of whisky" Applause. Taxes
on express companies, on telephone companies,
on all the wealth Of the country had been re-
moved, but none of the taxes on labor had been
removed. Wool grew on the sheep There
had been much sympathy expressed for sheep
the Democratic party sympathized with men.
1t wanted cheap clothing for the poor. The
Republicans wanted the duties kept so high
that neither wool nor Woolens could be brought
in. With product OF 300000000 pounds and
need for 600,000,0G0 pounds, what were we
going to do?
In conclusion he referred to the suit of clothes
produced by Mr.. Mckinley during his speech.
lie said that he had nothing to take back. He
had inquired into it, and had found that that
so suit had been protected to the amount of
$4.03 He had heard that that suit was to be
photographed and used IN the campaign. He
wanted to photograph II the brain of every
voter the fact that that $40 suit was protected
to the amount Of $1.03.
At 1885 he demanded the previous question
on the bill and amendments, which was ordered
by the House. Mr.. Mckinley demanded sep
arate vote on the amendment relating to the
cotton ties, and called the yeas and nays upon
it. All the other amendments were adopted in
bulk, and the yeas and nays were then called
on the cotton ties amendment, which is merely
the addition Of the words or other purposes :"
after the description of hoop iron for ties.
The cotton ties amendment was agreed to by
a vote Of yeas 10 to nays 125.
Messrs. Sowden, Foran and Greenman, Demo-
Gratis, voted with the Republicans. Messrs.
Conger Iowa, Fitch On. VI, aud Henderson
Iowa aud Kerr Iowa, Republicans, voted
| with the Democrats.
The previous question was then ordered on
the final passage of the bill, and the yeas and
nays were ordered.
a LETTER FROM Mr.. RANDALL.
| Mr.. sowden had read letter from Mr.. Ran
! dali asking to be paired with friend of the
! bill, and expressing himself distinctly as OPP
| posed to its passage.
vote was then taken upon the bill, and re-
suited in yeas, 1872; nays, 149; not voting, Ia.
| The Speaker asked that his name be called,
| and he voted for the bill. This ends the great
tariff measure in the House for a time, and
other business can now be transacted. The
| Senate will, without doubt present a substi-
tute for the Mills bill, and the discussion will
commence in that body before many days.
By the following vote the tariff bill was
| passed:
YEAs--Abbott, Allen (AIissl Anderson Qowa)
| Anderson tAiss.), Anderson (Iil.), Bacon, Bank.
head Barnes, Barry, Bggs, Blanchard, Bland
| Blount, Breckenridge (Ark.). Breckenridge (Ky)
Brewer, Bryce Buclcalew, Burnes, Burnett By
mum, f. Campbell ~. ", Campbell Ohio, T. j.
| Campbell IN ", Gambler, Carlton, Caruth, Catch
| ngs, Chapman, Clardy, Clements, Cobb Cochran
| Collins, Compton, Cothran, Cowles, Cox Grain
Crisp Culberson Cummings, Dargan, Davidson
| (Ala.), Davidson (Fla.) Dibble, Dockery, Dough
erty, Dunn, Elliott, Enloe, ErmeDtrout, Fisher
Fitch, Ford, Forney, French. Gay, Gibson Glass
| Grimes, Hall, Hare, Hatch, Hayes Heard. Hemp
Hopkins (Va.), Howard, Hudd, Hutton, Johnstor
IN. c. Jones, Kilgore LaiIoon, Lagan, Landes
Lane Lanham, Latham, Lawler Lee, Lynch Mac
donald, Mahoney, Maish, Mansur, Martin. Malson
AIcAdoo, McClammy, McCreary, Mckinney Nc
Millin, McRae, McShane. Mills, Montgomery
Moore Morgan, Morse, Neal, Nelson Newton
Norwood, Oates, 0'Fcrrall, ONeall Ind.) J, ONeil
(Mo.), Cultivate, Peel, Pennington, Phelan, Pid
cock, Rayner, Rice, Richardson Robertson, Rog
ers Rowland Russell (Mass.). Rusk Savers Scott
Seney, Shaw. Shively, Simmons, Smith, Snyder
Spinoa Springer, Stahlnec1er, Stewart Tex J
Stewart (Ga), Stoclzdale, Stone (Ky.), Stone (Io)