The Portland daily press., 1888-06-11
FLAX AND TRUSTS.
What the representatives iTaIked
About in the Tariff Debate.


About in the Tariff Debate.
WASHINGTON, d. c., June 9-The House
went into committee of the whole on the tar
iff bill, the pending lines relating to fax.
Mr.. Mills defended the bill, and deprecated
the efforts made by the other side to distort
every attempt at revision into an abuse of
the poor.
Mr. Lind of Minnesota, a Republican, who
has heretofore supported the bill, made a
strong plea for the protection of the linseed
oil industry.
Mr.. Reed of Maine found it was marked
popularity on the other side to believe that
reiteration established the truth of a PROPOSE
tion, without reference to the facts present
ed to absolutely disprove it.
Mr.. Russell of Massachusetts asserted that
not a pound Of fax raised in Iowa. Indiana
or Kentucky could be used by one of the
manufacturers in his district.
A motion to strike out the clause placing
fax straw on the free list was defeated-62
to,74.
Mr.. Bland of Missouri was for reduction of
taxation on flax and everything else.
Mr.. Mills said he knew something about
flax, having worked upon it during his boy
hood in Kentucky. But the fax industry in
Kentucky had almost disappeared, because
1t was not profitable. or rather, because 9th
er crops were more profitable, and wheat
would drive fax out of Indiana as it had out
Of Kentucky. His earnest sympathies were
with down trodden Ireland.
Mr.. Funston Of Kansas called out: Under
free trade England"
Mr.: Mills replied that it was under the
merciless carpet baggers of England.
Mr.. Allen of Massachusetts made an argu-
ment against the proposition to place hack
led flax upon the free list. In the course of
his remarks he referred to a pamphlet which
had been circulated in the House and which,
he said, consisted principally of editorials
from mugwump paper, and which was in
spired by large flax manufacturing firm,
composed of Scotchmen, which was in his
colleagues district
Mr.. Russell of Massachusetts, criticised
his colleague for having referred in a sneer-
ing manner to mugwump paper, and for
having traduced some of his (Russells) con-
StituentS.
Mr.. Allen replied that his colleague had
traduced time and again, the people of his
State. The gentleman had said that the lead
ing Industry OF his district (the shoe indus
try, If it could be consulted, would be for
free trade, but the shoe manufacturers had
published card denying the correctness Of
this statement.
Mr.. Russell said that he had understood
the gentleman to say-and say it sneeringly
that the pamphlst consisted of editorials
from mugwump newspapers and was inspir-
Gu Dy lOI6lSUcIS, WHO manufactured IN MS
district. He did not ask men in his district
whether they had been naturalized or not.
Perhaps some of them did not remember
whether they had been or not. This allu-
sion 20 the Lowry-White contest was ap-
plauded by the Democrats.l AS long as they
paid their taxes, employed labor and brought
capital into the country, he did not ask
whether they were foreigners. Foreigners
or not, men had the right to come to Cong.
ress and give information to the members.
The gentleman had left the question of flax
and had talked about the shoe manufactur-
ers. He (RusselD had said what he thought
to be correct, and he defed them on their
own soil, and would do so next fall;
Mr. Allen-You misrepresented them.
Mr. Russell-If l did let them settle with
me, not you. [Applause.] | do not come
here with the collar of any manufacturer
upon my neck. | am not engaged in any
business that makes me crawl on the ground
before any man. [Applause.l
Mr.. Bayne of Pennsylvania suggested thBt
the gentleman wore British collar. but the
remark was either unheard or unheeded by
Mr.. Russell.
Mr. Reed of Maine said this was not the
first time that he had seen gentlemen on the
othtr side Sin state of conniption." Laugh.
teri He had heard such orations as the
gentleman's upon other subjects. That kind
of oratory was cheap on the other side, cheap
anywhere else. He had heard gentlemen on
the other side in the most agonized condition
of mind.
Mr.. Dockerey of Missouri quoted MIR. But
terworth's speech to show his variance from
Mr.. Reed upon this subject Of trusts. He
trusts were directly attributable to the tariff.
and he cited the Chicago cattle trust as
case In point. Still, the tariff, as Mr.. Butter
worth had said, led TO the vast accumulation
OF wealth that made these trusts possible. He
taunted the Republicans with failure to carry
outtheir platform pledges to revise the tariff,
and said that Mr.. Bayhe of Philadelphia,
had interpreted the party's position when he
said: I'VE do not want any tariff revision
until after the election of 1885," The party
In the House could be brought into alignment
only on the policy of non-action, and lacked
the courage that had characterized its early
days.
Mr.. Butterworth said that there was little
difference between himself and Mr.. Reed
upon the necessity for preventing the unlaw-
ful exercise of corporate or syndicate power.
But MIR. Reed believed that itc0uld not be
done by loud seedlings. He objected to that
kind of steamboat that had to stop her ma
chinery when she blew her whistle. What
steps had the committee of ways and means
or the majority of the House taken to place
In the hands of the members of the House
the information contained in the book he
held in his hands-showing how the bill af-
fected the articles imported? Members of
the ways and means committee maintained
that it was not their duty to supply the COM
pilation, and, after an extended colloquy up
the subject, the committee rose and the
House adiournad