Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1888-04-26

nave revision OF the methods OF taxation
50 as To reduce the revenues 10 the lowest
limit Of national wants. The plan of re-
duction, however, sketched BY the Presi-
dent in his annual message would result in
disaster 20 American industries. Looking
at internal revenue taxation from q reve-
nue. standpoint, Mr.. Browne saw much
TO condemn il, and thought if people
understood that the whisky tax was kept
on in order that the protective system
might lie maintained. the whisky tar
would have to go. Criticising the wool
clauses of the bill he quoted figures TO show
that domestic production had, under twen-
ty years of protection. increased enormous
ly. while by the duty reductions of 1888, it
had been nearly ruined. He thought it
singular that while wool was put on the
free list in the bill, sugar was to be pro-
tected.
Mr.. Bland, of Missouri, suggested that
sugar duty was q revenue duty that went
into the treasury. Mr. Brown acknowl-
edged the truth of this, and said the Demo-
cratic party had not attempted to impose a
duty on tea and coffee, which would go
directly into the treasury The trouble
was, he added, that sugar voted the Demo-
cratic ticket in Louisiana, but tea and
coffee did not. In concluding he congratu-
lated President Cleveland for compelling
his party to take an issue on the tariff
question. The masquerade was over and
the question Of to-day was whether the
revenue system should be free trade or pro-
lection; for the bill under discussion was
the vanguard of the free trade policy
Mr.. Dockery, of Mississippi, in support
ing the bill, said a revenue tariff was a tax
designed TO furnish sufficient revenue to
meet Government expenses honestly ad-
ministered, and that protective tax was
discriminating force attached to certain
industries, to the disparagement of other
industries. Reduction of taxation, he de-
clared, was and would continue to be the
dominating issue in American politics
The surplus, Mr.. Dockery said, was required
in the channels of business. He warned
Congress that if it did not reduce taxation
the surplus would be gotten rid of by ex-
travagant appropriations. The Republican
party could not show that the protective
system was beneficial to the workingmen of
the country Unprotected industries, he
paid their employees higher wages
than protected establishments The pro-
tective system had built up an aristocracy
of monopoly.
When Mr.. Dockery concluded, the COM
mittee rose and Mr.. McMillep, of Tennes-
see, submitted the resolution agreed upon
by the Committee of WAYS and Means re-
lative to-night's sessions for debate and fix
ing the limit of general debate on the tariff
bill. The House then took a recess until
eight O'Clock, the evening session to be de-
voted TO debate on the tariff bill.
At the evening session Mr.. Shaw, of
Maryland, made speech in support of the
bill. He argued that Congress had not the
power to levy and collect taxes for any
0ther purpose but that of revenue He
specially advocated that clause of the bill
which places tin plate on the free list,
urging that the continuation of the tariff
upon that article unnecessarily enhanced
The price of canned goods. 4
Mr.. Glass of Tennessee, spoke in support
,f the bill and the House at 1925 ad- ,
ourned