St. Paul daily globe., 1888-06-01
WILL IT EVER end?
The House Continues the De-
bate on the Mills Tariff s
Bill.
Congressman Wilson Gives
the Lumber Barons a
Good Dig.
Secretary Villas Renders Two
Very Important Decisions
Against Trespassers.
Cincinnati Wants Grover to
Open Her Exposition--Cap-
ital Miscellany.
Special to the Globe

WASHINGTON, May 31.-The feature
OF the house proceedings to-day was the
beginning of the debate ON the Mills
tariff bill under the five-minute rule
Mr.. O'Neill, of Missouri, presented the.
conference report OH the bill creating
the department of labor, which was ac-
cepted and the bill passed substantially
as II came from the senate. The house
then proceeded to consider the report of
the committee Of the whole on the leg.
lslative appropriation bill. Several
amendments were adopted, and then on
motion of Mr.. Mills the house went into
committee Of the whole on the tariff
bill, the bill to be considered by sections
under the fYe-minute rule. Mr.. Adams,
of Illinois, offered the amendment
making the bill take effect on
Jan. 25 next instead of July
explaining that the lumber in
terest should have time to prepare for
the change. He said that the amend
ment should apply only to the lumber
clause. A ceremOnious party discus
sion followed. Mr.. Kelly, of Pennsyl-
vania, said as no one of the Democratic
side would speak for the Southern in
terest, he would do so. He asked the
house not to impoveriSh the people of
tennessee and South Carolina. Mr..
Weaner, of Iowa, protested against any
action that would fasten the lumber
trust upon the farmer.
Mr.. Wilson, of Minnesota, said: 81
have among my constituents many lum-
Der manufacturers as well as lumber
consumers and / agree with
the gentleman from California
that IN the lumber industry
there is large sum of money invested
in this country. In the five minutes
time to which l am limited under the
rules, do not propose to refer to the
lumber trust spoken of by the gentle
man from Iowa, (NIr. Weaver), merely
wish to consider the general question,
unintluenced by any intrinsic considera-
tions, whether consumers of lumber
should be compelled to pay tribute to
manufacturers. This can only be juSti-.
fed on the ground that it's necessary
and that the consumer can afford TO pay
the tax, to prevent failure of the indus
try. That there is any danger that it
would fail or be leSSened if the tariff
was removed cannot be believed by any
one acquainted with the industry. Sci
dom has branch Of business been
more prosperous than it has been for
many years. | can
POINT TO MORE MILLIoNAIRES
who have accumulated their wealth in
that business within the last twenty-five
years than my friend from Wisconsin,
who has argued so eloquently in favor
of the tariff, can point to in the whole
country prior to that time. The lands
III the district | represent are, in an agri-
cultural point, as rich as the lands of
the district Of any other member on this
floor, but L believe | can truthfully say
that, unless in exceptional cases, they
have not risen per cent? value within
the last fifteen years, while in the same
time the pine lands of lumbermen have
risen from 300 to 500 per cent, and
this pretty fairly illustrates the
relative prosperity of these indus
tries. To hold that the farmer
should, under such circumstances,
be taxed for the enrichment of the lum-
herman is intolerable injustice. | ain
very glad that the lumbermen are pros
porous. They are as rule men of en-
ergy, intelligence and integrity, and l
am proud to be at liberty to say that
many of them are my friends-some of
them my WarmeSt friends. But | have
heard no suggestion worthy of consider
alton as an excuse or justification of this
tariff. 1t is high time that this condition
of things was brought to an end, and |
feel that it is my duty as the representa-
tive of the whole people of my district
to do what l can to that end. No one
will be deceived by the pretense that
wages are higher on account of the
tariff. Unfortunately neither liberality
nor humanity are developed by great
riches. The lumberman pays for labor
the same prices that are paid in other
induStries-nO more, no less.
Mr.. Reed, of Maine. said that making
lumber free would put money in the
hands of the Canadian lumbermen and
injure the American industry without
lowering prices. Mr.. Mills said that it
was pleaded that the tariff was in
THE INTEREST OF LABOR.
He was informed that Chinese were
being largely used to cut lumber. Mr..
Parker, of New York, offered an amend
ment, substituting November so, 1889.
for the date for the bill to take effect.
This was rejected by vote of 134 to SO.
Mr.. BOutelle proposed to make the date
of the Adams amendment 1880. He said
that there was more inmber ''now in
Maine than there was twenty years
ago"
Mr.. Lind, of Minnesota, did not be-
lieve that the removal of the tariff
would cheaper lumber or affect the
trusts. But he urged that the tariff
caused the cutting of timber to be con-
fined to American soil. Any law
that tended to hasten the destruction
of our forests was not wise
law. Applause on the Democratic
side.l He did not believe that the re-
moval of a duty of 81 per thousand
would drive every American lumber
man out of business. Democratic ap-
plause.]
Mr.. Boutelle's amendment was re-
jected.
Mr.. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, had
read an extract from speech delivered
by Mr.. Blaine in 1868 in which he said
that it had never been the policy of the
American government to tax breadstuffs
or lumber; and representing the need
of the wOrkingmen for lumber. This
was received with applause on the Dem
ocratic side.
Mr.. Mills asked that debate on the
section be considered as closed, but OBJ
lection was made, and he moved that
the committee rise. This prevailed by
vote by tellerS of 122 to S3 (the Repu6-
licans solidly opposing the motion) and
the committee rose, not having passed /.