Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1888-07-22
CHAIRFIN MILLS STRONG SPEECH
Explaining the Schedules Of the Bill in
Detail.
THE VOTE BY The RECORD.
Three Democrats Vote Against the Bill, While
Six Independents and Republicans Fa-
vOr It-Randal Paired With
Congressman HOgg, Of
West Virginia.


the House met this morning the galleries
were filed with spectators, attracted to
the Capitol by the announcement that to-
dsy would witness the close of the great
tariff debate and the vote on the final pas
sage of the Mills bill. Chairman Mills
offered two amendments intended to correct
typographical errors and they were
adopted. He then proceeded to sd dress
the House. He said the majority
had tried to bring in bill to reduce exces-
sive taxation and lessen the influx
Of money to the treasury. BY the amend
ments which had been made in Committee
of the Whole the total reduction of du-
ties had fallen from S53, 900, 900 to $50,-
900, 900, the tree list from $26, ,0O0, 900 to
$40, 900, 900. The relative rate Of duty
had fallen from AZ. 10 per cent, not to 40,
but to A. 40 per cent, and yet this meas
ure, so very moderate, was characterized
a. free trade messurel Was $42. 49 on
eyery hundred dollars free trade? 1t WAS
an enormous amount Of taxation. 1t was
= tax which the wealth Of this country
would not permit to stand for moment.
State taxation was levied on lands, houses,
stock, bonds, horses and cattle, and the
property owners would not permit any
party 10 carry or administrste TO remain In
power An hour which would levy tax Of
s. on the hundred.
NOT A FREE TRADE MEASURE.
Yet this bill carrying a taxation Of
$40 40 WAS characterized as q free trade
measure. The term Tree trade seemed to
nave a double meaning. Some gentle
men seemed to understand that tree trade
meant the absolute untettering of our
foreign commerce from all taxation.
The Democratic party had used the term
tree trade as u term expressing the freedom
of our commerce from ali obstruction,
ave that of Just and necessary taxation to
support the economical administration OF
the government. The tariff Of 1916 had
been called u free trade tariff and he had
himself spoken of the decade from 1850 to
90 as the free trade period, because In that
time commerce was not restricted by OBJ
structions thrown in its way by capitalists
and monopolists.
He the proceeded to take up aud discuss in
detail the various schedules Of the bill, be-
ginning with those dealing with chemicals
The present duty ON chemicals he said, was
30 81 per cent. The proposed bill placed
1t 1T % II, reduction of little over S4
in a hundred. Gentlemen called that free
trade.
GLASS AND EARTHEN WARE.
The next was the earthen ware and glass
schedule. The duty under existing law
was $50 So in every 500. The bill fixed
il at $5l.7 40. That was tree trade too, ne
supposed. If $50 taxation on every $lOO
was free trade, in Gods name would some
one tell him what was meant by the term
projection? lApplause. Sugar was
found at a duty of $7S Is and the COM
mittee reduced it to $62.3 81. There was
then nobody making much fuss about the
enormity OF that reduction. The bill cut
down the revenue sugar $l1, ,S59. 900. This
was next TO the largest reduction made IN
any schedule in the bill. 1t had been
constantly charged that the bill was sec
tional that it barely touched sugar, and
that the committee threw its arms around
the sugar industry to shield it, yet the re-
duction in sugar was only second to the
voolen schedule. There ought to be
high duty on sugar, because Democrats
believed that taxation WAS q tribute re-
ouired from citizens for the support OF the
Government, and because they believed
that in laying taxation it ought to be 30
laid as to be ss little burdensome ss
possible. BY the tariff on sugar
the Government got $50, ,OOO,OO
with Sc, 900, 900 protection. Inorder to get
81. 800 600 into the public Golfer it cost
IS OOO, 600 protection to the sugar planters.
But in order to get SIS, 900, 900 into the
treasury from iron and steel and woolen
goods il cost the people over $lOO, ,0OO, 900.
Why then should the duty on sugar be re-
pealed in order that Q more burdensome
tax at Q higher rate on woolen
and cotton goods and iron and
steal might be retained? The
duty on provisions under existing law wss
So4 80. The committee left it at $23 80.
Yet il was charged that this was free
trade measure.
THE EXISTING DUTY
ON cotton was $50 80. The bill fixed il
st $S9.O7. Where did the free trade
come in on that2 The $4,000, 0JO
revenue from cotton had been re-
duced only $277,OO0 The duty on hemp
iute and fax was at present S2S 10. IL
was lett ut S2I 81 This reduction Of only
So was brought about to great extent by
putting large amount Of jute and hemp
and MANILA on the free list. The present
duty on wool and woolens Is SIS 81. The
commission bill left it at s3S 79, re-
duction Of over $40 on every sl0O of taxa
tion.
This reduction seemed large but it was
caused by the placing Of raw wool on the
free Iist- The reduction on dutisble
yoolen goods amounted to $4,000, 600,
bat the woolen manufacturer was not IN
iured. He was benefited. This bill gave
the manufacturer free wool and 40 per
cent. taxation and still was said to be
| free trade measure.
The duty on books, papers, etc, was