Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-04-26
Debate on the Tariff.

Continued Discussion of the Mills
 Bill in the House.
 A TRIO OF ABLE SPEECHES.  Representatives Bynun4 and Cookery Sup
 port the Bill, and 1tr. Brown Argues
 Against 1t-senator yoorhees Gives His
 Views on the Tariff
 WASHINGTON, April f26-Three tariff speeches by Messrs Bynum, Browne and Cookery consumed most of the time of yes terday's session of the house
 MT. Bynum, of Indiana, said in referring to the surplus that the withdrawal of so large sum of money from the channels of trade for any long period of time would re- suit in a contraction of the currency which would bankrupt and ruin our most enter prising business men.
 The time had passed when the house could refuse to consider measure for the reduction of taxation. It must now meet the question fairly and honestly. The bill presented did not meet with his unqualified approval. He believed that duties on imports should be levied and collected at all times to meet the current ordinary expenses of the government and that extraordinary expenses should be met by internal taxes. He would maintain the present internal revenue system of taxation until the last obligation of the war was discharged, but he was willing to come to the consider ation of the bill in spirit of concession and compromise and join in the construction of measure which yielded something to the productions of every locality. He advocated a reduction of duties on materials upon which the laborers of the country worked, and such reduction as would give larger markets in which manufacturers could sell their produce. He admitted that wages had increased under a protective tariff, but he denied that this was on account of the tariff, because the same increase had taken place in Great Britain under free trade.
 The great trouble with the country, he said, was the want of a market. Give Amer ican labor chance to compete with foreign labor and it could take care of itself It needed no other protection. Speaking of the wool industry, he said that under the high protection on wool the price had steadily fallen. He did not assert that the tariff was the sole cause of the decline in the price, but contended that it was an important factor. The people of the United States consumed 600, ,00O 900 pounds of wool year, which cost them SAC, ,000, more than one-half of which had to be purchased abroad, because the high tariff had broken down all our woolen industries. During the past ten years the United States had imported $162,OOO, 900 of cotton goods more than 1t had exported American labor had been robbed of the privilege of making that $162, 900, GOO of cot ton goods. During the same period the inn ports of woolen goods had exceeded the ex- ports by $35O, ,OOO, ,OOO The American work contained in the s35O, ,OOO, 900 of woolen goods, and yet gentlemen on the other side talked about protecting American labor.
 MT. Browne of Indiana, said that this was not the first time that there had been a sur plus in the treasury, but neither Presidents Johnson, Grant nor Arthur had made the condition of the treasury pretense for dis turbing 1ho industrial policy of the govern ment. The country continued to enjoy an unparalleled prosperity, and the existence of surplus was an evidence of national pros perity, and that it had been gathered into the treasury without oppression or complaint was evidence that the protective system wasa just one.
 The surplus, under the control of wise statesman MT. Browne said, would be a national blessing; but as it was safer to re- duce it than to run the risk of i'll advised ex- penditures, he was anxious to have revision | of the methods of taxation so as to reduce the revenues to the lowest limit of national wants. The plan of reduction, however, | sketched by the president in his annual mes sage would result in disaster to American in- dustries Looking at internal revenue taxa tion from revenue standpoint, MT. Browne saw much to condemn in it, and thought if people understood that the whisky tax was kept on in order that the protective system might be maintained the whisky tax would have to go. s4.~%
 Criticising the wool clauses of the bill. he quoted figures to show that domestic pro duction, had, under twenty years of protec- tion, increased enormously, while by the duty reductions of 1883 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 protected.
 MT. Bland, of Missouri, suggested that sugar duty was a revenue duty that went into the treasury.
 MT. Browne acknowledged the truth of this, and said the Democratic party had not attempted to impose duty on tea and coffee, which would go directly into the treasury.
 The trouble was, he added, that sugar voted the Democratic ticket in Louisiana, but tea and coffee did not. In concluding ne cOnSrdGulaCeu TreSlOouG cleveland for compelling his party to take an issue on the tariff question. The question of to-day was whether the revenue system should be free trade or protection. for the bill under discus sion was the vanguard of the free trade policy.
 MT. Cookery, of Missouri, in supporting the bill said revenue tariff was a tax de signed to furnish sufficient revenue to meet government expenses, honestly administered, and that a protective tax was discriminat- ing force attached to certain industries, to the disparagement of other industries. Re duction of taxation, he declared, was and would continue to be the dominating issue in American politics
 The surplus, MT. Cookery said, was re quired in the channels of business. He warned congress that if it did not reduce taxation the surplus would be gotten rid o1 by extravagant appropriations. The Repub- lican party could not show that the protect . i've system was beneficial to the working men of the country. Unprotected industries he insisted, paid their employees higher wages ; than protected establishments. The protect i've system had built up an aristocracy ot