National Republican., 1888-05-15

y
and he referred the gentleman to the lth
chapter Of Genesis to learn that "Abcl was
n keeper Of Sheep and to the 30th chapter
Of tile same book to discover that Jacob
made peace Offering to Esau Of 200 ewes
and 20 lambs. Wool growing an infant in.
dustry II was the oldest in the history of
man, coming down COnsecratcd by ages,
and marking the footsteps of civilization.
AS Democrat, believing in the power Of
Democratic principles to relieve the people
from oppression, he rCipicCd to-day with
exceeding great Joy that the time was com.
ing, and coming quickly, coming with the
bright days of June, when every Demo
cratic knee should and would how to the
NCrwhrlming majority Of the Democratic
party aud every Democratic tongue would
confess TO revenue reform as fundamental
principle Oi the Democratic party. Ap.
plausc.l
Mr. Symcs, Of Colorado, referred to the
cry Tor Tree raw material rs coming forth
from the Democratic side like the spoutiug
of II fountain from the earth, with spOnti-
nCOts and native force. II had issued forth
us free and as raw as the whisky which
oozcd through the worm of the distillerics
IN the most reliable Democratic districts.
1le President had shown an entire want of
comprehension of the whole tariff system
when he told the farmer in one paragraph
that protective tHrifl was wrong. and in
the next attempted to show the minurac-
turCr that he would he benefited bv the
placing Of raw materials on the free list.
The President had forgotten or ignored the
fact that the placing of raw material on the
free listwOuld ruin the agricultural, mining,
andiUther industries of the country.
Turning to u criticism Of the bill, he asked
why II was that the measure did not put
sugar on the free list and pay bounty to
the producer If its object was to reduce the
la tnN IL mi
| people for the protection Of this small in
dustry. He would 80 reduce the tariff on
sugar lif II could not he placed on the free
| list) that It would yield just enough revenue
| topay the bounty.
II was only the hOurbonsm of the free
| trader or the anglomonin of the college pro-
| fessUr or tile Mugwump that would cotIn-
tcnance the adoption by this country of the
| policy which governed an island which
might be laid down In one of our states.
Free trade in iireat Britain had injured
| England and Ireland and benefited their
continental neighbors. lie argued that it
| was the capitalist, the monopolist, and the
| importing merchant, and those who derived
| their income from bonds and other invest
meits who were clamorlng forfrce trade; that
| 1t was the employer, the workingman, and
| those who built up the industries of the
country who demanded Il protective tariff.
| lie Mr.. Symes) was for what Henry Clay
| called the American system. lie was for q
| national as opposed to an International sys-
| TEN of political economy. International
free trade was not only impracticable; 1t
| was impossible, There could he no such
| thing as universal free trade, except by re-
| ciprOcity treaties between the commercial
| nations of the world. Our political insti-
| utions, the future welfare Of the country
| demanded the permanent establishment Of
| u national system Of political economy ell
tircly free and independent from the com
mercal and industrial us well rs the pOiti
cal institutions of other nations. Jap
| plausc.
lie would make the protection Of Amcri-
| can labor from foreign competition the key
| stone In the arch of American institutions
| lie would protect the laboring men of
| America from the importation and immi-
| grafton of convict ana paupcr laborers, as
well as from the importation of the products
of their work. Whoever supposed that the
protective system had its origin and con-
tinuancc in legislative statutes was ignorant
| Of its history 1t was the result of II
| growth; 1t was thccrystallized sentiment and
| opinion of the American people: 1t had been
| evolved from the necessities and conflicts of
| our industrial system as much as our national
unity had been evolved from the necessities
and conflicts of our political system.
Mr.. Funston, of Kansas, declared himself
| of the world. lie ewas therefore protectionist
in the fullest sense of the word. lie would
| protect the United States against foreign in
| yasiOn, whether by an armed force to lay
waste the land, or by the products of paupcr
| labor to destroy our industries and take
| away from the American laboring man his
| employment. lie criticised the Mills bill rs
showing q partiality in the Interest of those
| states which the Democrats expected to
carry in the next election. Its result would
be the destruction of industries in which
thousands of men found honest employ
mcnt. lie maintained the proposition that
| the farmer wanted neither an English mar
kct nor English goods, and would hail with
| joy tia day when he would have neither
Mr.. O'Neal of Indiana, rs a proectionist
| tand he claimed to he onc) was willing to
make the tariff high enough to cnable the
manufacturer of an article which could be
| produced in the United States 10 compete
| with the foreign manufacturer; as free
| trader land he claimed to be onc) he was
| opposed to having the tariff placed any
higher than that. When n manufacturer
asked Il 5Oper cent. tariff on an article which
could be produced abroad for -, and In this
country for 81 10. lie was demanding 40 per
| cent. more than should be given him.
lie argued in favor Of putting lumber,
coal, and iron ore ON the free list, becusc he
| believed that in those products the United
States could compete with the world with
out there being any tariff upon them.
Mr.. Thompson, of Ohio, said that the
difference between the Republican party
and the Democratic party upon the tariff
| question was radical, fundamental, and
ilreconcilablc. II was not Il difference as to
the adjustment of the system of taliif tax
alton: 1t was a difference as to the system
itself. II was the avowcl policy of the
| Democratic party to reduce the tariff duties
to revenue basis, and not only this but tc
| eliminate entirely the idea of protection tC
American industry and American labor
The Democratic party was absolutely hostil,
would result IN the lowering of the wage
of labor to the level of those paid in the old
world, and would mean damage to the peace
of the nation.
Mr.. sherman, of New York, said that th1
merits of the bill, II merits ii had, and its
dement's, and its dement's were many ant
varied, were 50 well known that II was moi
necessary for him to point them out. lie
| only wished to present petition from hun
dreds of people IN his district protesting
against the passage Of that most unwise an(
uncalled for measure. He believed that the
verdict of the people at the polls in Novcm
her next would answer the British ire,
traders and their allies.
Mr.. Strublc, of Iowa, said that among the
things, some commendable, some despicablc
done by the present administration, at leas
three could not escape the condemnation .
the people, The President had first at
tackled The silver dollar, then the grcenback
and then the protective system, under whiel
the government had grown and prospercd
and by reason of which II had attained
financially, commercially, intellectually, ant
nationally, the proud distinction accorded
ii by the civilized world
Mr.. Cowlcs, Of North Carolina, said tha
a revision of the tariff by reducing the dut,
on imported goods to 4 revenue basis would
increase the importations and produce al
the revenue which the government required
and that the OdOus internal revenue Law
should be repealed, lie was IN favor of
tariff for revenue only and revenue by til,