Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-04-27
TheVordyVarGoes0n
Continuation of the Debate on the
 Mills Bill in the House.
FOUR MORE TARIFF SPEECHES

MT. Buchanan Says Free Earthe1OAfO
 Would Bring Ruin to somc-,;~ O1-
 borne Also in Opposition---, ssxzA
 Hudd and Hemphill Support ths nS;h
 WASHINGTON, April 2T. = Four tari.f speeches occupied most of the time of the house yesterday.
 the composition of the committee and the secresy with which it had formulated the pending measure, and arraigned the com mittee for its refusal to grant hearings and to consider petitions
 Referring to the presidents message, he said the president did not advocate the repeal of the internal system of taxation, and mani tested a deep concern that this country should feed it's laborers rather than a foreign country; but he advised that import duties should be reduced, and in some instances abolished altogether. He asserted that the bill instead of removing the inequali- ties of the tariff, increased them. He pro- tested against the reduction of duty on earthenware, and read a number of petitions from workingmen in his district against the principles embodied in the bill. It struck blow at almost every industry in his district and in its details was vicious, inequitable and illogical, and he declared that in the contest between free trade and protection be would be found on the side of that policy which for many years had brought prosperity and hap piness to his native land.
 MT. Hemphil, of South Carolina, contended that congress had the constitutional right to tax the people for public purposes only, and every time it went beyond that limitation it was fragrant violation of that principle A tariff for protection was illogical and unjust. Under it the entire people were subjected to monopolies. The only difference between home monopoly and foreign monopoly (admitting that there could exist such a thing as foreign monopoly was that the people had to pay a heavy ad- ditional percentage for the poor privilege of having their masters on this side of the water. The protection accorded by a high tariff was a protection against the right of the American people to buy when and where they pleased. That protection was demanded by the manufacturers, not against any wrong, but against the right of their own countrymen, demanded in order that one cirizen's privilege should be increased by hay ing those of another curtailed
 MT. Osborne, of Pennsylvania, opposed the bill, which he characterized as blow at the dignity of labor, an attack on a system of taxation which had brought comfort and even luxury to thousands of homes in this country. The object of a protective duty, MT. Osborne said, was not to raise the price of goods, but to secure a market for labor. Give to the American workman a market for his products, and be would take care of the wages. Protection at any point below prohi- bition must always reduce the price of products, first, by foreign competition, and later by home competition
 Mir. Hudd, of Wisconsin, said that the Re- publican party was committed to the aboli- tion of the internal revenue taxation, and re- sisted every attack on the tariff, because any change in import duties would interfere with its pets, who, with Oliver Twist simplicity, were asking for more protection That party would take the tax off whisky and tobacco. because by so doing it expected to prevent such a revision of the tariff as was now de- manded by the great mass of the taxpayers of the country.
 The Democratic party had placed its shoulders against the car of tariff reform. and would propel it to the end of the journey. He denied that the boasted system of pro tection had indeed protected American labor There had been strikes innumerable, re- sulting, in the past two years, in O loss of SC, 900, 900.