The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-07-08
HOUSE .

I1dIIlS, VI ,OulOs JOuu n. MdIeiu VI
Kansas. and John F. Hartranft, Of
Pennsylvania. to fill the vacancies on
the board of managers of the National
Homes for Disabled Volunteer soldiers.
/ The hour having expired, the House
went into committee of the whole On
4 the tariff bill. the pending amendment
being that offered by Cannon, OF ILL
nois, on the sugar schedule. .'''|-'@ 20
Kelly, of Pennsylvania, announced
himself a Republican DEVOTED to
/ the doctrines of his party and
to the utterances of its national con-
vention. He was a protectioalst and
believed the system of protective
duties had developed the country
| to its present industrial position,
and was essential to maintain tn t
position. He had been surprised to
hear the gentleman of Illinois make an
assault on the platform recently adopted
by the Republican party. He then
quoted from the Chicago platform the
protection plank, AMI regretted the
items therein enumerated had been a.
sailed from the seats of the Republican
members. From the remarks made by
these gentlemen he oissented. Kelly
then defended the protective system in
regard to sugar and opposed the duty
policy. At the conclusion of his re-
marks, Nelson, of Minnesota, suggested
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
was the only one who was thoroughly
endorsed by the Chicago convention.
| This remark caused considerable laugh
| ter. ''' b..
Kelly accepted the compliment and
said the convention did endorse his
| position and he was ready to say Lord
in peace, for mine eyes have
seen the glory of the Republican party
| Laughter. McKenna, of California.
said be was too much of Republican,
and for that reason he arose to oppose
| the amendment. 1t had no true basis
| of fact or Of principle. Every item OF
the Mills bill could be supported for the
same reason given to put sugar on the
free list. Every American produc
| ton could be put on the free
list The amendment was OPP
posed to the principle of protection.
1t was distinctly and accurately oppos-
ed to the Chicago platform. That plat
| form declared protection to American
industries to be the supremest principle
| Of the Republican party. 1t conceded
the necessity of a reduction OF the rev.
enue, but distinctly enumerated the
means of reduction. Protection was
not to be sacrificed, that was clear
Protection was sacrificed il 1t
was taken from American industry.
The gentleman might Say, "whe1 you
give bounties you give protection " de
did not deny this but what assurance
could be given of the stability of this
Wa-n hn i'll
ing to extend the bounty system to any
other industries? Were they willing to
interpret the Republican platform as
differing from the system Of bounties to
the industries of the country? The dis
Junction between protection by tariff and
protection by bounty was not & verbal
dis inction. It was substantial dis
tlnctIon. It IVES distinction between
what people were used to and what
people were not used to, and When he |
asked Representatives of the House |
when they were abous to submit the |
question of protection to the hazard |
of dispute, he asked them not to cast
into the scales an odioQs f,uu !
Questionable form Of that pro-
lection. The amendment was dis
tinctly unrepublican ard distinctly |
antagonistic to the declarations |
OF the Republican party in convention
assem- led. He was sorry, sincerely |
sorry, that the gentleman had offered |
this amendment. He hoped it would |
not receive any substantial votes. If it
received substantial Republican vote
he woul1 60 from the House dis
appointed in his party, disappointed in
the belief it expressed and affirm ID
that the principle of protection must be
universal. The Republican party de
clare this universal policy, and it would
succeed 1t would deserve to succeed. |
(Applause.)
Cannon said that the gentleman from |
Pennsylvania (Kellyl had seen proper
to arraign the amendment and his (Can
non s. position as a Republican. Ifnot |
the gentleman was correct
about this matter. If the Chicago con-
ventlon meant what it said, ard if
he (kelly) alone out of 100000
platform. then he (Cannon) must get
off it, He had nc feeling save that of
kindness toward the gentleman o. |
Pennsylvania, but the gentleman coulr
not ask him TO listen to him (Keuvl
placing the pxrty to which they both be-
loHged in q position which to his
mind it did uot occupy. Ia con-
clusion, Cannon said, II he had to
CHOOSE between taking the tax off
" Risky ana off sugar, he Nould take il
eff sugar.
Patteu, of Kansas, said he woulu ia
yor protective duty on sugar, e1ea if
not pound were produced outside OF i
Louisiana. Eat it had keen. demon.
'trated that the highest grade Of sugar
would be made from sorghum pro-
duced III Kansas ...' Z
Baype, of Pennsylvania, inquired I'll
'he sorRhum crop had proved success
before State bounty hsd baen granted.
Peters replied that sorghum had been
cultivated SIX years ago IN Kansas ;tht i
bounty had nothing TO do with the in
1ustry. Every fsemsr in that country
where cane conld be raised was Inter
,sted IN protectiaR; he 4as certain OF | ,
afe crop. Grasshoppe-s did not touch
t, and changes of weather did not :
Effect it. Was there any use of talking
o the Kansas farmer, then, taking I
IF che protective duty because aorghpan
ugar could not be produced in the
United States? He weuld be glad TO
ee this industry assured protection by
ounty, hnt nobody could &iye that es-
uraDce. iF
Gear (!ewa) announced himself in