Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-07-23
PASSED..
The Mills Bill Triumphantly
Through the House.
REFORMS FIRST GREAT VICTORY.

| WAsHINGToS, d. C., July 2l.-When
the House met this morning the galleries
were filled with spectators, attracted to
the Capitol by the announcement that to-
day 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 address
the House. He said tho majority
had tried to bring in bill to reduce Excess
sive taxation and lessen the influx
of money to the treasury. By the amend
uients which had been made in Committee
OF the Whole the total reduction Of du-
ties had fallen from $50, 600. 900 to $780,
900, 600, the free list from $26, DOC, 900 to
$40, 100000. The relative rate OF duty
had ALLEN from AZ. 10 per cent, not to 40,
but to AZ 40 per cent, and yet this meas
ure, so very moderate, was characterized
as free trade measure! Was S42 40 on
every hundred dollars free trade? IL 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 tn carry or administrate to remain In
power al honr which would levy tax OF
s. on the hundred.
NOT FREE TRADE MEASURE.
Yet this bill carrying a taxation OF
$40 40 was characterized es o free trade
measure. The term free trade seemed to
have q double meaning. Some gentle
men seemed 10 understand that free trade
meant the absolute uniettering OF our
foreign commerce from all taxation.
The Democratic party had used the term
free trade M term expressing the freedom
of our commerce from all obstruction, |
save that of Just and necessary taxation to
support the economical administration OF
the government The tariff Of 1916 had |
been called a free trade tariff and he had |
himself spoken of the decade from 1850 to |
80 as the free trade period, because III that
time commerce was not restricted by OBJ |
structions thrown in its way by capitalists |
and monopolists.
He the proceeded to take mp and discuss in
detail the various schedules of the bill, be- |
ginning with those dealing. with chemicals. |
The present duty on chemicals he said, was |
81 81 per cent. The proposed bill placed |
il at % II, reduction of a little over u |
=. oh huk traa
trade.
GLASS AND EARTHEN WARE.
The next Was the earthen ware and glass
schedule The duly under existing law
WAS $50 55 in every 800. The bill fixed
it at $5l.70. That Was tree trade too, he
supposed. If $50 taxation on every 500
was free trade, III Gods nsme would some
one tell him what was meant by the term
projection? lApplsuse. Sugar WAS
iouud AT duty of SIS Is and the com.
mittee reduced it to SCI 81. There was
then nobody making much fuss about the
enormity OF that reduction. The bill cut
down the revenue sugar 81 S59, 600. Thus
was next to the largest reduction made in
any schedule in the bill. 1t had been
constantly charged that the bill was sec
tioual that it barely touched sugar, and
that the committee threw it, arms around
the sugar industry to shield it, yet the re-
duction in sugar was only second to the
wooden schedule. There ought to be
high duty ON sugar, because Democrats
believed that taxation WAS tribute re-
uuired from citiz"ns for the support Of the
Government, and because they believed |
that in laying taxation il ought TO be so
laid as to be rs little burdensome as
possible. BY the tariff on sugar
the Government got $4,000, 600
81, 800, 900 into the public Golfer it cost
So, 900, 100 protection Ia the sugar planters.
But IN order TO get $5S, 00O, 600 into the
treasury from iron and steel and wooden
goods it cost the people over 500, 900, 900.
Why then should the duty on sugar be re-
peale6 in order that q more burdensOme |
tax at higher rate on wooden
and cotton goods and iron and |
steel might he retained? The |
duty Oh provisions under existing law was
Sd 33. The committee left it at $23 80.
Yet it was charged that this was free
trade measure.
THE EAlSllNG DUH
on cotton was $50 80. The bill fixed it
st S39.07. Where did the free trade
come in on that? The $l2,OO0, 600
revenue from cotton had been re-
duced only $277, 900. The duty on hemp
iute and lax was at present S2s 10. IL
was LETT at $2l 81 This reduction OF only
f6 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 10, re-
duction of over SEQ on every $lCO OF taxa
ton.
This reduction seemed large but it was
caused by the placing of raw wool on the
free Int. The reduction on dutiable |
wooden goods amounted to Sl2 OOO,OOO,
but the wooden 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 a |
free trade measure.
The duty on books, papers, etc, was |
now ST. -. The bill left it at S22.O6, |
less than 10 cents reduction.
ON STEEL RAILS.
The bill reduced the duty on steefrails
from SIT per ton to Sll per ton snd al
though the duty was left at a per cent,
it was charged that the Democrats were
irving to ruin this infant industry. Fifty
four per cent. was a large duty than had
been placed on steel rails from IS to 10.