The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-10-09
ALLISON ON THE TARIFF.
THE DEBATE ON THE SENATE BILL
NOW UNDER WAY

Senator Harris Tries in Vain to Have
the Time OF the Debate Limited-The
Point Made that Every Senator Has
already Made up His Mind on the
Question.
WASHINGTON. Oct. S.-The Senate at 40
O'Clock to-day proceeded TO the considera-
ton of the tariff bill, reading in full being
dispensed with. and the Senate substitute
being ordered TO be first considered.
Mr.. Harris ask d Mr.. Aliison, who is in
charge of the bill, to fix the time at which
the general debate on the bill should
close.
sir. Allison said it was impossible to say
when the senators would resign their right
of spe9k king on the bill. 1t was very i'm
lortart subject, taking every interest and
every industry of the country. 1t seemed
~ him that he ought not to take any
responsibility respecting 1t. he concurred
" it'll the senator from Tennessee in desire
that the bill should be proceeded with as
rapidly as possible.
ALL MINDS MADE Up.
Mr.. Harris remarked that there was not
n Sc atOr who had not a well defined and
fixed opinion as to the principle that
would control his vote as to every phase
aud every feature OF the bill. He thought
Al more important to the country that the
Senate take action upon tine bill than TO
have an extended debate upon its general
principles. If the senator from Iowa would
% gree, he (Mr. Harris would ask unanimous
consent TO have the time fixed at which the
gs eral debate should clo'e.
Mr. Allison thought it rather premature
t. make any suggestion as to that matter
to-day.
Nf..a 40 IN Ian
.6avs or two weeks would lie sufficient for
the general debate.
Mr.. Allison-I hope SO.
br. Harris-Then | will ask unanimous
consent to close the ge eral debate on this
hill in ten days.
Mr. Allison-I would not like to consent
TO that at the very beginning. 1t might be
found that we wanted eleven or twelve
days.
CONTINUING HIS SPEECH.
Mr.. Allison then proceeded with his state
rnent as to the bill. He said that the Senate
bill differed from the House b II in the fact
that it proposed to deal with all the sched-
ules of the tariff, while the House bill did
hot The House bill did not deal with the
tobacco schedule, the silk schedule nor the
wines and liquor schedule. and had dealt
but lightly with the sugar schedule. The
Senate bill had been made up on the princi-
pie of protecting Amer lean labor aud
American industry. That was its aim
and purpose. The Senate committee
on finance had sought to care for every in
dustry in the country. The reductions by
the House bill had been calculated at S71,-
900 600 Those by the Senate bill would
amount to about SIS, 100000. The latter
computation had been made up on the idea
that where the rates of duty were increased,
there would be a corresponding Tor at least
partial reduction of importatlons, and that
has fha no aIf
THE ALLEGED OBJECT.
But the manifest purpose and intent of
the House bill was to increase the importa-
ton of articles placed on the free list and
of articles where the rates of duty were re-
duced, and, of course, it was a question
whether or not that increase of importations
would not more than counterbalance the
reduction of rates, and increase the revenue
rather than diminish it. There was no
question, however, but that the Senate bill
would reduce the revenue between
SOL ,000, 900 and S73, 900, 900, and, in his judg
ment the reduction would be substantially
midway between those two points. The
reduction would be not merely from import
duties, but also from the internal revenue.
THE TAX ON TOBACCO.
Referring TO the question of tobacco, Mr..
Allison said that he had not been very Wig
orous and urgent in removing the tax on
practically universal sentiment in favor of
taking off that tax. 1t had Ueen re-
duced at various times from 80
cents pound to s cents. which
was said to be an onerous imposition on
many of the agricultural states. He bad
yielded, and the committee on finance had
yielded, to that supposed sentiment. The
only difference between the House bill and
the Senate bill in regard to tobacco was
that the Senate bill made reduction of
81 so per 1000 on manufactured cigars and
also took off the tax of 81 on retail dealers
in Tobacco. The Senate bill increased the
duty on imported cigars from 81 80 per
1000 and 25 per cent. ad valorem, to a
specific duty of So 50 per 1000.
The effect of the change would be. he
thought, to increase the duty on imported
cigars, but as they were a luxury, he did
not think the increase would be very much
felt. A change had also been made in the
Senate bill as to the duty on cigar wrap
pers, which was fixed at rs cents a pound
COMPARING THE BILLS.
In comparing the two bills, Mr.. Allison
said that the Senate bill was clear and
distinct measure of protection to American
industries, while the House bill was a step,
and long step, in the direction of what
was commonly known as free trade In
conclusion, he said that it was his purpose.
and the purpose of the senators on his side
OF the chamber, to proceed as fast as posi-
Bile with the discussion of the bill. At some
future time he might take occasion to make
some further observations in respect to it,
but his only desire to-day had been to state
The general provisions of the bill as plainly
es possible, so that they might be under
stood by those who had not studied it.
vANCE's REPLY.
Mr.. Vance, one of the minority members
Of the finance committee, next addressed
the Senate. He drew an imaginary sketch
of partnership entered into at the close of
the war between the government of the
United States and the manufacturers of
the United States, the terms of the partner
ship being that the goverdment was to
enact law and subject foreign products TO
taxation for its own benefit, while home
products were 10 be taxed for the benefit of
the home manufacturers. He described
this as an unholy and iniquitous system of
taxation upon the many for the benefit OF
tbe few. The House bill, he said, made a
total reduction Of $7S,0O0,O00, but
how had the favored classes re-
sponded TO that fair proposition9
Every republican member OF the House of
Representatives had voted against it and it
had been rejected by an equally unanimous
vote Of the republican senator's on the
finance committee. And how, he asked,
did the Senate substitut divide the reduc-
ton q duties as between the government
nd fksa A o.,