Wichita eagle., 1888-07-15
FRED L. JOHNSON,
HOUSE.

HOUSE.
WASHINGTON, July 14.-Immediately af
ter the reading of the journal the house re
sumed the consideration of the subsidy
amendment of the senate to the postofIict
appropriation bill BY a vote of yeas l41
nays 81, the house further insisted on it.
disagreement, and further conference
was ordered The house then went into
committee of the whole on the tariff bill
the pending schedule being that relative tC
wool.
Cultivate, of Ohio, ridiculed the asser-
ton thSt the effect of the tariff had been
to increase the number of sheep in this
country. He thought the natural
fecundity OF the flock had some
thing to do with the increase. There
had been an increase in the number of
COWS. Possibly someIprotectionist would
claim that this was because cheese and
butter had been protected. The number
of horses had increased, possibly on &C
count of the tariff on curled hair. Swine
had increased III numbers. The tariff on
bristles might account for this. But
mules, upon which there was no protective
tariff, had also increased. How did gen
tlemen account for that
Mr.. Grosvenor, of Ohio, suggested that
the increase was attributed to the demand
for mules in Indiana.
Mr.. Cultivate proceeded to argue that
the high tariff had no influence upon the
price of wool. which was regulated by the
law of supply and demand.
Mr.. Lafolette, of Wisconsin, took up
and criticised. Mr.. Carlisle's speech upon
the bill, especially that portion in which.
the speaker endeavored to show the pros
perity of the country during the low tariff
decade from 1850 To 1860. To do this, said
Nh. Lafolette, Mr.. Carlisle had recourse to
the percentage argument and had shown
that the percentage of increase in the
wooden, cotton, hardware, hosiery and
boot and shoe industries had been very
large. The trick of the percentage argu-
ment was that manufacturer might be
so small that any increase would make a
percentage showing. A gentleman in
selecting the articles upon which to show
the percentage of increase, had taken care
TO select these articles which with Que
eXception) were not touched, or only
slightly by the act of 1S4S The gentleman
had said that the tariff of 1916 had been SO
beneficial that in 1851 every representative
from New England who voted at all had
voted for bill making an almost uniform
reduction of 20 per cent, and that among
them was Justin ;. Morrill,. This was an
error so gross and unjust as to demand a
correction and a rebuke to the gentleman
from Kentucky who used it with such
emphasis and telling effect. He chal-
Ionged the gentleman to mention single |
reduction on any important article of |
manufacture which was made III the bill |
of 1867, as il first passed the house when |
Mr.. Morrill, and the other New England |
representatives voted for it. Instead of |
making an almost uniform reduction of |
20 per cent the bill, as it first passed the
house, was protective measure. and |
-,
its report made most power
full protective argument The bill |
as il first passed the house |
was designed to reduce the surplus with
out impairing American industries The
statement of the gentleman was either an
inexcusable blundenng or the meanest
sort of political pettifogging. Nothing
escaped his net. he claimed everything for
the low tariff. He had both ends of the
"teeler" in the air ut the same time. He
trided with the facts when he said that
this country recovered from the depression
OF 1867 in a few months, AT the conclu-
sion OF his speech Mr.. Lafoette was
heartily congratulated by his Republican
Mr.. Scott, of Pennsylvania. referred to
the recent speech of Mr. Kelly, giving an
account of the interview between him.
self and Mr.. Carnegie in the committee
room. Mr.. Scott pronounced the state
from beginning to end.
and made too of whole cloth. He then
proceeded to give his version of the inter
view, which. he said touched upon Mr..
carnegie $ citizenship, and not upon the
tariff. He also repeated the substance of a
he had had with Mr.. Carnegie
in which the latter admitted the truth of
the statement that he had made $500, 900 in
one year under protective tariff.
Mr.. Grosvenor of Ohio. told how he with
other Ohio members had called on the
ways and means committee when the Nor
rison bill was pending, before the star
process of incubating tariff bills
vas invented General Warner. a Demo
ratio member from Ohio, had pro-
ested stoutly against any reduction ,
ii the wool tariff and no Dissent
ng voice was heard. That was two short .
ears ago. The Democrats from Ohio are
low taking a dish of crow in silence. all
Except his colleague from the central dis
riot, who now coolly asserted that be al
ways liked crow. Mr.. Grosvenor referred I
o the decrease OF the wool industry in ,
ohio, and the great falling of in the price ,
# the wool crop, and said it was all due
o the menace OF the Mills bill. After ;
he Republicans. aided by all but one or 4,
wo of the Ohio Democratic members.
ad stricken ont the enacting clause
f the Morrison bill, the price of wool
ad sprung up from 3 to 5 cents per pound
What was to be gained by this peculiar !
attack? Would any sane !
IAN strike down this great industry for t
be sake OF reducing their revenues by a i
wv million dollars! He would make n i
reelection that il the Democratic party a
i'd this. if they struck down this great in
uttry which feeds and clothes 100000 Il
eople, then the Democrat who came back
ere next December would feel like one
ho treads alone the banquet hall de-
,rted, s
,hedule il
The house then took a recess, the even n
X session to be for the consideration of b
riyate bills. u