Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-05-23
THB FISHERIES TREATY
Continued from First Page.

gentlemen seemed to feel sympathy for the
criminal. He felt little anxious about
the men who bore the burden of caring
for and supporting these criminals.
| Mr.. O'Neill inquired what labor the gen.
tleman sought to support in his tariff
speech.
| Mr. Butterworth replied that he was
| trying to protect American labor against
| foreign labor. He was not attempting to
tax labor at home in order to support labor
on the other side in idleness.
| Mr.. O'Neill inquired which the gentle
man preferred to remain idle-the honest
wOrklngman or the felon.
Mr.. Butterworth remarked that the
gentleman spoke with all the confidence of
knowledge and all the assurance of ignor-
ance. The trouble with the gentleman
was that he assumed his facts.
Mr.. O'Neill asserted that he assumed
what he knew, and that was that the work
ing men were demanding this bill.
Mr.. Butterworth declared that there was
no evidence that any industry had been
stricken down by reason of competition
with convict labor. There was not a well
ordered business establishment that could
not compete with prison labor.
Mr.. Brumm. of Pennsylvania, said the
gentleman was entirely mistaken.
Mr.. Butterworth denied that he was mis-
taken. The greatest punishment that
could be inflicted upon honest men was to
tax them to support the criminals who had
robbed them
Mr.. Wilson, of Minnesota, argued
against the bill on constitutional grounds.
Mr.. Adams, of Illinois, also opposed the
bill as being unconstitutional, and as
being contrary to public interest He
read d letter written to Mr.. Morrow, of
California, by the governor of that state,
stating that large numbers of jute bags
were made by convict labor which did not
compete in the slightest with free labor,
and that the passage of the bill would
work great hardship to the state. Mr.
Adams also called attention to the facts
that the cOnvicts in the Missouri peniten-
tiary were large producers of saddle trees,
most of which were sold in Mexico. The
passage of this bill would prohibit that
expectation.
Mr.. Canon, of Illinois, was unwilling
that the bill should be passed unless there
was provision in corpOrated in it prohlb-
iting the importation of foreign goods
manufactured in whole CT IN part by con-
vict labor.
Mr.. Cultivate of Ohio, was opposed to
congress interfering in the domestic
affairs of states when these states were
engaged in trying to solve the problem as
to how they should deal with their con-
victs.
Mr., Butterworth, of Ohio, urged Mr.:
~ -NClIl W POSCpOliC eLo COuSIocIdClou VI
the bill to another fixed date in order to
afford opportunity for mature considera-
ton and the correction of crudities.
Mr.. Reed seconded the request and Mr..
O'Neill asked consent to postpone the bill
till next Saturday, but objection was made
and Mr.. Lodge, of Massachusetts,, address
ed the house in support of the bill.
Mr.. Caruth, of Kentucky, held that the
courts should be allowed to decide the
point of constitutionality raised against
The bill. 1t was the duty of the peoples
representatives to protect their people
against the competition of con-
vict labor. Mr.. Cannon, of II
linois offered an amendment
prohibiting the importation for commercial
purposes of all goods, wares of merchan-
disc from any foreign country to the
United States which in whole or in part
were manufactured or produced bp con-
Wet labor and providing penalties for the
violation of this prohibition. Adopted.
The previous question was then ordered,
year 1856, nays, A, on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill and then the
house adjourned.