Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1888-05-03
LIKE THE LITTLE BROOK,
MEN MAY COME AND MEN MAY GO,
BUT CONGRESSIONAL

OratOry Over the Mills BIZ Gives Prom
Use OF Going on Forever - Proposed
Amendments to the Interstate Law
What Johnston Says of Voorhees-worls
in the Two Chambers.
WASHINGTON CITY, May 3.-The long.
| drawn;out discussion of the Mills bill was
continued in the house yesterday, the talk
being carried into the hours of the night
again. The days debate was begun by vii
| son of Minnesota, who supported the bill
| He characte rized the treasury surplus as de
| moralizing in the extreme compared the at
titude Of the two great parties on the ques-
ton of the tariff, saying the Republicans OPP
posed reduction OF taxes on necessaries but
favored such reductions on wealth, while
the Democrats, except few from protee-
ton strongholds, favored taking the burdens
from necessities and opposed taking them
from wealth. He denounced the protective
SYSTEM and claimed that protection did not
exclude European manufactures from our
markets, hut did exclude our manufactures
from the markets Of the world Eighty or
9O per cent. of our manufactures must of
necessity be retained here, tariff or no
tariff.
McComas of Maryland said that if there
was any article of common use which our
farmers could not profitaby grow, or our
miners or workmen produce that was not al
ready on the free list, he would vote to put it
on. He favored the abolition of the internal
revenue system and reduction of the tariff
on sugar to IA minimHm, yielding revenue
enough to pay bountes to home producers of
sugar. Free foreign trade might enrich the
Mugwump importers of New York or Boston,
but it was home production and consumption
that enriched the farmer. The necessities of
life were never so cheap and plentiful as to-
day, but the poor mans wages were lowest in
the states where the greater number of
the supporters of the Mills bill hail
from. Free trade cheapens few things
the workingman consumed, but also cheapened
everything he produced. Protection raised
the price of a few things the workingman
consumed, but raised the price of everything
he produced, and higher wages for what he
produced meant higher standard for life,
for home, for wife and children.
Lanham of Texas spoke in favor of the
bill. He could not understand how any Dem
ocrat could oppose the measure. His cri6-
cism of it was that it was too protective
Allen of Massachusetts opposed the bill |
Regarded as n device for reducing revenue, |
it was ina6equate and failure. 1t would |
not only not reduce the revenue, but would |
increase it,
Caruth of Kentucky followed with a speech |
in support Of the bill The protective tariff |
he characterised as most insidious enemy |
that, while it pretended to be giving the
country protection, was in reality stealing
and destroying its life. The south had found
that the liberation of its slaves was the COM
mencement of its greatness, and so the north
would find that the adoption of revenue
tariff would awaken her energies, add new
impulse to her enterprise, and lend to every
power double power.
A dozen members attended the night Sos
sion and listened to tariff reform speech
from Stewart of Georgia. He discussed the
effect of protection upon the rate of wages,
and from the difference in the wages paid in
the same industries in various portions OF the
country he drew the conclusion shat supply
and demand and density of population, and
not the tariff, regulated the price of labor
to trusts and pools he declared
hat the passage of the bill wsud paralyze
he power which held the industries of the
COUNTRY in its hands and that was the reason
here was so much stubborn, unyielding oR-
position to measure so much in the interest
If the people He made a strong plea against
the taxes on whisky, which he de-
bounced AS the cause of ignorance and crime.
Davis of Massachusetts, was surprised at
hearing free trade so boldly advocated as IL
lad been during tho present discussion. In
ormer times the Democratic party had not
1een so pronounced. The Republican party
till advocates the protective system as the
,est for every class, interest and sectisn of
he country. The Democratic party insisted
hat the internal revenue system should be re-
aimed, in order that British manufactures :
night displace the products of American in
ustry on American soil But while they
enounce the tariff the Democrats Davis
aid, had retained in the bill the most obnox-
DIS feature of protection-that on sugar.
\ revenue of $3G, 000 900 was obtained annu-
lily from sugar in order to protect louisiana
rho did not produce one-ninth of tho sugar
onsumed in the country.