Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-10-09
THE CAPITAL.
ALLISON AND VANCE DEBATE TRE
TARIFF QUESTION.
Thurman Shows Himself to be Very
Feeble-Opium Not Made Free,
as Reported
SPECIAL DISPATCHES TO THE REcoaD-usros. !
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
The Senate

WASHINGTON. October Shin the Senate
to-day, Blair offered resolution Qaid over
till tomorrow calling on the President for
information as to the trial (for treason) and
conviction and execution in Canada on the
10th OF November, 1885, of Louis David
Riel, who claimed to have been a natural
lied citizen of the United States, and
whether the proceedings in the case were
according to the process of law, including
the presentation of the fact of Riel's cit.
zenship and the defense of insanity.
The Senate then proceeded to the con-
sideration of the tariff bill, the reading in
full being dispensed with and the Senate
substitute being ordered first considered
Harris asked Allison to fix a time at
which the general debate on the bill should
close.
Allison said it was impossible to say
when the Senators would resign their right
TO take any responsibility respecting it. He
concurred with the Senate in the desire
that the bill should be proceeded with as
rapidly as possible
Harris remarked that there was not a
Senator who had not well defined and fixed
opinions as to the principles that would
control his vote in every phase and feature
of the bill. If the Senator from Iowa
would agree he (Harrisl would ask unani-
nous consent to close the debate on this
Dill IN ten DAYS.
Allison would not like to consent to
that at the very beginning. 1t might be
found that we wanted eleven DAYS or
twelve days"
Allison then proceeded with his state
ment as to the bill. There was something
which ought to be made clear in the be-
ginning of the discussion. There were
Few salient points which ought to be pre-
sented. One was that the Senate
bill proposed to reduce the revenue
between S65,000,00O and $4,000, 900.
This was the first opportunity which
the Senate had to coz slider the great ques-
ton of the reduction of revenue since the
revision of 1888. The House had occupied
eight months in the consideration of the
question, but within a little over sixty days
the Senate Committee on Finance had pro
duced the bill now up. The House had
spent eight monuhs-not for the purpose of
Strengthening the industries of the coun-
try, but for the purpose of greatly disturb
ing those interests. He regarded a reduc-
ton of from sixty to seventy millions of
revenue as being as great reduction as
could be safely made, and therefore he
trusted that no amendment would be
adopted looking to greater reduction. He
calculated, from the report of the Secretary
of the Treasury for the first quarter of the
present fiscal year, that there would
be reduction of $S000,000 in
the receipts from imports this year.
as compared with last year, and reduc-
ton of S17000000 as compared with the
Secretarys estimate. Taking all the reve-
nues of the Government for the first quar-
ter Of the current fiscal year, they had
fallen off five millions as compared with
the first quarter of last year. He made
this statement for the purpose of showing
l,ott t1an
was not likely to be increased by anything
that was to occur during the present fiscal
year. By the provisions of the Senate tariff
bill there would be no surplus revenue,
unless the sinking fund for the year were
left entirely out of consideration. The
Senate bill plated-apd it might as
well be understood in the beginning-that
for the current fiscal year, and the fiscal
years that are to follow Immediately there
was not likely to be any surplus beyond the
amount necessary 10 redeem the 4! per
cent. bonds falling due October /, 1891 He
could not understand why it was that the
surplus of ninety-six millions was not used
to retire the AZ per cent. bonds that were
presently to be prid off by the Government.
Passing on to the general features of the
bill, he said the Senate bill differed from
the House bill in the fact that it proposed to
deal with all the schedules of the tariff,
while the House bill did not. The House
bill did not deal with the tobacco sched-
ule, the silk schedule nor the wine
and liquor schedule, and had dealt but
lightly with the sugar schedule. The Sen
ate bill had been made up on the principle
of protecting American labor and Ameri-
can industry. That was its aim and pur-
pose. The Senate Committee on Finance
had sought to care for every industry in
the country.
Referring to the question of tobacco. AL
lison said the only difference between the
House bill and the Senate bill in regard to
tobacco was that the Senate bill made q re-
duction OF 81 90 per thousand on manufact-
ured cigars and took off the tax OF 81 on retail
dealers in tobacco. The House bill reduced
the sugar duty Is per cent, and the Senate
90 per cent. Even with The latter reduc-
ton, the duty on sugar would remain at Al
per cent. ad valorem. Sugar was as essen
tial III every household as bread, and if
there was any article that should have q
low rate of duty, it was the article of sugar
He believed that whatever encouragement
there should be for the production of sugar
from sorgham or beets was still left in
fair protection given by the Senate BILL 1t
had been the boast of the Democratic party
that it reduced the necessaries of life, but
what was greater necessary of life than
sugar? And yet the House bill only pro-
posed reduction of the existing duty on
sugar by Is per cent.
He argued that the effect of the House
bill in regard TO the sugar schedule would
be to legislate $4,000 year into the
pockets of the sugar trust, or II per cent
on their capital, and to take that amount
of money out of the pockets of the people.
And yet the Republican party is denounced, i,
and this substitute is denounced as favor
! ing the trusts.
In comparing the two bills, Allison said
the Senate Dill was clear and distinct
measure of protection to American indus
| tries, while the House bill was a long step
in the direction of free trade.
| Vance, one of the minority members of
| the Finance Committee, next addressed the
Senate. He drew an imaginary sketch of q
partnership entered into at the close of the
war between the Government and manu-
facturers of the United States. The terms
| of partnership being that the Government
was to enact the law and subject foreign
products to taxation for its own benefit.
while home products were to be taken
| for the benefit of home manufacturers.
He described this es an unholy and
iniquitous system of taxation upon the
many for the benefit of the few How, he
asked, did the Senate substitute divide the
reduction of duties as between the Govern
ment and the people on one side and the
| favored class on the other? 1t took off the
tax on tobacco (s25, coo 0O0) and the tax on
alcohol used i'll the arts $1,000 ,000), and
reduced the duty on sugar, nearly all of
! which taxes-amouniIng in all to S55 ,000,-
O00-were pure revenue. In other words,
the Senate bill took 50 from the Govern
ment for every ST. that it took from the
manufacturer. He characterized as sheer
nonsense, or worse, the assumption that
high tariff ment high wages. If it were
not SO the operation of the tax would be
the same everywhere, while the fact was
that wages differed in every State in the
Union and in different parts of each State.
He combatted the claim that manufacture s
furnish home market for the farmer,
and instanced as a refutation of the
claim that nowhere in the United States
was the decay of agriculture more noticea-
bic and lamentable than in New England,
where manufactures most abound. The
effect of protection was to convert an inde-
pendent yeomanry into dependent factory
operatives. The annual cotton product OF
he South was 100000 bales, of which
100000 were surplus. What was to b
done with that surplus, and with the sur.
plus of wheat, corn and meal. if it could not
be disposed of in foreign markets? II
American producers were confined to q
\ orb tbax- a. y