Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-07-08
FrrT,ETm CosesEss.
WASHINGTON, July Z. 1889.
senate.
The Senate was not in session to-day.
House OF Representatives.

Rouse OF Representatives.
The House went Into Committee OF the
Whole (ljr. Springer, OF Illinois, in the
chair on the tariff biIl, the pending amend.
msnt being that offered by Dir. Cannon, OF
| Illinois, to the sugar schedule.
The discussion lasted throughout the en-
/ tire session, aud the committee rose without
reaching 4 vote upon Mr.. Cannon's amend.
ment. Messrs. Cox aud Breckenridge, OF
/ Kentucky we're the only speakers on the
( Democratic side, but dozen or more Re
puhllcans participated In the debate.
Mr.. Kelley opened II by expressing sur
prise 10 bear the gentleman from Illinois
| (Mr. Canpob1 make an assault upon the plat
( form recently adopted by the Republican
party. He then quoted from the Chicago
/ platform the protection plank, and said be
regretted that tie doctrine there enumerated
! had been assailed from TIE seats OF the Re
1 publican members. From the remarks m,de
( by these geBtlemen he dlssented in the name
OF The Republican party, at whose birth be
had been aud to whose interests he had been
devoted from that time TO this. III the dulles
on sugar were wrong, let them be righted
and made proper; but the gentlemen should
remember that the Republican party had de-
clared not for the establishment OF The im-
perial system OF bounties, but for the main-
tenance OF the American protective system.
Mr. McKenua. OF California, said that be
too was a Republican, and for that reason he
rose TO oppose the amendment 1t bad no
| true basis si fact or Of principle. For the
same reason uraed 70 support II, every Item
OF the Mills bill could be supported. For the
same reason given 10 put sugar on the free
list, every American production could be put
on the free list The amendment was op'
posed to the principle OF protection. TWAS
distinctly and accurately opposed to the chi
cagO platform. That platform eeclared pre-
lection to American industries to be the SUI
premest principle OF the Republican party.
IL conceded the necessity OF 4 reduction oil
revenue, but distinctly enumerated The
means OF reduction. Protection was not TO
I be sacrificed That was clear. Protection
was sacrificed il II was taken from any Ameri-
( can industry. The gentlemen might say
when You give bounties, you give protec-
/ ton" lie did not deny this, but what as
I surancc could be given OF the stability OF
| this protectlon? Were they willing 10 in-
/ terpret the Republican platform as oneTlng
/ a system Of bounues 10 the industries OF the
/ country? The distinction between pTotec-
4 ton by tariff and protection by bounty was
not verbal distinction. II was substan-
/ tial distinction. IL was = distinction between
what the people were net used 10, and he
asked the Republicans Of the House, when
/ thev were about 10 submit the question Of
protection 10 the hazard OF dispute, not 10
cast into one OF the scales an odious ana
Objectionable form Of that protection. The
amendment was distinctly unrepubllcsn ana
distinctly sntsgOnistic to the declarations OF
the Republican party IN convention as
sembled.
He was sorry.-sincerely sorry-that the gen.
tlcmsn had offered this amendment. lie
hoped II would not receive any substantial
vote. II 1t received \ substantial RepubiI-
can vote, be would 20 from the House TO,
day disappointed in his party, disappointed
in its sincerity, disappointed In the beliei u
EXPRESSED, and affirmed that the principle OF
protection must be universal, and 80 oepeh-
cent As universal. Let the Republican party
declare this universal policy and 1t would
succeed. II would do more; it would de-
serve 10 succeed. [Applause.l
Mr.. Cannon said that the gentleman from
/ Pennsylvania (Kelley), who had so much
more reputation In the country than
he had, had seen proper 10 arraign tRe
amendment and bis (Cannon's) position as
unrcpubican, II not unpatriotic. IL the
gentleman was correct ABOUT this matter,
| II the Chicago Convention meant what 1t
said, and II he kelley alone OF G0,OOO,OOO
people mad the right 10 cOnstrue the plat
form, then be Cannon must get off It.
Mr.. Cannon then quoted the tariff plank
Of tue platform and asserted that with the
declarations he was in entire harmony, and,
according TO hi best judgment, the amend
ment he had offered WAS in entire harmony
with those declarations. He argued that tue
| tariff on sugar was a revenue tarin and nota
protective tariff. Dld not the gentleman
! know that since the close OF the war the
| South has bounded forward in the produc-
/ ton Of cotton and every other article ex-
cept sugar? The sugar tax was bastard
and an intruder and fraud upon the pro-
tected industries Of the country. [Ap-
! plause.]
Itell the gentleman, said Mr.. Cannon, in
conclusion. IN the face Of this House and Of
| the country, In the presence Of my constItu-
| ents. before when stand orreG ection ask
| ing for their ballots. II nov or hereafter
have got TO choose between taking the lax of
! OF sugar (which Il the revenue tax only) and
| taking the tax OF Of spirits will take 1t OF
sugar. [Applause.l Having said this mucn,
/ | APPEAL from the ecDtleman's con structiOn OF
the Chicago platform 10 the platform Itself.
/ Messrs. Peters, Ryan, and Anderson, OF
| Kansas, opposed Mr. Cannon's amendment.
Messrs. White, Gear, and Henderson, OF
Iowa. favored 1t as sound business PROPOSE.
| ton and strictly in lire with the Chicago
! platform.
Mr.. Holmes, OF Iowa, criticised the
amendment as embodyins bad policy. bad
! ethics, and bad financial legislation. lie was
| opposed TO the theory Of bOunties and IN
! favor of putting sugar on the free-llst.
Mr.. Bsype, Of Pennsylyanis, dissented
! from the construction placed upon the Chi
Ns. NFaa. ill nN
| There was nothing in thst platform inc0n-
| sstent with the amendment offered by Mr..
/ Cannon.
Mr.. Breckenridge, OF Kentucky, said II
| Congress should take the entire $50, ZOO, 900
| of sugar and 81, 600, 900 OF tobacco IL would
render itself absolutely incapable OF taking
any other burdens OF the manufacturers,
give relief, and relieve auy just cause OF dis
content labor might have. Ii would indeh-
niiey put of the day for FAIR revision OF
the tariff. Ii was, therefore, impossible In
the view OF the Democratic party 10 take all
| the duty off sugar. 10 would be impossible
| 10 do it without deliberately determining to
leave the whole question OF the tariff unset
tied. The question presented was whether
Congress would relieve the manufacturers
who had 10 pay enormous duties for their
crude material, duties which prevented
them from competing with foreign msnufac-
turers. lie believed that the true wisdom OF
Congress in seeking to reduce the public
revenue was TO let the system be so altered
by conservative and cautious changes that
the crude material would be brought into
the country rather than The finished product.
Then the profit OF the manufacture would
90 to the American manufacturer. The
proposition OF the gentleman from Illinois
(CaAnon) and all propositions tending TO free
sugar ran in the opposite direction.
Mr.. Cox, OF New York, expressed the
great enjoyment with which he mad listened
to tue debate to-day by the gentlemea on
the other side, who, though he differed on
the subject Of sugar, were together on the
main idea connected with the tariff.
The debate here ended, aud the House, at
8 O'Clock, adjourned.
MonmOuth-ParkR Races.
[By telegraph 10 ths Dispatch.l
NEW YORK. July First race-seven fur
lonOs-InsDector Ii won: Bradford second