Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-01-12

Nlu ~ NtEAkMNNkhtN SUI v ~ " lNlt NAN -
themselves OF the privilege OF purchasing
fresh ush free Of duty, while If that fsh were
transported q shsrt distance into the interior
(which required the use OF salt the people
who used II were required to pay duty on II.
Either all fresh fish should pay duty. ortclse
the people OF the interior should have the
same opportunity 10 buy iresh fab as the
people OF Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Ohio, or Illinois. There was a manifest dis
examination. II seemed, be said, a. II
fish were entitled 10 more consldera-
ton than heel or pork. lie was aware
that bis New England friends, by reason OF
their greater ability aud power OF cOncen>
%tration, had had very considerable control OF
legislation. He did not object TO their
having everything thev could get. The peo-
pie in the interior had always been COM
PEELED 10 pay duty on salt used in packing
their beef and pork and in preserving their
butter, while the people OF New England
had salt for preserving their fish free OF duty.
Ira other words, the people Of New England
were free traders when 1t suited their in
tefests and protectiOnlsts when 1t suited
their interests. He desired that all the peO-
plc OF the United States should be put on
the "a ne footing under the tariflaw, whether
n to it, benefits or its burdens. What he
hUltNAfA " tA AHE IAA - AAL1 ~ NhNaN 'HH
its discrimination.
Mr.. Hoar denied that the bounties or pro-
lection or exemptions that had been granted
10 the fishermen Of New England from time
to time had been the result OF greed or q de-
sire on their psrt TO get The advantage OF the
rest Of their cOuntrymen. The present pro-
p~ositioa had grown (as he understood) ont
N the fact that the Canadian authorities re-
fused 10 American fishermen the opportunity
10 send to the American market through
Canada or 10 put up and preserve for mar
ket fresh fish on Canadian soil; 50 that With
ont such a provision a. the Senator from
Kansas sought TO strike out the Canadians
would have the MONOPOLY and control OF the
American market for fresh fish. He did not
understand that policy which mace It de-
sirabie TO prohibit that which involved
at all the general question OF the plo-
lection TO American industry. The psra-
graph rested on an altogether different
theory ;aud that was that It Was necessary for
this country-if it was to be n power among
the nations Of the earth-tO be able TO fur
niSb 10 time of war a navy capable OF con-
tending on equal terms with the navy OF any
other nation. II had been conceived that,
iusteld Of establishing costly naval schools
for the training Oi officers competent 10 com
mand ships, and Of seamen accustomed to
exposure and danger, Il would be better TO
cultivate under a fostering care 81 the Cow
crnment the coast fisheries. Ihe United
states bad always bad from that source a
ready supply OF seanen IN all It's naval wars;
and Il had been shown recently by an accom-
plished historical scholar that the number OF
sailors In the Revolutionary War Was larger
than The number Of soldiers.
Mr.. Plumb asked Mr.. lloar to state 10 what
extent the men employed on the American
fishing vessels were foreigners.
Mr.. Hoar supposed that more than IS
per cent. Of the number were Amer
lean citizens.
Mr.. FRYE remarked that on the Maine
fishing vessels more than So per cent.
OF the men were American citizens.
M. Plumb asked SIR. Hoar to tell the SEM
ate aud the country why the people living on
the Canadian border should have free fish
and the people in the ioterior not.
Mr.. Hoar said be did not think that any
such distinction was made in the paragraph.
Mr.. Dawes explained the paragraph as it
stood, and said that the operative part Of it
was the words for preservation" The set
tied policy Of the Government was that fish
in salt shouldn't be admitted free,
and It seemed to him very strange that any
one (wnile adhering to that pr0p0siti0n)
should object to the proposition that re-
quired fish preserved by any other process
(such as ice to Day duty.
nr. StOckhridge asked Mr.. Dawes why
salt used for packing fish should be entitled
to a drawback.
Mr. Dawes replied that there were two
one bad been well stated by bis
colleague; the other was that American salt
was not Of SUCH good quality iorthe preserya'
ton OF fish as foreign salt.
Mr. Hiscock took exception to the latter
statement. aud asserted that American salt
was the purer aud more valusble OF the two.
lie had never seen any good reason why pro.
lection should be sought Tor the fishing In
dustry. while fIee salt was demanded by the
fishermen.
Mr. Hale moved to strike out the psra-
That, he said, would leave all fresh
under the duty fixed in another part OF
blll-half a cent per pound. And then
New England would fare no better In that
respect than the other parts o. the country. |
Mr.. SpoOner SAID that the question before
the senate was not one which affected merely
The fishermen OF New England II affected
a. much the 100, 600 fishermen on the
great lakes. lie wss q little surprised that
the Finance Committee had reported such a
paragraph II there had been any,
hing announced distinctly over aud
over again in the fisheries neaty debate,
il uad been that America ought not to
grant facilities or fayors that were not
reciprocal. lie was not able to understand
why " hen Canada put a duty OF half a cent
a pound 90 fresh usn caught by American
citizens- Canadian fresh fsh for immediate
consumption should be pat on the free list.
The proposition was a discrimination, pure
Dbl. lac. aEAI annNhaNF NaNNaHa- ]
in favor o. the Canadian fishermen and
against The American fishermen.
Mr. Slockbridge favored the amendment
by Mr.. Hale.
Mr.. Palmer also favored Mr. Hale's amend
He was glad that the discussion OF
The question had been opened by dr.
Piumb's amendment. He had been aston
shed when he saw that the substitute put
fish on the free lat, but supposed
hat It had been "sop thrown 10 Ce-
a concession 10 the demora-
lied public, sentiment which the
'ree-trade ideas had disseminated through
)ut the country. The debate was con-
iDued 10 q great length, nesrly everybody
Mr. Hale's amendment. When IL
concluded Nr. Piumb's amendment was
withdrawn and Mr.. Hale's amendment was
lgreed to--yeaS, 2S: nays, 13-snd fresh
ish WAS placed on The dutiable list at bali q
,ent per pound, without division. The
1iii was then proceeded with.
On motion OF Mr. Allison, paragraphs
100 Qeather, old scraps and GIG (miea and
Mica wastel were struck out OF the Tree list.
Having reached paragraph 100. as to cedar and
woods unmsnufsctured, Mr. Aldrich
to strike out Of II the words "ozier
II Willow" stating that the object was 10
vat them on the dutiable list At 10 per cent.
Mr. Vest opposed the motion, although be
aid bis own State was somewhat interested
l.. The amendment was agreed TO.
The end Of the free list having been
at paragraph 795. Mr.. Allison said
IL proposed that the Senate would finish the
OF the bill tomorrow l~administTa-
i've sections Of it. tie would propose, he