St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-09-12
THE TARIFF CONFERENCES.

In view of the vacillating course of the
Republican majority in congress, and of
the jealousieS existing between the house
and the senate, it would not be safe to
predict the outcome of the conference
between the two houses relative to
the MCKINLEY bill. Still it is abso-
lutely certain that this bill will pass in
some form; for the lobbyists have de-
cided it so, and the will of the lobby is
the law governing the Republican ma
jority.
1t is probable in the beginning of the
conference the house, under Speaker
REEDS dictatIon, will insist upon adj
herring to the bill in its original form.
The senate conferrees will make like
show of standing to their amendments.
But this division will not last long. If
the sen ate does not back squarely down
and agree to accept the bill in its origi-
nal rottenness. the chances are that
compromise will be proposed and the
house will get the bulk of the benefit of
the conference.
The only two substantial changes the
senate made to the pill were the intro
duction of the reciprocity feature and
the transfer of binding Irvine 10 the free
list. A number of other amendments
were made, but they were inconsequen-
tlal and have no bearing Oh the general
plan Of the bill. Our prediction is that
a compromise will be patched up about
on this plan: The house will agree to
the reciprocity amendment and the SEN
ate will recede from its action in rela-
ton to binding Irvine. The latter article
will be placed back upon the dutiable
list, and possibly the duty increased
over what it was fixed at in the original
bill. The result OF the conference will
show how near the mark we have come
in this guess; yet we deem it proper
to submit our reasons for thinking so.
The much talked of reciprocity
amendment proposed by Mr.. ALDRIcH
and finally adopted by the senate is only
shadow at best. There is nothing sub
Stantial to it or about it. Mr. HoAR
stated its scope and effect very cIeverly
when he said he regarded the amend
ment rather as a declaration of purpose
than as definition of legislative policy.
1t simply means that at some time in
the far-away future the Republicans
are willing to experiment with reci-
procity in the event the aggressive pro-
teetive principle embodied in the Nc
KINLEY bill is demonstrated to be an
outrageous failure. The adoption of
the ALDRIcH amendment was only an
illustration of senatorial hedging, and.
as A1r. HOAR says. is not intended to
define the Republican legislative pol
ley. Consequently, there would be no
great sacrifice on the part of the house
to accede to the reciprocity proposition
of the senate.
But it is different with the binding
Irvine matter. The transfer of a single
article under control of a trust to the
free list is breach of faith on the part
of the Republican leaders, The pro-
tected interests have pooled their is
sues and are standing together in this
fight. If the compact is broken in one
particular, it is liable to be broken in
others. Consequently the trust pool is
endangered by this action of the senate
in proposing to remove the tax from
binding Irvine. The autonomy of the
trust conspiracy being threatened by
this attack on binding Irvine, it is rea-
sonable to suppose that all the conspir-
ators will unite in demanding the res
toration of binding Irvine to the duti-
able list. 1t is a noteworthy fact in this
connection that of the four Republican
members of the senate conference COM
mittee not one of them voted for the
DAVIS amendment, but all of them did