The morning news., 1890-05-21

PIMeions coinnuIbee, IL mas been impossible
10 hold formal meetings to consider the
tariff bill, and numerous delegations
who have visited Washington desiring to
be heard upon various schedules, nave been
disappointed. They were told to put their
views in writing. and that in that shape
they VIII be considered by the committee at
their leisure. This course will probably be
pursued In all cases where hearings are
asked.
TO BUILD UP THE INDUSTRY.
Mr.. Burrows OF Michigan said that if the
bill passed the cotton tie industry would be
established in this country, and the time
would not be far distant when ties could be
purchased by the southern planter cheaper
than they were to-day. Our money would
De Kept at home and employment would be
given to our labor
MIR. Mckinley could see no reason why
hoop iron used for cotton ties should be
dutiable at any lower rate than hoop iron
iron used for any other purpose. The bill
proposed to treat cotton ties precisely as it
treated hoop iron.
Mr.. Sayers' amendment was rejected by a
vote OF So to 124.
Mr.. Breckenridge of Arkansas moved to
nix the duty on cotton ties at As per cent. ad
vaiorem. The motion was lost.
THE SUGAR SCHEDULE.
Mr.. McKenna of California offered as an
amendment to the sugar schedule an entirely
new schedule. and said that his amendment
made reduction on the existing duty on
sugar of about SO per cent. 1t retained the
dividing line at No. Is instead of 16
and secured to the refiners of this
country the refining of sugar between
Nos. IL and 16, which the pending bill un-
patrlctically sent to foreign refiners. As
contrasted with the Mills bill, the amend
ment was reduction; as contrasued with
the present bill it was not case of lowering
or increasing the rate, but it was a case Of
change of policy. The pending bill in all
particulars, except the sugar schedule, was
brave and strong-strong because it was
brave. In the sugar schedule it was
timid, time-serving and weak-weak
because it was time-serving and timid. In
other schedules the bill carried out the
republican principles. In the sugar
schedule the bill refused to one industry
republican principles. 1t might be we'll for
the republicans to pause and consider what
they were doing, as to its practical and
political effect, if not to its moral effect.
REPUBLICAN PROMISES.
The Chicago platform enumerated ways
and means of reducing the revenues and de-
clared that the internal revenue system
should be destroyed rather than that any
part of the protective system should be sur
rendered. Sugar was part of the protective
system, but it was surrendered by this bill.
The sugar schedule pointed as directly as ever
free trader pointed to the benefit of buying
In the cheapest market. Democratic ap-
plause.l Wool was not produced to the ex-
tent OF the country's wants and no one
could predict when it would be- Demo
cratic applause.] 1t was to-day declining
industry democratic applause1, and had
been given an increased protection in this bill
because it was a declining industry and
yet it was called the keystone OF the arch
of protection. If the committee was right
in the position taken by it in its report, the
duty on the wool was a charge on the con-
sumner. Democratic applause.] The re-
publican party could not make sugar the
scapegoat OF the surplus without involving
the protective system.
A HARD BLOW AT PROTECTION.
By putting sugar on the free list the COM
mittee struck that system a harder blow
than any free trader could unless he struck
on republican principles. Think of future
democratic congresses, quoting the repub-
lican congress, and putting wool on the free
list on protective principles. The old time
republican policy, the policy of the repub-
lican platform, would protect wool though
it did not increase a single pound In produc-
tion. The same policy would be to protect
sugar. A reasonable price was the maxi
mum of American cheapness. and
sugar to-day was at q reasonable
price and yet yields the country an i'm
mense revenue without sensible burden.
Sugar was cheaper in the United States
than in any country in the world, save one.
That country was England he had almost
said free trade England, but he refrained.
Things were changing somewhat, and in
this debate England's example was set before
the House, and English cheapness was dis
played by voices which used to be eloquent
in denunciation Of England and the Golden
Club.
MADE SUGAR A CONT RABAND.
The bill made sugar contraband in the
protective system. 1t made the sugar in
dustry a parasite on the treasury by the
granting of bounty. 1t put the sugar
business under police inspection and thus
iuto the hands of the spies of the revenue
department If the bounty principle were
correct, why not apply it to other things?
Democratic applause Why not apply it
to tin plate [laughterl and save
at once Gf the committee was
right, he was only repeating its reasons,
not indorsing them $7,0O0,000 in revenue
taxation? Then We would have cheap tin
to go with cheap sugar. Why not apply it
to linen goods which we did not produce,
and give the people cheap linen to go with
cheap tin and cheap sugar? Laughter.
Why not apply it to wool till that article was
produced in this country TO the extent of the
peoples wants2 democratic laughter. The
bounty would appear as beneficent in these
industries as in the sugar industry. Think
of the splendid political effect upon the Re-
publican party when 1t was enabled to point
with pride, as all parties pointed, to the
workingmen and farmer sitting down to a
cheap breakfast in cheap suit of clothes.
[Laughter.]
The tariff was not q burden on the indi-
vidual, not because it was indirect, but be-
cause he did not feel it, or if he did he felt
it as horse did his rider-not as burden,
but as an encouragement In the race. IRE
publican applausel The committee on ways
and means has made a mistake
when it Disseminated against sugar. 1t
seemed to have acted in this respect as if it
had some scare about the surplus and had
tossed to the tariff reformer a precious
thing, lust as tho Russian woman tossed
her children to the wolves. lApplause.l
CANNON OPPOSES IT.
Mr.. Cannon opposed Mr.. McKenna's
amendment and took that gentleman to
task for what he called his fallacious, spe-
cious and dangerous position.
Mr.. Price of Louisiana favored the
and opposed the bill as being
injurious to the interest of the colored labor
of the south.
Mr.. Stewart of Vermont thought that the
benefit of bounty, if applied to sugar at
all, should be extended to maple sugar.