The morning call., 1890-08-30


discriminate against meats, as the salt used in
preserving them could not be identified for
reimportation under the geoeral provisions of
the act. There was special provision in the
case Of salt used in preserving fish,
Vest argued in favor of free salt-the nat
ural production, which was found in mex
haustible quantities in exery country of the
world and in almost every State of the
Union. He had seen deposit of rock salt in
louisiana which would supply this world and
five worlds like it for illimitable time. Why,
then, should English salt be taxed? Dairy
men and pork packers and beef-packers
would use it, no matter what the duty on it
was.
Cullom argued against striking out the
proviso In the paragraph. He had written
to pork-packer in his State inquilipg
whether the general provisions of Section
"A would allow drawback in that bust
ness, and the reply was it would not. The
export trade. he said, demanded foreign salt.
he had been always in favor of protection.
even in the matter of salt, but this was not
a question Of protection to American salt.
1t was rather a question of protection to
the American export meat business.
Alter further discussion on the salt para
graph the vote was taken on the committee
amendment to strike out the provision
The provision was not struck out-ayes Is,
voted against the Finance Committee s
amendment were: Allison. Cullom, Ed
munds, HaWley, ingalls,. Jones of Nevada.
Mitchell, Plat, Plumb, Sherman, Teller,
Washburn, and Wilson of Iowa.
On motion of Plumb the duty on brandy, in
paragraph 314 and on cordialS, liquors. ETC.,
was increased from So to So gallon; on bay
rum from 81 to 50, and on champagne and
other sparkling wines so as to make the rates
on bottles of not more than quart and not
less than pint So a dozen, instead of So 80,
and on half pint each or less 50 80 instead of
81 75, and where bottles contain more than a
quart So 25 per gallon additional.
On motion of Plumb the following amend
mentS were also agreed to: A paragraph re-
lating to still wines, by making the rate per
gallon in casks 70 cents instead OF 90 cents, and
per case of twelve quart-bottles or twenty
four pint bottles So 50 instead of 81 65, extra
quantities to be taxed 10 cents per pint instead
of cents; a paragraph relating to ale, porter
and beer in bottles or jugs, by making the
duty GO cents per gallon instead of
30 cents, and when not in bottles
or jugs, 50 cents per gallon instead
tract, by making the duty in casks 30 cents
per gallon instead of 20 cents, in jugs GO
cents per gallon instead of 40. and when
solid or condensed GO per cent ad valorem
instead OF 40; paragraph relating to
cherry juice and prune juice by making the
duty 75 cents a gallon instead of 60 when
containing not more than Is per cent of al
cohol, and So per gallon instead of So and
% per cent ad valorem when containing
more than IS per cent of alcohol.
The paragraph relating to ginger ale, soda
water and other similar waters was
amended on the report of the Finance Com
mittee by reducing the rate from Is cents to
10 cents per dozen bottles, and on motion of
Carlisle by inserting the word artificial"
The paragraph relating to mineral waters
and their Imitation was struck out on the
recommendation of the Finance Committee.
Schedule !, relating to cotton manufac-
lures. and Schedule j, relating to flax and
hemp, were passed over informally, and
Schedule X, relating to wool and manufac-
lures of wool, was then taken up.
All the paragraphs from 357 to 3G9, relating
to raw wool, having been read Carlisle moved
to have them all struck out so as to have wool
put on the free list. He argued in support of
the proposition and urged that the same reason
which was used to justify putting sugar on the
free list apply equally to putting wool on the
free list.
In reply Aldrich pointed to the fact that
while the home products of sugar had only a
slight increase during the year the home prod
uctS of wool had increased wonderfully.
Sherman stated some facts in relation to the
wool-grOwing industry of the United States as
demonstration of the wisdom of the policy
adopted in the tariff of 1867. He argued that
the wool-growing interest should be encour-
aged so that the quantity and quality produced
would be sufficient for all the woolen goods
manufactured in the United States, and for
all foreign woolen goods that are used here.
The pending bill, he said in answer to ques-
ton of Cullom practically re-enacted provi-
sions of the law of 1867, which had operated SC
well.
After further debate the Senate adjourned.