St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-10-01
The Conference Report on the
Tariff Bill Adopted by
the Senate.
Senator Carlisle Voices the
Sentiment of the Democ-
raey Against It.
Three Courageous Republic
ans, Pettigpew, Paddock
and Plumb, Bolt.
Washburn and Davis Vote
With the Majority to
Squeeze the People.

WASHINGTON, Sept. S0.-The senate
to-day concluded debate on the tariff
bill and agreed to the conference re-
port, 33 to 27, Messrs. Plumb, Paddock
and Pettigrew voting in the negative.
When the conference report on tie
tariff bill was taken up this morning
Mr.. Carlisle addressed the senate. He
would not, he said, attempt to discuss
the economic theory of the bill. 1t was
now about to pass entirely from the
hands of the senate and beyond its con-
troll, and discussion of the question
could not be undertaken without neg
lecting the last opportunity to state Gas
accurately as possible) what the main
provisions of the measure were and
what would be its probable effect on
taxation. 1t was not his purpose to
attempt to state the effect of
the measure on the public revenue
because it would be impossible to do so
with any degree of accuracy. But he
could state approximately what its eff
feet on taxation would be. No member
of the finance committee has ever ven
tured during the debate to express an
opinion as to what the
Effect of the Bill
would be on the revenues of the gov
ernment, except the senator from Iowa
(Mr. AllisOn), who, in the course of a
speech ON subject of the expenditures
of the government, had reviewed the
subject to some extent. But that was
before the conference report was made.
In the statement made by the finance
pOr1mi ittpp XUbQn tho hill yuac ronOrtod
the reduction of revenue had been
given as $71 100000 under the house bill.
and $60,000,000 under the senate bill. OF
the $50, ,000,000 reduction (from articles
placed on the free lisD nearly
S56,0O0, 600 came from sugar and molas-
ses, leaving only between four and five
millions as the reduction occasioned by
the removal of othe1 articles from the
dutiable list. He asserted hat the bill,
as it now stood. excepting sugar anu
mOlasses) removed I from the free list
and placed on the dutiable list more
than it took from the dutiable list and
placed on the free list. He Also assert
ed that the bill would reduce the rev.
enueS and Increase the taxation; that
while it would not increase the rev.
eenueS, it would increase the taxation
of the people very many times the
amount by increasing the prices of the
articles of similar domestic production.
If it were true that the revenue that
would be derived under the conference
bill. (On the basis of the import
ations of 1880 would be over 1925, ,O0O.-
600, then the average rate of duty on
dutiable articles would be 81 7-1O per
cent, without taking into account the
effect of the ninth section of the admin
iStrativeWhichbill would add from to5
percent. Unless all his calculations were
at fault, the average rate of duty under
this conference bill and the admins
tratiye bill on dutiable articles
Would he Sixty Per Cent,
instead of 4515 per cent under existing
law. In order to compensate for that
enor nous increase of taxation a tax of
two cents a pound, amounting to
S., SOC, ,000) was to be taken off tobacco.
The removal of the tax would relieve
no man and be beneficial to nobody ex-
cept the manufacturers and retailers of
tobacco, who would divide that two
cents a pound between them. No
producer of tobacco and no consumer
of tobacco would be benefited to the
extent of one mill. Coming to the uues-
tion of the bounty on sugar ~ cents
per pound, on sugar polariZing up to 80
per cent. and 2 cents ON sugar polariZ-
!HS OfCl ~ pei C0iits He Sdiu tHdt JHdG
bounty would amount, on the basis of
the present production, to between
S7,000,000 and S6,000.000 a year. This
was the first time, he said, in the his
tory of the country that it was proposed
to pay out of the public treasury a
bounty to domestic producer. But no
part of the bounty. he asserted, would
be paid to the grower of tie beet or
sorghum or cane; every dollar Of it
would go to the sugar manufact-
urer. 1t might be said, how
ever, that the producer would
produce. That. he declared. could not
be; for, in the first place. the farmer
could not control the prices of his prod
ucts; and in the second place, the man
ufacturer of beet sugar would be COM
PEELED to sell his sugar in the open
market in competition with the sugar |
made from cane and sorghum. and could |
not afford to pay to the farmer one cent |
more for his beets than their value as
compared with the value of other sub |
stances from which sugar is made. Nor |
would the consumer, he said, receive |
any benefit from the bounty. He would |
not get his sugar one cent cheaper than |
he would get it if there were no bounty |
paid; for the bOunty-paid sugar would |
sell in the markets at the same price |
precisely as the duty-paid refined sugar |
coming from other countries. This was |
new application of the principle of |
protection in this country, and was |
copied from the paternal governments |
of Europe. 1t
Did Not Apply Equally
to all the people of the United States,
because there was large area of the |
country in which cane, sorghum or beet |
could not be produced. The advantage |
OF the bounty would be confined to |
those who make sugar from the cane |
grown in Louisiana, the sorghum grown |
IN Kansas and the beet grown in the |
Northwest. There was, therefore, no |
possible ground on which the constitu- |
tlonality of that provision could be |
maintained. except the ground that |
congress had the right to impose taxes |
to raise revenue for the purpose of pro-
noting the general welfare, and that |
the proposed bounty was such a propo- |
sition. 1t required no constitutional |
prohibition to invalidate the law, be- |
cause it was violation of the terms of |
every social compact in a free |
country. Having disposed of the |
legal points involved, he said |
that the bill, having put sugar on the |
free list and provided for bounty to |
home producers. permitted the presi- |
dent to impose the duty on sugar un- |
less the governments of sugar-produc- |
Ing countries on this hemisphere s.could |
do something that would be satisfactory |
to his excellency." 1t was a PROPOSE |