Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1890-10-10
MisCellamenMs.
Mr.. CARLISLE GREAT SPEECH.

at the close vi the tariff debate in
the United States Senate, on Tuesday of
last week, Senator Carlisle, of Kentucky t,
delivered what is considered the abost
speech Of the session. The following
summary shows the grcat ability with
which the subject was handlod
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
control, and discussion of the question
could not be undertaken without neg
lecting the last opportunity to state as
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 at
tempt to state the effect Of the measure
on the public revenue, because it would
be impossible do so with any degree Of
accuracy. But he could state approxi-
mately what its effect on taxation would
be.
In the statement made by the finance
committee when the bill was reported
the reduction of revenue had been given
as ST. 600, 900 under the House bill and
800 600, 900 under the Senate bill. OF
the $50, 600, 900 reduction (from arti-
Giles placed on the free LIST nearly $780,
900, 900 came from sugar and molasses,
leaving only between four and five mil
lions as the reduction occasioned by the
removal of other articles from the duti-
able list He asserted that the bill as
it now stood excepting sugar and mo-
lasses) removed from the free list and
placed ON the dutiable list more than 1t
| took from the dutiablo list aud placed
on the free list. He also asserted that
the bill would reduce the revenues and
increase the taxation ; that while it
would not increase the revenues, il
would increase tho taxation Of the peo-
pie very many times the amount by in
creasing the prices of the articles of
similar domestic production, If il we're
true that the revenue that would be de-
rived under the conference bill (on the
basis of the importations of $500 would
be over 1925, 000,0 600, then the aver
age rate Of duty on dutiable articles
would be 81 ITO per cent, without
taking into account the effect Of the
ninth section Of the administrative bill,
which would add from four to i've per
cent. Unless all his calculations were
at fault, the average rate OF duty under
the conference bill and tho administra-
tive bill on dutiablc articles would DO
sixty per cent. instead 45I per cent.
under existing law. If tho Senator
from Rhode Island would take the arti-
Giles now on the dutiablc list and de-
duct sugar and molasscs from thom he
would find that the average rate of duty
under existing law was little over Al
per cent, while tho average rate OF
duty on the same articles under the con-
ference bill would be sixty per cent.
Mr.. Carlisle went on TO give figures
as TO the increased taxation under the
conference bill, stating it to be in the
iron and steel schedule ten millions, in
the wooden schedule fourteen millions,
in the cotton schedule two millions, ia
the 4 ak and linen schedule five millions
on tin plate $8,735, 900, aud on tin ia
pigs or bars 81 ,357, 900.
THE EFFECT OF THE BILL.
No man, he said, could predict what
the effect Of that enormous increase oil
taxation would be, nor could any man
predict precisely what its effect would
be on the revenues of the government
All that they knew was that the very
purpose--the sole purpose and object
Of such increased taxation on these
necessary articles WAS TO Increase the
price of domestic products, so AS to en-
able new industries TO be established in
some cases, and to enable. in other
cases, old industries TO realize larger
profits But, in order to compensate
for that enormous increase Of taxation
on the tools and implements of trade,
and on cotton, wooden and linen cloth
ing, tax Of two cents a pound (amount-
ing to $4,000, 000) was to be taken of
tobacco. The removal Of that tax would
relieve no man and be beneficial to no.
body except the manufacturers and re-
tailers Of tobacco, who would divide that
two cents between them. No producer
| os tobacco and no consumer Of tobacco
would be benefited TO the extent of one
mill. Coming TO the question of the
bounty on sugar, 1 cents per pound on
sugar polarizing up to 80 per cent. and
two cents on sugar polarizing over 80
per cent, he said that that bounty
would amount, on the basis Of the pres
ent production, 10 between seven and
eight millions year. This was the first
time. he said, in the history Of the coun-
try that it was proposed 10 pay out oil
the public treasury bounty to a do
nestle producer But no part Of the
bounty, he asserted. would be paid to
the grower Of the beet or sorghum 81
cane every dollar of it would go to thu