Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1890-05-15
THE TARIFF BILL.
Butterworth, Of Ohio, Fears the
Effect of the Bill
he RECEIVES DEMOCRATIC APPLAUSE.
His Desire For Canadian prOcity-EC
cessIve Profits OF Manufacturer
Hatch's Short spcech-Amend-
ments Rejected.

| Millin, of Tennessee, moved to reduce the
duty on ammon g. He could see no
reason why this article of necessity to
the farmer should be so heavily taxed.
Mr.. Mckinley, of Ohio, opposed the
amendment and stated that since the
tariff had encouraged competition in
this country the price of ammonia had
been reduced from 20 to ~ cents per
pound.
Mr.. Butterworth, of Ohio, suggested
that while he knew nothing of the case
under consideration the price of an arti-
Gle was not reduced on account of COM
| petition alone. 1t was reduced on ac-
count of improved methods of manu-
facture. So far as he was capable of
doing, he had tried to understand the
tariff question and he never doubted
that the protective system was wise,
humane and beneficent, and had scat
tered blessings on the land from shore
to shore. II there was any danger to
the protective system 1t was in its oscil-
| lation between the extreme of free
| trade on the one hand and the other the
extreme which created inequalities
among Americans themselves. The
country in the election of Harrison and
the Republican Congress had declared
unequivocally in favor of sustaining and
upholding the protective system. The
conflict of 1883 had not been between
schedule rates, but between economic
policies. The Democratic policy was
we'll known. 1t was that the tariff
should be levied for revenue only. The
Republican policy was that the tariff
whether high or low should be so ad-
| justed as to establish, cherish and pro-
tect American interests and industries
in competition with the rest of the
| world.
Mr.. Butterworth asked whether the
Republican policy meant to remove the
inequalities which ex sted between in
dustries on this side of the water and
industries on the other, or to shut out
all impOrtations. OF course he re-
spected the wisdom of the committee,
but why was Paul favored and Peter
turned down? Why increase the profits
of certain classes? He could name
capitalists whose profits had exceeded
those of all the agriculturists of any
State in the Union Applause from
Democratic side. lie was not he said,
disturbed by the applause on the other
side. He was exceedingly grateful that
they began to realize in any sense that
their countrymcn deserved protection.
If when the Congress had protected
equally and lifted up all their indus
tr es and the time should then come
when this Nation could not hold its
Own-being the most intelligent, the
the freest and ablest people on earth
then it had better retire from the field.
Democratic applause.
Mr.. Butterworth then proceeded to
cxpound his views touching reciprocity
with Canada. He said that this country
was endeavoring to cultivate relations
with 10000, 100 people to the southwark
and yet were afraid of Canada. Abra-
ham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant were
not suspected of lack OF patriotism, yet
they favored reciprocity. They were
some things in the bill he did not like
He had known of an industry that had
been able to make 500, 900, 600 dividends
on capital of 1859, 900. Protection?
Why, the country in such cases could
Fifth Avenue Hotel, pay their board and
expense and set them up in the banking
business. lie favored proper protec-
ton, but these men held the
world in their grip. When
he said that he did not favor
that kind of protection he was told:
'You are not sound on the tariff" The
time was come when some little concern
should be shown to the American homes
and American fresides. A great body
of employees in this country was foreign.
In some great factories in this country
they were now known on the rosters by
numbers because of unfamiliarity with
their names. He did not believe it was
wise or prudent to make such a sweep
ing reduction in sugar to be supplanted
by bounty.
In conclusion Mr. Butterworth said
that the gentlemen were very much
mistaken if they thought that the great
est desire of his heart was not to pass q
bill rejecting in the highest degree
protective system. What he wanted to
avoid were such features as he had
pointed out in this bill. There was such
thing as paying too much for an in
dustry. Such was the case of tin-plate.
The duty would be tax on every farm
ers patch-on every can of goods. That
tax would amount to $50, 900, 900 before
the manufacturers of tin-plate could de-
clare dividend. He was anxious that
his party should not take a false step.
He did not expect to participate much
In Nha dnlf 1f
after. He was quite as ready to go out
ss his Democratic friends were anxious
to get rid of him when they gerryman-
dered him out He was already out be-
fore they took that action.
Mr.. Hatch, of NJ ssouri, who had been
refused an extension of time, said that
the refusal was the highest compliment
ever paid to him. OF this pending
amendment he said that it proposed to
prevent an increase of duty on an article
used as fertilizer on every farm, an in
crease made for the benefit of tive
manufacturers and against the interest
of 5000, zoo farmers The bill sought to
oraw vail over the farmers eyes by
pretending that he was protected.
Mr.. d ngley, of Maine, said that the
debate had proceeded upon the theory
thst the muriate and sulphate Of am
nonia were used for producing fertil-
iEers, but the fact was that not pound
was 80 used.
Mr.. McNillin's amendment was re-
iected.
Mr.. Niedringhaus. of Missouri moved
70 amend BY reducing the duty on re-