Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-05-15

Heported the opening by Sr, Mckinley
OF the ionguidly awaited debate on his
tariff bill. Mr. Mckinley said that the
people had spoken and thoy asked this
Congress to register their will and ON
body their verdi into public law. The
bill presented by the committee on ways
and means to the House was a thorough
Hnswtr to that demand. II was in full
recognition of the principle aud policy
OF the protective tariff. The bill had
net abolished the internal revenue tax,
but internal taxation would be reduced a
aittIe over $40, ,0O0, 900.
The committee recommended pro-
vision extending and liberalizing the
drawback sections of the Law. Under
the existing statute, any citizen OF the
United States could import an article,
paY Gutyupon 1t, make il into complete
product, export il, and the government
refunded 81 per cent of the duty paid on
the raw material. The committee reonm-
mel ID that hereafter the government
should retain only one per cent instead
of 10 per oent. Thia gave 60 the people
of the United STATES practically free raw
material for the export trade.
II the bill should become law the
revenues of the government would be
Diminished from &5O, 900 900 to $6O, ,O00,-
GOO. The farmers had CONS appteoi.
ate that the iims was already here when
the American agriculturist must sell bis
products In the markets OF the world in
competition with the wheat produced by
the low priced labor Of other countries.
Their care must hereafter be to preserve
thoir own market, for they muet bs driven
fecn the foreign one unless by reducing
the cost of production they could oom-
pete with unequal cOnditicaB. Under the
duties fixed by the bill the annual imports
OF S26, COO, 900 OF agricultural products
would be supplied the people of the
United States by the American farmer
.Ather than by tire Canadian farmer, and
that $2d, 600, GOO distributed among the
farmers would relieve some of the de-
preston prevailing and give them conf
denoe and courage and Increased ability
to raise the mortgages upon their farms.
[Applause
What was the complaint against the
billi Was II that it would stop exporta-
tiou and interfere with our foreign
mRrk6t2 The forsign markets were as
accessible under the bill as under exist
ing law. They were rs accessible under
the bill ns they would be under sbso-
lutte free trade. The bill put no burden,
no taxation, no restriction on American
products that went out of the country.
Nor did the committee despise the for
eien trade. IL would encourage and
sustaiR ii; but what peculiar sGnotity
hung about the foreign market that did
not attach to the domestic market2 Was
the foreign consumer bstter consumer
than the American consumer2 Was not
the American consumer better con-
gunner, and. therefore, better customer,
for the American copsumer2 This bill
Was nm American bill, made for American
interests.
Under the benefioent influence OF pro-
lection the aocumulations OF the working
classes had increased; their deposits in
savings banks exceeded those OF the
working classes of any other country.
These deposits told their cwn story. The
public debt of tie United States, per
capita, was less than that Of any nation Of
tie wor d. We lead all nations in sgri-
culture and mining. Gould any nation
furnish suoh evidences OF prosperity 2
Yet men were found 70 talk about the re.
sirainta VS. put upon trOde. Tie greatest
good to the greatest number, the largest
opportunity for human enda&vor were
the maxims upon which our protective
syhlem tehteus lhppIhuhe'
MR. MILLS REPLIEs.
Mr.. Mills (Eex) followed He de-
clared that this was the first bill that had
come before tho American people with
ito mask torn od; like highaayman de-
mGndsng iheir purses. Applause. To
check importation was to check exporta-
tion. split hairs as you may, no man
could show that we might sell without
buying. When we refused to take tho
products of other nations, that refusal
was an interdlction agaiDs our exports,
aod as we removed the barrier to free
exchange We increased our trade. Pro-
lection, boiled down, meaDt more work
and less resu t; and carried out to it's
conclusion it meant all work and no re.
suit.
II this polisy was pursued the SMOKE
stacks Il Pennsylvania would have to lie
utilized for the study Of the laws of tie
heavens.
Gentlemen on the other side expressed
Bympathy for the farmer, and their zsal
10 relieve the distress which they at
length acknowledged surrounded the
agrioulturist. Two years ago the Demo-
Gratis stood on tue tioor and declared that
the country was OIL the edge of o dark
this, and had said that the farm mort
cages were only further evidence OF
prosperity and wealth. Laughter
Atlength these gentlemen were brought
to their Knees At the oonfeg ional and
were boupd to admit that there was wide
apreed depression throughout the agri-
cultural regions. What dtd the bill do
to Hid agriculture? 1t put sugar ON tho
free iiet, though ail the Republicans did
not come up like little gentlemen and
take sugar ia thsirs. Why did not tho
committee treat sugar as it treated WOODEN
goods and cotton goods snd iron goods
Why did it not put q protective duty On
sugar and compel its production within
this country and carry out the protective
poliGy2 Coffee had been placed on the
free list 1S yeRre ago by a Republican
Congress Why not put prohibitory
duty on cgffee and naturalige it in this
country2
Then there WIS another a.ticle-hides
had gentlemen on the other side ever
heard OF hides betore2 Laughter.
Hides hnd bobbed up, and then serenely
bobbed down again. Sometimes you see
them; sometimes you didn't. Why did
not the committee put duty on hides As
high as the duty on tin plate? The Re.
pIblicans could have excluded oil foreign
hides and increased the value Of all the
hides 10 the western states, but they had
never intended 10 do it. He did not be-
lieve in the protection Of hides. He wai
for free raw materials and putting low
duty on the finished article that went tC
the consumer. Why did not the com
rRittes put o prohibltorz dnty on raw