Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1890-10-03
TARIFF BILL PASSED AT LAST
The Senate Accepted the Conference
Report on Vote OF 53
TO %.
Three Western Republicans. Have Sut-
tieient Stamina TO Vote Against
the PerniciouS Measure.
Senator Carlisle Tells Some Sled@e
Hammer Truths Regarding the
Mckinley Bill.

WASHINGTON, Sept S0.-Mr. Carlisle,
| speaking on the conference report in the
senate, said he would not attempt to dis
cuSS the economic theory OF the bill 1t
was not his purpose to attempt to state the
effect of the measure on public revenue,
because it would be impossible to do so
with any degree of accuracy. But he
would state approximately what its effect
| on taxation would be.
No member of the finance committee
had ventured during the tariff debate to
express an opinion as to what effect the
bill would have on the revenues of the
country, except the senator from Iowa,
| Mr.. Allison, who, in the course of his
speech on the SEbject of the expenditures
of the government. had reviewed the sub
ject to some extent. But that was before
the conference report was made. Mr..
Carlisle asserted that the bill as it now
| stood excepting sugar and molaSSes) re-
| moved from the free list and placed on the
dutiable list more than 1t took from the
dutiable list and placed it on the free list.
/ He also asserted that the bill would
| reduce the revenues and increase taxa
ton Unless all his calculations
were at fault. the average rate of duty un-
trative bill on dutiable articles would be
80 per cent. instead of Asp per cent. uu-
/ der the existing law. Mr. Carlisle went on
| to gi,e the figures as to the increased tax
alton under the conference bill. In order
to compensate for the enormous increase of
! taxation, a tax of two cents Il pound
! amounting to s., 500 600 was to he taken
! off tobacco. The removal of that tax would
relieve no man and be beneficial to nobody
| except the manufacturers and retailers OF
/ tobacco. who would divide that two cents
| between them. Coming to the question
of bounty on sugar, he said 1t would
| amount, on the basis of the present pro-
! ductlOn to between seven and eight mil
| lion year. This was the first time In
| the history of the country that 1t was
| proposed to pay a bounty TO the domestic
| producer. But no part of the bounty,
he asserted would be paid to the grower
| of beet, or sorgum, or cane: every dol |
lar of it would go to the sugar
manufacturer The producer would |
not receive higher price for his product,
| for, in the first place, the farmer could not |
control the prices of his products, and IN |
| the second place the manufacturer of beet |
sugar would be compelled 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
substances from which sugar is made. |
Nor would the consumer, he said, re- |
ceive any benefit from the |
bounty. He would not get his |
sugar one cent cheaper than if no bounty |
was paid; for the bounty paid sugar would |
sell in tho markets at tue pIioo pre-
cisely as the duty paid sugar coming from
other countries.
The courts nave invariably held that no |
state legislation could authorize a county |
or municipality to impose taxes for the |
purpose of encouraging manufacturers or |
any other industrial pursuits. # the |
states could not do it with unlimited |
powers of taxing) how, Mr.. Carlisle asked, !
could the general government do 1T. he |
ferring to the reciprocity amendment he |
said it was prOpOslslOn to conhde to the |
Judgment or caprice of the president the |
determination. not merely of certain facts |
defined in the law, but of the results and |
effects of those facts and circumstances
The amendment was not reciprocity, 1t |
was retaliation pure and simple.
The proposition. was one to
retaliate on the people of the United
States by imposing duty of 10 cents a
and from 35 to 50 per cent. on sugar. un-
less China, Japan. Brazil and Spain should |
do certain things, over which the cOnsum-
ers in the United States had no control. |
The amendment was a mere political de
viCo to appease. as far as possible, the IN
dignant public sentiment and check for
time the rising cloud of opposition to the |
extreme policy of protection.
Mr.. Allison criticised several of Mr.. |
Carlisle's statements and denied tueU |
accuracy He (Allison) differed from |
Carlisle absolutely as to the effect of the |
bill and gave it as his belief that 1t would |
reduce the revenues to an amount between |
forty and forty-fve million dollars. On |
the question of tin plate he expressed the |
belief that within FIVE years from this |
time the United States would produce !
substantially all the tin plate consumed |
here and the consumers would have |
it at less price than they paid for the last |
ten wears Coming down to the sugar |
question he said he had conversed with the |
planters of Louisiana who had come to |
Washington, and there was not one OF |
them who did not say that the proposed |
bounty would stimulate immensely the
| product of sugar in Louisiana and be a
great boon to them. But now the senator
| from Louisiana (Gibson) charged the con-
ferees with discriminating against that
| industry If it were true that all the
Louisiana sugar planters spurned the
! bounty and denounced it, and declared 1t
unconstitutional. tney might ind con-
gress that would take them at their
word He 5elived that the bill was, on
| the whole, fair to every section of the
| country as a protective measure; and he
| did not believe its general effect would
be to operate harshly on one
| section of the country as against another
| section. He thought some Of the duties
many of them-were too high, and be
| said so more than once on the floor Of the
senate He hoped the bill would have a
| fair test. and, if it proved beneficial as he
| believed il would, it would settle the ques
| ton of tariff for many years to come.
The conference report was agreed to on
| the signal service bill.
The house bill to enable the postmaster
| general to test at small towns and villages
| the practicability Of a free delivery sys-
| tenn was passed
| Mr.. GRAY spoke briefly on tbs tariff and
! Mr.. Aldrich then closed the debate
| The senate then proceeded to vote or the
| conference report Messrs. Paddock. Pet
| tigrew and Plumb (repubilcsns) voted In
| the negative.
The question was carried by a vote of 80
to q.
The conference report was agreed to:
| and now the tariff DILL needs only the
| signatures of the presiding officer of both
houses and of the president of the United
| States.
| The house concurrent resolution to the
! correct enrolment of the tariff bill was
| agreed to.
| Adjourned.
TO BE LED TO THE ALTAR.
Robert c. Spencer Is the victim 20 DC
Slaughtered the Ides of November
MILWAUKEE, sept. 30.-Rotert C.
| Spencer, of the Speneerian business col
| lege of Milwaukee. was nominated by the
| fourth congressional district convention
held here today, 10 suecesd }. W Van