The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-05-21
House or Representative.

House OF Representatives.
, RThe House in Committee of the Whole
1 Mr.. Grosvenor Ulep.. Ohio In tho chail
+ resumed consideration OF the Tariff bill
Mr.. SRyers dem. Tex offered an amend
J ment providing that iron and steel. cotton tie
or hoops for ballng or other purposes, no
thinner than number 20 wire gauge shall b
admitted free OF duty
Mr. Blanchard tDem.. La regarded the bill
as a direct blow at the cotton growing inter
ests OF the South. The burden on the cottor
producers would be increased nearly $1,000.
900 year. The life OF a cotton tie was ont
year, and then the duty had to be paid yearly
The life Of a steel rail was ten years. and thut
the duty must be paid once IN a decade. III
1882 there were but ten cotton ito manufac
tories in the United States producing $262OOC
and employing $50 men. This was too small q
product and too small an employment to justify
an increase In tho duty on cotton ties from 81
to 1U4 per cent.
Mr. Stewart Dem. Ca said that the effect
of tho provision OF the bill in regard to cotton
ties would be to bear heavily upon the colored
laborer OF the South. II the amendment were
voted down the colored men of the South
would know who their real friends were.
Mr.. Burrows tRep Mich.) said that II the
bill passed tho cotton tie industry would be
established in this country, and the time
would not be far distant when ties could be
purchased by the southern planter cheaper
than they were to-day. Our money would be
Kept at home. and employment would be given
| to our labor
| son why hoop iron used for cotton ties should
| be dutiable at any lower rate than hoop iron
USED Tor any other purpose me nlLl proposed
| 10 trent cotton ties precisely as 1t treated hoop
Mr.. sayerss amendment was rejected-9 SO to
| Mr. Breckenridge Dem, Ark moved to fix
the duty on cotton ties at 45 per cent al
Mr. McKenna REP. Call moved to amend
the sugar schedule as follows
"A, Al ugaTs not above No. - Dutch standard in color
sugars not above 80 10 = s in color all tank bottoms
rated mSHas consr.,o and i't eonSe9.5a:d nSissss
For svsry additions dssfss Or fraction Of dssTes
HSsT. NJ b. o.,,
1 "sS y above no Is and not above @
s f:GGs e. ar S
Not d ny Ps5 Shall esy
G St a per so above 90
Mr. McKenna said that his amendment made
a,reduction in the existing duty on sugar Of
About 80 9er een ~ enc dIdns
cured to the refners OF this country the refln-
ing Of sugar between thirteen and sixteen.
foreign reilners. AS contrasted with the Mills
bill. the amendment was Il reduction: as con-
OF lowering or increasing rates, but 1t was a
case OF change OF policy. The pending
e M xsen me
It was brave. In the sugar schedule 1t was
iimid, time serving. and weak-Weak because
schedules the bill carried out the Republican
principle. In the sugar schedule the till re-
Ii might be well for Republicans to pause and
consider what they were ,doing-as toits rracti-
cal and POLITICAL effect not as TO its moral Of
feet. The Chicago platform enumerated the
ways and means OF reducing the revenue. and
declared THAT the internal revenue system
of the protective system should be surrendered.
The sugar industry was a part Of the proteG-
Tho sugar schedule pointed as directly as ever
free trader pointed to the benefit Of buying In
Wool was not produced to the extent Of our
wants. and no one cou Id predict when 1t would
be. Democratic applause. 1t was to-day
had received an increased protection in this
bill because Il was, q declining industry; and
protection. II the committee was right in the
position taken by It In its report the duty on
cratic craft applause. i The Republican party could
not make sugar the scapeRoat OF the surplus
without involving the protective system itself.
BY putting sugar on the free list the commit
tee struck that system harder hlow than any
free der could unless he struck on Republican
principles. Think OF future Democratic Con:
Cresses quoting u Republican Congress and
putting wool on the free list on protective prIn-
policy OF the Republican platform. would pro
tect wool. though 1t did not increase single
pound in production. The same policy. broad
able price was the maximum of American
cheapness; and sugar to-day was at reason-
revenue. without sensible burden. Sugar
was CHEAPER In the United States than
That country was Englandhe had almost
said free-trade England. but he re!rained.
Things we're ohangin somewhat; and In this
debate EnglRnd's example WIS set before the |
House and England 8 cheapness was displayed |
by voices which used to be eloquent in dennn
bin made sugar q contraband in the protective |
system. It made the sugar industry a para
bounty Ii put the sugar business under 10 |
lice inspection, and thrust into It's affairs the
sPes % ae Sses Wbg not tine
not apply It to tin plate laughter aud save at
repeating It's reasons. not endorsing, them) |
SI.0QQ900 in revenue and taxation? Then we
Why not apply It to iinen goods. which we lid
not produce; and give the people cheap linen
iLauehter Why not apply il to wool untiiIhat
article was produced in this country TO tho ey-
tent Of the PEOPLES wants tDemqcratic laugh
those industries as in the sugar industry.
Think q the splendid political effect upon the
with pride las ali parties pointedl to the work
ingman and farmer sitting down to a cheap |
breakfast in q cheap suit OF clothes Laugh
ter
The tariff was not burden ON the individu-
al. not because 1t Was indirect. hut because he
did not feel 1t, or II he did he felt Il as horse
did his rider, not as burden, but as an en-
c9uragement in the race. !RepubliGnn mp
had made a mistake when 1t discrlminaled
against sugar. 1t seemed to have acted in this |
respect rs ii it had some scare about the sur |
plus, and had tossed to the tam. reformcr a
precious thing, Just as the Russ ian woman |
tossed her children to tho pursuing wolves. |
lApplausel
Mr.. Cannon rep. lll.l In opposing the
amendment, referred to what he termed the
ialluciOus position taken by the gentleman |
from California Mr., McKennal. That position
WAS spacious and dangerous. II he Cannon !
could not give reason in harmony with tho
Republican platform and with the principle OF
protection why sugar should be placed on the !
free list he would iorsake his posiron whn
was the position OF the Republican party
touching the protective .systemY TO relieve |
from duty those articles Of foreign production;
not bo produced at home, Was sugar
produced in the United States in sum-
Gent quantities to supply the home marketY |
Last year the imports Of sugar amounted |