New-York tribune., 1890-05-23
THE REPCBLICAN VICTORY.

l
their work well in the revision OF the tarlii'
and they deserve credit for the good sense
seIf-rcstraint, and excellent discipline win
which they have supported their leaders ana
the committee. Individual exceptions there
were Mr. Coleman, of louisiana voted against
the bill because of the change on sugar ana
= few other members diSSented from the com
mittee on three amendments which were de-
signed 70 render the bill more complete and
thus caused their defeat. But less dlscord IN
action has rarely if ever been shown ny the
majority in the House in dealing with meas
ure of such character
The Committee on Ways xpd Means was
censured by some and derided 10y others 1or It's
long DELAY and hesitation in preparing this
measure But it was labOring with care, WIS
dom and success, all may now see, to frame
hill which would command the hearty and un-
wavering approval of the majority. That ap-
nroval WAS secured without u caucus; and the
triumph of the measure without any caucus
obligation whatever to restrain individual
action is rightly regarded as the best possible
answer 10 the false assertion, so often made
bv Free Traders, that there was great DIS
satisfaction among Republican members. 1t
need not be added that a large share OF the
credit is due, and is given by foes as well as
friends. to Chairman Mckinley, whose per-
sonal leadership on the floor has proved OF IN
caculablc value
II plcases the Free Traders still TO resort TO
Justification about this measure. Thus IL Is
asserted by some of them that not one-lhiIo
of the members Of the House really approved
the bill. This is simply slander against men
who voted for the measure under theIr ooHed-
ton as representatives, of the people, ana VINO
are more honorable and truthful than inc
authors of such IN accusation. Mr.. McAliilah,
if correctly reported, asserted that the Dill
would raise the amount of duties by S13, oOO,-
600. lie knows beyond possible question that
the measure will reduce the revenues largely
and while there may be room for honest doubt
whether the reduction is quite as much as Mr
Mckinley estimated, about S72,0OO,OOO, no
man can honestly pretend that the revenue
would be increased by itS passage
The passage of the bill was greeted with
| great applause Gy the Republicans OF the
| House and also with dersive cheers by Demo
! Gratis. who shouted that the Republican part!
! had - cut its own throat If the Democrats
believed that, they would not have been 50
! frantic with rage when defeated at every crit
ical step in the long struggle over this meas
ure. They have shown all the desperation
and the spite of men fighting for their political
existence. and they undoubtedly realized III
their hearts that the measure would 90 far TO
satisfy the people, particularly in the agri-
cultural districts, with the policy OF the Re
publican party.
The prospect Of the passage OF this bill III
the Senate may be judged without diihculty
from two facts. Unlike any other Tanif bhl
if deserves the name of farmers tariff, ana
! is essentially a measure to secure 10 that IN
dus,ry its fair share of benefits The Repub-
| lican majority in the Senate will unqueSuon-
ably realize that the action Of farmers IN the
coming political campaign will determine the
results In other respects, this measure j.
essentially the one which was passed by the
| senate at the last session, and the modlica-
tions which have been made are either such
as were required by the addition OF provisions
| giving needed protection to agriculture, or such
as later information seemed 10 render ncceS-
sary for the defence of "A few important
branches of industry. The senate was not as
strongly Republican when 1t passed this bill
as il is now and the Republicans were not
at that time as clearly united in their opinion
regarding the necessity and the measure OF
| nrntpcfiOD