Los Angeles herald., 1891-02-27
The Shipping Bill Debated in
the House.
Grosvenor, Cummings and Nor
row Advocate 1t.
Mills. Hopkins, Fitch and Others
Speak in Opposition.
The Senate Pressing the Appropriation
Bills to a Conclusien-Capital
Cuttings.
Associated Press Dispatches.


than twenty-five members present. On
motion of Quinn, of New York, the
senate bill was passed for the relief Of
the assignees of the late John Roach.
The house then proceeded in committee
of the whole to general debate onthe
shipping bill.
Grosvenor spoke in favor of the bill,
devoting most of his attention to the
Mckinley bill, which he eulogized. The
reason the Democrats would be in the
majority in the next house, he said, was
that there had been Misrepresentation
and misunderstanding Of the Mckinley
bill. The commodities that enter into
the daily life of the people, are cheaper
than On the 1st Of September last, and
cheaper than ever before in the history
of the country. At the same time agri-
cultural products bring better prices.
authoritatively informed that since the
passage of the Mckinley bill, the price
of iute bagging and ties, to cotton
planters, had been greatly reduced.
Grosvenor, in closing his remarks,
said congress should take advantage of
the Mckinley bill and send American
vessels, covered by American flags, car
rying American products, to seek for the
markets of the world.
Mills, of Texas, opposed the bill, and
ridiculed the reciprocity policy of the
present administration. If reciprocity
is wanted, why not negotiate with Eng
land, France and Germany? A few
months ago the Republicans put up
bars against foreign trade. Now they
want it, and in order to trade, want to
further tax the people in order to send
ships to foreign ports to show the Amer
lean flag and return in ballast.
The Mckinley bill, he said, had
cheapened the wages of American labor
in all parts OF the country.
In concluding, Mills laid down the
doctrine of the Democratic party; quot
ing from Thomas Jefferson, he affirmed
and reaffirmed that the will of the ma
jority, when expressed, was the will OF
God; but that will must be reasonable;
it must be rightful; it must by equal
laws protect the rights of the minority.
That was what the Democrats were con-
tending for.
Hopkins, OF Illinois, opposed the bill
because he was opposed to the policy of
subsidy. 1t was against the policy OF
the government, and always should be,
to take money from the treasury and
pay to class of persons engaged in
private calling. This legislation was
modelled on the French law, and that
law had proven failure. He objected
to adopting the bounty system in order
to aid the wooden ships of Maine. The
great mass of the American people
would not be benefited one iota, and
yet the bill would take $sO,0OO,00O OF
the peoples money.
Morrow, of California, in supporting
the measure, emphat cally denied the
declaration frequently made, that the
bill was being pressed by an active
lobby. If there was such lobby, he
had never heard of it. This legislation
was requested by the representatives OF
the leading commercial organizations of
the Pacific coast. He did not look upon
the measure as a partisan one, but as
one that should be considered ON it's
merits.
Cummings, of New York, advocated
the bill as tending to build up the
American merchant marine and ex-
tend American commerce. The bill
would achieve results that could not be
substitute. Free trade and sailors
rights was good Democratic doctrine.
The shipping interests had always been
allied to free trade. The maritime pros
perity of England might be cited as an
example, but even with free trade hun
dreds and hundreds of millions had been
drawn from England in order to increase
her carrying trade. This only illus
trated the skillful policy of Great
Britain to secure and maintain the car
rying trade of every other nation. 1t
was by the use of such means that Eng
land maintained her supremacy on the
seas. She knew how essential it was
for her greatness that she should main
tain that supremacy, and she did not
carp at methods, or riggle at expense.
This was not a protective measure, nor
was it gratuitous subsidy like the
sugar subsidy. 1t was measure to
build up our decayed shipping industry.
The passage of of the measure would
open the markets Of the world to the
products OF the farmers OF the west and
northwest. 1t would stimulate the
building of ships to an extraordinary
extent. 1t would give profitable occupa-
tion to sailors, and provide employment
for 50, 900 or 100000 American machin-
lists and artisans.
Fitch, of New York, opposed the bill,
denying that it would prove of any ben
eft to the laboring man. The stock of
the Pacific Mail Steamship company
was yesterday quoted at 80; this after
noon it was quoted at 1923; the stock
holders of this company were the honest
laboring men whom congress was going
to help. Laughter.
After further discussion the general
debate closed, the committee rose and
the house took a recess.
At the evening session, the committee
oil. the whole took up the general de-
ficiency bill.
Sayres, of Texas, moved to strike out
the paragraph appropriating the neces-
sary amount for the payment of the
claims of the Pacific roads for services
performed for the government.
Grain opposed the amendment.
Dalzell supported it, speaking OF the
Central Pacific as fraudulently insol-
vent company.
McKenna, OF California, opposed the
amendment. He said the Union Pacific
had been paid for precisely the same
kind of service. Both roads were bank
rupt. There was nothing to justify the
refusal OF the Judgment of the supreme
court. A debt due could not be set OF
against one not due.