The morning news., 1892-03-16
A LITTLE MORE TARIFF.
THE DEBATE ON TIE FREE WOOL
BILL RESUMED.

Mr.. Coombs Declares That the Time
Has Passed When Extravagant
Tariffs are Needed-Mr. Walker As
serts That the Manufacturers Have
Not the Slightest Interest IN tho
Tariff.
WASHINGTON, March l5-In the House
to-day Mr.. Enloe Of Tennessee, from the
committee on postoffices aud postroads re-
ported the bill to repeal the mail subsidy
act. 1t was placed upon the calendar, an
the minority was granted leave to file a
minority report.
Mr. Sayers of Texas represented the con-
ference report on the urgent deficiency bill,
and it was agreed to. AS flually passed
the bill appropriates s47o ,641, being Sal ,22S
more than was carried by the bill as il
passed the House and S23, ,244 less than it
carried as 1t passed the Senate.
The House then went into committee of
the whole, with Mr.. Blouut of Georgia In
the chair on the free wool dill.
CooMBs CONCLUDES HIS SPEECH.
Mr.. Coombs Of New York concluded his
speech 10 favor Of the bill. The time had
passed, he said, when there was need for
extravagant tariffs. He favored a tariff
policy by which the financial condition of
this government could be SO arranged that
we should not be forever collecting more
than we spent-collecting for one purpose
and expending for another. With a reduo-
tion or abolition of the tariff on raw
materials an ability to compete with foreign
manufacturers on better terms would exist
No matter how this congress cut down ex-
penditures it would not relieve the tax
payers Of their burden so long as the present
high taxation remained. In response to
questions put by Mr. Dingley, Mr.. Coombs
said tha5 the cotton manufacturers
of this country had so much
to do TO meet our ever-increasing
trade that they had not paid proper
attention TO the foreign demand. The very
pattern of muslin which was introduced
from Manchester one year at 25 cents a
yard, the next year would be initiated by
American manufacturers and sold at from
to ~ cents. The quality and pattern OF
French silk brought into this country and
sold at from IS to 80 yard would the next
year be initiated by American manu-
facturers at 81 and 50 IS.
MANUFACTURERS INDIFFERENT.
Mr.. Walker Of Massachusetts said that
the great body Of the statements made by
the democratic orators on the subject OF the
protective tariff was not even technically
true. The manufacturers of this country
had not the slightest interest directly In the
tariff. 1t was not of the slightest interest
to the manufacturers whether we had free
trade or protection. They were satisfied
with one or the other. II the tariff was not
in the interest Of the farmers and wage
workers then he would vote to repeal it and
adopt free trade.
Mr.. Dockery asked whether the gentle
man meant to cay that the manufacturers
would be as prosperous under free trade as
under protection.
Mr.. Walker replied in the affirmative.
Mr.. Dockery-Then. under the theory Of
protection, the manufacturers merely be-
come disbursinR agents.
Mr.. Walker-That is a mere fiction.
Mr.. Dockery-Ir seems to be the logic Of
your position.
Mr.. Walker replied that the manufActur-
ers Of the country what was left of them)
would be more prosperous under free trade
than under protection. But congress was
not legislating for the manufacturers. 1t
was legis ating for the farmers and wage
workers. Mr.. Walker entered into q gen
eral defense of the Mckinley dill, declaring
that under it in one year our foreign trade
had increased s4O6, 100000 or 27 per cent.
SCOTT ATTACKS THE M'KINLEY LAW.
Mr.. Scott of Illinois, attacked the
Mckinley law. He held up its injustice
and the inequalities bearing on the con-
sumer aud laid special stress on the sugar
bounty provision. He argued that this
provision was inexpedient as public
measure, as taking from the treasury the
peoples money and payioR 10 to private
enterprises. He persisted that the bounty
provision was unconstitutional and void
and read from the late decision of the
supreme court in the case of Ballin, Joseph
& Co., to show that the validity of the
sugar bounty provision was not oven con-
sidered by the court.
Mr.. Chapman Of Michigan devoted the
greater part of his remarks to criticism of
exSpeaker Reed and his recent speech, in
which Mr.. Reed eulogized Oliver Crom well.
Then turning his attention to the tariff, he
denounced the system of protection as be-
ing paternal system whicn built UP the
few at the expense of the many.
Mr.. Dockery followed In a general de-
nuuciation of the protection system and Of
the reciprocity scheme embodied in the Nc
Kinley tariff act.
The committee then rose and the House