Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1892-06-09
Who Made The Tariff?
A Glance Into the Inner Workings
ofthe Protective System.

Mr.. Speaker, we have had in this
debate series of extravagant eulogies
on the Tariff law of 1890. The gen.
tleman from Maine (Mr. Dingley)
pronounces it to be consistent, COM
prehensive and complete, with all the
different parts properly and justly re-
lated" The gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania Mr.. Dalztl, } eulogizes 1t as "com-
prehensive, and logical" Other gentle
men have used stronger words of
praise.
Now, sir, I want to call the attention
of fthe House to manner in which a
consistent. logical, and complete"
protective tariff is built up.
The gentlemen from Maine doubtless
thinks be is one of the chief architecs of
the present law. My friend from
Michigan (Mr. Burrow) and my friend
from New York Mr.. Payne, each for
himself INDUCED the same pleasant IL
lusion. They were allmembers of the
committee which reported the law to
this House.
Unfortunately. Mr.. Speaker, there
is abundant and unimpeachable ev-
idence to destroy all these claims.
I turn to the very schedule of the
law under consideration and I find
that Mr.. Mckinley, in presenting to
this House the conference report, Sept.
27, 1890, said of it: This schedule has
the hearty approval of the National
Wool Growers Association, and of the
several State associations through the
country"
In the next sentence he says: Sand
Mr.. Speaker, that is entirely true also
of the tobacco schedule" although he
omits in saying who had approved this
latter. AS to the great and compre-
hensive metal schedule, constituting
so large a part of the tariff and con-
tributing so much of its political and
peculiar strength, read in the report
made by Mr.. James NJ. Swank, Secre-
tary of the American Iron and Steel
Association, made to the president OF
that association, that ''during the long
period iu which this measure (the
Mckinley bil) received the consider
alton of Congress inyiews of his asso-
citation concerning the proper framing
of the metal schedule of the new tariff
were frequently solicited and were
promptly given;" and as he adds that
"the schedule as adopted is the most
harmonious and completely protective
of all the metal schedules in our tariff
legislation, we are not left in doubt
that the views so promptly" given
were promptly" accepted.
So much for the origin of three i'm.
portants schedules. Let us pursue this
investigation a little further. Turning
to page 300 of the hearings before the
committee of Ways and Means of the
last Congress, I find that Mr.. William
Whitman, President of the National
Association of Wool Manufacturers,
said he "had framed two clauses" pre-.
scribing the taxes on women's and
children g dress goods, and these clauses
turn up as Mr.. Whitman framed them
as sections 374and 375 of the Mckinley
act, with blank in the provisos filled,
according to the same gentleman's
suggestion. (Laughter.)
At page 2lS of the hearings Mr..
Isaac N. Heidelberger, In behalf of the
wholesale clothing manufacturers,
submitted a memorandum of their de-
mands, and the memorandum, SO far
as it related to wooden clothing, is sub.
stantially embodied In paragraph 1896
of the act. (Laughter)
The makers of firearms appeared at
page 1855 with the sections they wish
ed Incorporated and made a part OF
the tariffschedule Of duties" and those
sections appear In their own words as