The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-03-16


Mr.. Chairman, another most serious objec-
ton to the high rates of duty heretofore exist
ing and growing higher with each new congress
sional act is that obstructive influence it las
had on our commerce. The time was when
American commerce was carried in American
ships, bearing the American flag and manned
by American freemen. In those proud days
our flag flOated over every sea and our ships
cast anchor in every harbor. We, in 1900 car
ried 6ils per cent. of our commerce. We got
the materials OF which our ships are built with
out the imposition of oppressive duties and
built them and sailed theIi in competition with
all the other nations OF the earth. The joyous
songs OF our free and happy seamen were heard
wherever any civilized tongue spoken.
Then came in an evil hour our excessive rates
of duty, and beneath that and other baneiul
influences that commerce has withered till we
nav carry only 125S per cent of our vast foreign
commerce. and only per cent OF our foreign
trade was conducted in steamers bearing
national flag. while 200 per cent. was con-
Quoted in alien steam vessels. We neither
allcw our citizens TO buy ships abroad nor build
them at home. Such are our laws. that ii
American citizen who cannot build shin at
home at a rate that enables him 10 compete
with others in the carrying trade,
builds abroad with American men and
the products of our country, his ship
is seized and he is arrested, and never permit
ted to clear from the ports OF his own country
with his ship again. But, sir, II the same
money goes abroad and buys the same ship,
mans il with British subjects, hoists above IL
the British flag, loads Ii with The Same cargo of
coffee and casts anchor in the American ports,
his ship is protected and defended, and the
American navy if it need be, is called out to
defend his foreign flag and his foreign ship.
All that America requires by her laws IS that
If her citizen buys ship abroad he shall hoist
a foreign flag over II, give the right to n for
eign government to use il against the L. s.
ppV emit IN NJ wal pr-
cumstsnoes, and he as secure in his possession
OF his ships and the pursuit OF his vocation.
High Rates of Duty.
In the speech which I made. on this
floor protesting against the passage OF this
legal outrage, I gave, so lar Gs il was possible
in advance, the extortonate rates which would
result if the Mckinley bill became a law. |
told you then that blankets, fonnels aud bats
would, on some of the lower grades, be taxed
as high as 10 per cent In the last home con-
sumption statement from the bureau OF sta
tistics. some blankets imported last year under
this bill actually paid h6.l2 per cent; tlannels
for underwear 1886 per cent; and hats 100. 10.
/ told you then, with some misgivings. sub
NIT, assuming the responsibility for a state
ment so directly ut variance with those of the
then majority. prophecy so lugubriOus that
Its mere mention was enough to almost excite
jeers-i told you then that the effect OF the
proposed rate on yarns would burden the wool
100 per cent. on some kinds. Tour statistician
tells you that under that bill there has been
collected since its passage on thousands of
pounds of yarns duties as high as 120 per cent.
i warned you then that the proposed rates on
worsted shawls would amount to as much as %
per cent. our ststisticinn shows that il is over
l55 per cent. | told you then that knit goods
would have TO pay under this bill as high as
147 per cent Your statistician shows that
they actually paid ar high as 1913 and over.
Mr.. Chairman, many OF the friends of high pro-
lection pretend to believe, and have busted
themselves 10 show that the duty collected is
not q tax upon the people. They claim that it
is premium or tax paid by the foreigners,
whose manufactures are sold in this country
for the privilege OF sell:ag them here. Those
holding to this view insist that the tariff is not
O tax. | will not take a great deal of time in
answering such arguments. When an Amer
lean citizen buys here article manu-
featured abroad, he pays for not only
the original cost abroad, but the
cost of transportation TO this country and the
duty collected at the port OF entry, and when
he uses and consumes the article he pays the
tax imposed by the government on 1t, il makes
no difference who. whether he or some. prior
dealer handed the money to some customs Of
ficer that was collected for the duty. Not only
this, when an American citizen buys goods
manufactured here, which are sold IN daily
competition with goods of like character that
has to pay the cost of the production here and
In many instances an amount equal to, or
nearly equal to the rate OF duty fixed on for
eiRn goods and so, competing with the foreigner
and not our citizens, pays the duty. Why did
we relieve him from paying millions of tax for
US sugar? Why not let him continue to pay
this fifty odd millions?
IL Is Tax.
Mr. Chairman, you need go no further than
the report of the minority 10 see the high rates
of duty imposed by existing law. In the table
submitted on page 50 OF the report S34650925
duties are shown to have been collected in
1891 on wOOlens. OF this $23, 595. O05 or more
than twO-;hirds, was paid upon a valuation Of
81 SOS, SS7. or 100 per cent-Sl09 taxes col
leeted on 500 worth of wooden goods. This is
the statement of the minority through the TIA
bic made Of their own case. The tariffs a tax.
Mr.. Chairman, If no other good results from
the Mckinley bill 10 has taught the American
people that the tariff is q tax aud a tax upon
the people who consume the articles upon
which it is levied. The day that the tax WAS
removed from sugar the price went down in all
American markets an amount about equal to
the duty removed. On the other hand, when
an additional tax OF II cents pound was inn
posed on tin plate, tin plate went up in
price all over the country. 80 on pear
buttons upon which the duty wa
vastly increased; so on linen goods. Whatever
may have been the situation before. the Ameri-
can people have come to know that the tariff
is a tax, and have dealt with those who in
creased the tax In the last congress according
ly. by administering to the authors OF the high
rates we now have TO pay the greatest rebuke
that was ever administered TO any party in this
country, turning "a republican majority into a
democratic majority OF almost threefonrthS.
But il is sometimes claimed by the friends OF
this excessive taxation that the Waterloo"
visited upon the republican party in 1890 was
not on account of the tariff bill passed. If not
what was the cause of IL? VIII the dis
tingushed gentleman from Massachusetts,, Mr..
Lodge, admit that it was a rebuke TO him and
his followers for passing the force bill? VIII
the distinguished gentleman from Maine, the
speaker of this house, admit :hst it was not the
tariff bill? Was II the result OF his admins
tration of affairs here? Will those gentlemen
who were in charge OF the appropriations adj
nit that il was on account OF the prodigality OF
that congress? These had something to do
with il doubtless. but the greatest factor that
entered into the overwhelming defeat was the
tariff law that we are now attempting to
amend.
The Tourist Taxes.
Mr.. Chairman. there is another provision Of
the present law that should be amended-the
one allowing those who are opulent enough
TO 90 abroad to bring IN. free of duty quanti-
ties OF clothes as wearing apparel. To illus
rrate: a rich man, going abroad. eau bring
back thousands OF dollars worth OF wearing
apparel free from taxation, but II one OF his
humble laborers were to seek 10 get 500
worth Of wool brought back by him for the use
Of his family he would have to pay, according
10 the average rate in wooden goods, more than
500 duty, and on some grades be would be
compelled TO pay on knit goods more than $500
duty. There should be some limit placed upon