The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-05-08
H0AR'S REPLY.
IContinued from Page 1.)

protection by large majorities. These five
Senators said that they did not approve
the bill before the Senate, but that
they deferred their Judgment
TO the opinion Of the American people, but
to the opinion OF a majority OF a Demo-
crat ic subcommittee.
"There is" Mr., Hoar said, "a large ma
jority OF Democratic Senators on this floor
who avow the doctrine that duties for pro-
lection are gross violation of the consti-
tuition itself. And yet they bring to US
bill crowded with protective duties and
tell us that they are prepared
to be accomplices in this
revolution because they think their
measure, taken as whole.
Is be better soo.,ta than % the , existing Ting
revolution and perjury are necessary to
buy votes for a measure that cannot other
wise be passed.
"I should like, ;" said the Senator, "to
hear some of these honorable Senators tell
US how it is that IL tariff of
90 per cent. an valorem on manufactured
woolens be unconstitutional and a rob-
berry, how tariff OF 40 per cent. becomes
constitutional and just"
There was one thing about the 80
per cent. protective duty on rice
which showed the sectional and
one-sided character of the bill. Senator
Hoar said: '.Raising. rice. is an exclu-
sively Southern industry. Cleaning rice is
done in the North, largely in New York
and San Francisco. The rice milling
and grinding industry and the machin-
cry which 1t uses is Northern
interest. SO this beautiful bill
which puts upon rice cleaned ~ cents a
pound, gives To rice flour and rice meal
but a OF cent pound protection.
'They put ss,0OO,0O0 duty upon the poor
mans sugar-clearly tax. They put
so, 600, 900 more upon his spirits, equal to
30 per cent. ad valorem; also tax for pro-
lection only"
This bill, Senator Hoar continued, will
pass IL it pass at all by the votes Of the
men who disbelieve in it.
The speaker then had some
thing To say regarding the effect
that protection had on wages. To say that
IL did not affect wages, he asserted,
was to say that mans years
was sure to be permanently en-
ployed than when he was not permanent
ly employed. "Under protection this
country has fiourished as no country
ever fiourished before. No coun-
try ever flourished under free
trade. Now, to say that protection does
not increase wages is to say that wages
are not better in the country that
does flourish than in the country
that does not flourish. L do not
believe, Mr.. President, there is Senator
on either. side of this chamber bold
enough to deny that this tariff
Southern oi so PRODUCTS ,af !. Il tari riespesss fSs
protection. The provisions in il for rice,
for sugar. for coal, for iron, for Tennessee
marble, Is tariff to protect those great
Southern products"
Respecting what he held would be the
effect of the passage of the bill
on the people engaged in manufacturing
industries the Senator said su ubstan TALLY:
"This bill, which means murder to some
parts OF the country, means crucifixion
to New England. There are nearly $780,
900 men and women employed as
wage-earners in manufacturing indus
tries in this country. i believe that the
best authorities agree that each
of the earners of wages in the factories
supports directly or indirectly at least
five people. So that on our manufacture
ing industries are dependent a popula-
tion of at least twenty-five millions of
people. Now, what are these people to do?
You propose TO increase your importations
by at least 800, ,0O0,O 600 So the men
who make this s200,0 900 worth of
products in the United States are to be
thrown out of that employment. Out of
this production from 80 per cent. to
80 per cent. is labor. IL you import $500.
100000 worth from abroad of manufac-
lures which otherwise would be made here.
the one hundred and eighty or one-hun-
dred and ninety millions now paid in wages
must cease to be paid for the work nowdone
here, but hereafter TO be performed abroad.
These men must engage in other occupa-
tions or must be idle. Observe that
In this suggestion am taking no account
OF the manufacture which is to be con-
tinued here, but under reduced wages
Now in what wark are these $50, ,O0O, 900
worth of workmen hereafter to engage?
IL seems to me we are entitled to some
more precise and practical answer than any
that has been given either from a pro-
fessor's or a Senator's chair, before
we be called upon to enact this proposed
measure of yours into law"