Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-06-22

the finances of the country is such that 1t
would be impossible to reduce tariff duties"
asked Mr.. Hill. without providing another
system Of revenue?"
Il believe" replied Mr.. Teller, that the
tariff duties could have been revised and
reduced so that they would raise more
revenue than the Mckinley law"
Then YOU believe this tariff reform bill
will lot Of itself raise sufficient revenue to
I4pport the government
i cont think II will"
81 commend that opinion" said Mr. Hill
turning to the democratic side. ito my
friends in charge of this measure"
Continuing, Mr.. Teller said he believed
the income tax not only equitable and just
out absolutely necessary at this time. The
idea that in adopting an income tax we
were aping the monarchies of Europe he
rejected as weightless. There was no aris-
.ocracy and no democracy in taxation. The
-land OF the tax gatherer was laid not on
individuals. but property and wealth. He
believed, he said in conclusion. that the
income tax would commend itself to the
people Of the United States. not because
they were socialists or desired to take un-
duly from any Of their fellows. but because
it distributed the burdens of taxation equit-
ably Mr.. Hill, he said, had expressed the
fear that this tax would shipwreck the
democratic party. He had little interest in
the survival Of that party. but he believed
II there was anything that would give that
party hold on popular favor 1t was the
PRONUNCIATION in this bill of this equitable
and Just system Of taxation.
Mr.. Sherman in Opposition.
Mr.. Sherman Of Ohio followed Mr. Teller
in opposition to the income tax. He admit
ted that he had supported the proposition
for an income tax during the war as a war
measure. and. In 1871, opposed its repeal
But IN 1871 the country was burdened with
a public debt Of 5000 100000. What he
predicted in 1871, when that tax was re-
pealed occurred. The revenues fell off, and
in 1874. the treasury was confronted with
a deficiency such as existed today. He did
not deny on general principles the equality
and justice OF making the rich bear their
just burden of taxation. But to the states
belonged the right to tax incomes of in
dlvlduals. save as last resort. No such
dire necessity existed today. The govern
ment had ample sources of revenue with
out resorting to an income tax and invad
Ing the states realm OF taxation. There
was in the Income tax a touch OF the worst
and most vicious form of socialism, said
Mr.. Sherman. In this country. where all
men are equal. this tendency toward
clalism, this arraytng of the poor against
the rich, should be discouraged by public
men rather than pandered to. With re-
spect TO all this talk OF the enormous accu-
mutations Of wealth within recent years
he said he did not believe there had been
any accumulation Of wealth within the last
five years.
He sketched the enormous growth of
wealth that had followed the building of
railroads and the development of the coun-
tryS resources. But now railroad prop
erty was becoming like turnpike and bridge
property. Railroads were practically
operated now only for the people. Scarcely
any railroad stocks were valuable; railroad
fortunes were disappearing like snow before
the summer sun. The railroad lines of the
country could be duplicated for one-thrd
Of their cost; for one-fifth of their paper
bond and stock values The great devil
nf no Ir Shnr m
said. devilish in all it's ends and aims, so
far as the people were concerned. was the
trust few men were banding them
selves together here and there to control
dUstry- They crushed opposition and alb
solutely controlled prices making them
selves multi nI.iolaires Take the sugar
trust The Controllers of that organization.
with an actual investment of S9.0OO,OOO
watered to S5.OOO.OOO had been able to
pay even on this immense watered stock
annual dividends of from 6 to II per cent
per annum.
Every dollar had been taken from the
pockets of the people. II the Senators in
charge of this bill desired to aim a blow
at the aggregation of wealth let them
strike at these unholy, trusts and COM
binations.
Mr. Sherman concluded by expressing the
hope that the democratic managers would
agree to strike out the income tax pro-
Vision OF the bill
Mr.. Patton Against the Bill.
Mr.. Patton, the new republican Senator
from Michigan, followed with a set speech
against the general features of the tariff
bill
THE HOUSE.
The House was called to orde1' by Nr.
Bailey Tex) again today, and imme-
diately after the transaction Of some -ou-
tine business the anti-option bill was taken
up in committee of the whole, Mr.. Living
ston of Georgia In the chair.
Just prior to this Mr. Hatch asked and
obtained unanimous consent that all men,
beers who had spoken or who may here
after speak on the bill may extend their
remarks in the Record, and those who have
not spoken may insert their speeches in the
Record. The bill was taken up and read
by sections for amendments. and Mr.. AL
drich QIL) offered the first amendm ,ut. in
serting flour in the list of agricultural
products affected by the bill. Mr.. Grain
(Tex.D, speaking TO a pro forma amend
ment. read from the Ocala platform that
the anti-option bill was based on populist
doctrine. and asserted that the bill was
vicious or deceptive. for 1t stated that its
purpose was to raise revenue by legalizing
gambling. and II 1t suppressed gambling
then it would not raise revenue.
The amendment Of MIR. Aldrich was
adopted on divisiCn-9S to 33.
An amendment to the second section OF
the bill was proposed by Mr.. Cox Crenn.).
providing that the restrictions Of the bill
should not apply to contracts for future
delivery when the vendor is the actual
bona fde owner.
EiIIers Do Not Favor the Bill.
Mr.. Fletcher CMinn). who represents the
millers Of Minneapolis. replied to the at
tacks made on these important interests
He denied that the millers Of the northwest
favored the bill. and denounced as infam-
Gus the statement that all the -four mills of
Minneapolis or the northwest were under
the control of the English syndicate. Out
side OF the Pillsbury and Washburne mills
the millers Of Minneapolis opposed the bill
He said that the Pillsbury- Washburne or
English syndicate did not produce more
than 10000 out of the $4,000 barrels pro-
duced daily in Minneapolis and that the
English syndicate did not. and never did,
control the output Of the Pillsbury- Wash
burn mills. He knew every miller In the
northwest. and there was not a miller in
Minneapolis, Mankato, Wilona or elsewhere
who favored the passage OF this bill except
Pillsbury and Washburn. Millers did not
want low-priced wheat. for low-priced wheat
made low-priced flour. and on this class of
Hour they never made any money their
profits not exceeding from to IA cents on