The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-21

mendable, il, nevertheless, imposes SOME
duties thereon and thereby fails TO redeem
our pledges 1t is not a question of the
amount of duties which may be imposed,
question Of principle is Involved ana a SIN SIN,
gle penny'S duty violates our promise anu
places US in a false position. As the Presl-
dent well says, there can be no compromise
on a matter of this character where a Nl'al
principle Is at stake.
THE SENATES DUTY.
1.-THE House of Representatives. fresh
from the people. which represents more
distinctly and peculiarly than we do the
taxing power of the people, repudiates our
bill and a Democratic President hao en-
phasized that reputation, and the condi-
ton which confronts US is one OF extreme
embarrassment. Shall we retreat or ad-
vance? Shall we surrender to the House
while we can do so honorably. or shall We
wait until we are driven to it? In the light
of the letter of the President the House
cannot honorably retreat. 1t has no other
alternative, except to insist upon Its Dill,
wherein il provides for free raw materials.
The President cannot approve the Senate
bill after what he has said in this remark
able letter. He arraigns the Senate and in
Inmates that the enactment OF the Senate
bill means party perfidy and party dis
honor These are strong words, which the
President of the United States would not
use towards a measure which ne ever eX-
pected afterwards to approve. This letter,
unusual and unprecedented in Its character
and method of PRONUNCIATION though IL may
be, nevertheless clearly foreshsdows veto
of the Senate bill even If the House should
finally concur in our amendments.
What person should expect the Presi-
dent 10 approve the Senate bill after its
vigorous and scathing denunciation con-
tanned in his letter. You would think less
of him for his inconsistency. No, this letter
is significant; ii is bold, vigorous, even
If imprudent letter. Ii means war 10 the
knife against the Senate BILL 1t justifies
much that has been said against the Senate
bill during all the last three monthss IL
means that it can never receive executive
approval: ii means that the Senate cannot
be permitted to abandon or surrender the
great underlying principles for which we
struggled and lost in 1883, and fought and
won i'm 1892. The President is right; there
is no middle ground which we can occupy.
No bill which does not provide for free
raw materials can be permitted TO become a
law.
1T is unnecessary to enter into any ar
gument TO define or designate what arti-
cles constitute raw materials. Every Dem
ocrat knows what they are. ANY article
may be considered raw material when IL Is
in the lowest or crudest form in which it
enters into commerce. That definition is
ample and sufficient, and will redeem our
pledges II ii is honestly applied. The party
platform was for free, not freer, materials,
as Is now ingeniously contended. IL the
President, in his wisdom, had seen fit while
the debate was progressing in the Senate,
TO have aided my efforts TO secure ad-
hesion TO this principle, by expressing his
legitimate way. 1 should have been graft
fed, and 1t unquestonably would have
been of practical benefit TO the cause. i re-
joce that he has expressed them even
now, although 1 am not required to defend
the manner and form of their presentation,
even If they required defense, which / do
not assume.
DIFFERS FROM THE PRESIDENT.
Il respectfully differ from the President
in his assumption that a tax upon sugar
is necessary at this time, conceding that
an income tax is to be retained. Clearly
both are not needed for any legitimate
purpose of the treasury. The President
speaks of the Democratic principle and
policy which led to the taxation of sugar
He asserts that in the taxation of sugar
we are in no danger of running counter
to Democratic principle 1 desire only 10
suggest that If it was desirable that sugar
should be taxed 'as a legitimate and log
ical article of revenue taxation as he now
says, ii seems strange that the President
did not in his last annual message make
some intimation, suggestion or recon-
mendation TO that effect. He indorsed the
Wilson bill explicitly in Hrs message, al
though it provided substantially for free
raw sugar. He permitted the House 10
pass that measure without a word of pro-
test, suggestion advice that there
should be a tax on sugar which has come
To be largely regarded as one of the neces-
ed financial officer of his Cabinet, speak
ing unquestionably ex cathedra, outlined
with great care the essential provisions OF
the proposed tariff reform BILL but made
no recommendation whatever for a tax
upon sugar While free sugar was being
carried through the House the adminfstra-
ton remained quiet and passive, but now,
after the House has acted and the coun-
try has been led TO expect free sugar, the
administration shows it's hand and declares
for a duty upon 1t. / am not now antag-
oniZing its suggestion; i am simply sta,-
ing the facts of recent history. Under the
existing circumstance with an income tax
retained in this bill, / voted for free sugar
before, and / shall do again. In my
Judgment the House cannot honorably re-
treat from its position in favor of free
sugar. The Presidents suggestion came toe
late. The Senate must recede from lis
amendments"
Mr.. Hill, in closing his speech called at
tention to the fact that the President, who
had been so often quoted In the tariff de-
bate as favoring an income tax, had, at
last, on yesterday, come out in no uncertain
tone against il. He trusted that the Presi-
dents words would have their effect. He
CiilD wanted to perfect this BILL He kne "
II was claimed that his wishes should not
be consulted, because he did not intend ~
vote for this bill. He never should vote
for il as long as ii contained the income
tax. but he wanted to see ii made defen-
sible.
While he was speaking of free coal and
free iron, Mr. Pugh created a sensation by
asking Mr.. Hill who owned the coal and
| desired should be placed on the free list
II do not know" replied Mr.. Hill en-
| phatic lily. Il know to what the Senator
| probably refers and ii may be brought Out
| in this debate. l do not know who OWNS
| the coal and iron mines whose coal would
come in free. l do not care. 1t makes nO
difference"
A slight demonstration in the galleries
| greeted Mr.. Hills reply. which was re-
| newed when, with uplifted and threatening
| hands he declared that unless the Dem D.
Gratis of the Senate yielded, they would &c
| to the wall, and the President would go Il
the front. Mr.. Hill, after his declaration in
favor of free sugar, proceeded TO Say tnai
| the free sugar clause in the tariff bin had
| been universally indorsed by the Democrat
of the country. He read from a dspa tcf
| from Evansville, Ind, which stated that d
| congressional convention had denounced
| Hill Brice and German as the Benedict
| Arnolds OF the Democratic party for op.
| posing free sugar.
| MIR voorhees, arose and denied absolutely
| the truth of the dispatch on the strength
| Taylor, of Indiana. who was on the floor
| Sharp words between Mr.. Hill and Mr.
| Voorhees, followed.
| Vest scores Cleveland.
| Mr. Vest took the floor when Mr.. Hi
| sat down. After the speech of the Senate
/ from New York. he began, it was a sub
| iect of congratulation that he and tn
| President had at last found a platform OF
| which botn could stand. The lion and th
lamb had at last lain down together. an,
| were led as a little child by the ways an,
| means committee. He left to others TO de
| eide which was the lion and which wa