Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1896-07-09
THE TARIFF BILL OF $500.
7ckiniey's Share In Framing the Measure
That Bears His Name

Washington correspondence New
York Tribune: When Mckinley was
appointed chairman of the WAYS and
means committee by Speaker Reed.
who had been with him for many
years on that committee, it was he
cause he had become the most cap
able expert i'm the house on the tariff
question, and was the only republi-
can vino had served with Mr.. Reed
on that committee through two
previous congresses. Mr.. Burrows.
of Michigan, had served with Mr.
Kelley in fighting the Mills bill of
lSS9, but he had not been a member
of the committee i'm the previous con-
gress. when the fight was against
the Morrison bill, while Mckinley,
with Speaker Reed had fought
through all these Messrs.
Bayne. Dingley, McKenna, Payne,
LaFollette and Gear. the other Re
publican members of the committee
i'm 1880, We're all new to it's work.
Upon Mr.. Mckinley with Mr.. Bur-
rows, who had served before only
once, necessarily fell the bulk of the
labor.
The bill submitted by Mex inley to-
the committee, the bill afterward re-
ported by the committee to the
house on April 16, the bill as it passed
the house May q, after only amonth
and five days: the bill reported by
the senate committee June Is, the
bill sent to the conference committee
September ID and the bill as it finally
passed September 80. have been COM
pared, item by item. OF LII pro-
visions i'm the act finally passed, 90
were i'm the bill as originally submitted
to the house committee 10y Nc kinley.
In subsequent sessions of that com
committee forty-thrce of the pro-
visions finally adopted We're added,
doubtless i'm part at the desire of
MIR. Mckinley himself. Only thirteen
were afterward added, in the house
There remain of the final act only
40 provisions, of which seventy-thrce
| NCIS bN
and sixty-seven were either added in
the senate or We're the result of com
promises between the senate and the
| house i'm conference committee.
| 1t will he suggested that this
reckoning credits to- Mckinley all
the provisions retained from the pre-
vious tariff. That is true, and there
were 2J5 such provisions fixing rates
of duty, either in form or in practical
effect, substantially the same as
those of the tariff of 1883, though it
may be noticed that a considerable
number of these were by Mckinley,
so altered to impose equivalent
specific instead of former ad valorem
duties. The distinct changes i'm rates
from the previous tariff were 6Il, OF
| which 4J6 are found, as they Were
finally adodted i'm the bill originally
offered by Mckinley, and thirty-siN
more were added before the bill left
his committee. Only thirteen were
added i'm the house, sixty nine by the
senate committee, and sixty-seven
i'm the senate orconferencec committee.
/ Every change but one made by the
house was to- raise duties above
those proposed by the committee.
The senate committee raised duties
higher than those of the house in
twenty-three cases, restored the
lower duties of the old law i'm four
and i'm thirty-eight substantially
duties below those of the house. In
only thirteen cases did the senate oI
conference committee raise rates
while i'm fifty-four cases the senate
committee urged rates lower thai
. those Of the house, So that rates
between the two We're finally adopted
, This statement shows that mor
than two-thirds OF all the changes
, made by the act of 1890 were in thu