The Portland daily press., 1897-04-01
notice of meeting Of the committee on
ways and mems In three minutes.

-SsAoo VI u ule66luE VI Ultc CUuiiilAsUOo Oh
ways and mems In three minutes.
Mr. Grosvenor subsequently, by direc-
tion OF the committee on ways and
means, reintroduoed the amenment max
ing new section.
Mr.. Dockery moved an amendment TO
the section authorizing the Introduction
Tree OF duty OF articles controlled by
trusts in the United States.
MF. Dingley made the point OF order
that 1t was not germane, relating to the
frse list while the Grosvenor amendment
proposed to fix the day when duties
liked In the bill should take effect.
Mr. Dockery presented some reasons
why the point should not be sustained.
He was followed by Mr.. Bailey, who
conceded that the amendment was In or
Ger because it was In harmony with the
general purpose of the bill, which seemed
TO be to tax the people of the United
States as heavily as possible before and
after. (Applause.)
Ihe amendment proposed by Mr.. Gros-
yenor, M. Dingley said, was intended to
make the provisions of the bill imposing
duties retroactive under certain condit-
ions. An amendment relating to that
subject would bs in order under the
rules, but not one relating to any other
subject.
The chair sustained the point of order.
Is minutes on side should be allowed
for debating. Mr.. Grosvenor's amend
ment liking the date on which the tariff
Dill was to go into effect. Mr.. Bailey
stated that the opposition was extreme
~ anxious to reach two schedules in the
bill and would not agree to consume
more time on this amendment.
In offering, Mr.. Grosvener remarked
upon the alleged attempt of the Demo-
Gratis to make political capital out of
osrentatious opposition to the trusts. AS
TO the pending proposition to make this
tariff bill go into effect April l, no matter
whas the date of it's final enactment, be
said, two questions were involved, Its
expedienoy and it's wisdom. Mr. Grosven-
or's strongest point was made in eonnec-
tion with the present tariff law which
bore date of August l., 1894, but was
net finally enacted until % days later
Although this was unintentional, the su-
prems court had held that 1t was re-
Prospective. The income tax, although
1t had been held unconstitutional, (not
on that point, however), levied on every
dollar on the first of the preceding JAN
uary. Whiskey in bond, manufactured
under the goo tax under the operation
f.that bill, paid 30 cents additional.
Mr. Richardson, Democrat of Tennessee,
oontended that the supreme court decis-
ion Is the case involving the Wilson law
in which the opinion of the Supreme
court was delivered by Chief JusGice Ful-
Ter, decided exactly contrary to the con-
tentionssof Mr.. Grosvenor.
Goods imported between August l and
August %, 1894, 1t was decided should
pay the Mckinley aud not the Wilson
rates. He asked whether it was proposed
to refund part of the duty where the
Dingley bill reduced rates. Mr.. drosven-
or replied that there was SO few reduc-
tions that this would make little differ
ence, although In such cases duties
should be refunded.
MIR. Richardson, Democrat of Tennes-
see, answered, and said that one of the au-
thorities quoted by MIR. Grosvenor, that of
the United States VS.. Burr & Hardwicks,
was absolutely conclusive against his
contention. There the court held that
goods imported between August /, 1894,
the date on which the Wilson law pur-
ported to make it's duties colleotable and
August aS, 1894, the day or which it be-
came law were dutiab under tie Nc
KfDley law and not the Wilson law. We
asked Mr.. Grosvenor what he was going
to do with regard to the article on
which the duty in the bill when it final
ly became the law was less than the
rate at present fixed. Was he going to
refund the escess to the importer? Tho
amendment did not now ihlpart, for no
provision to that effect was made in it
and the collector would have to assess
the higher rate.
but those imports would he so small that
they could not affect the geEt raj propo-
sition.
Mr.. Blani, Democrat OF Missouri,
characterized the amendments as the
most astounding proportions he had
ever heard. The idea was preposterous
that by the terms of a mere bill pending
in the House of Representatives, the rate
of tariff taxes eoud be fixed for tine fu-
ture. If bv this means the date of the
taking effect of the changes Of rates
could be fixed, he asked why it was not
fixed at the date on which the President
issued his proclamation calling the spec
ial session of Congress, or better still,
why not fix it at the date Of the repeal
of til Mckinley law.
Mr.. Green, Popuiist of Nebraska, said
that 1t was merely common sense state-
ment that two laws could not be il effect
at the same time. ssThis amendment is
an attempt to repeal the Wilson law be
fore the Dingley law Is enacted he
said. The supreme court had decided in
the case quoted that this could not be
one.
MIR. Berry, Democrat Of Kentucky.
protested against the Indecent haste''
with which the ways and means comm it,
tee propose TO put its bill into effect.
The debate on the amendment Was con-
oluded by Mr.. Bailey. Mr.. Grosvenor
proposed an amendment to the amend
insnt which was that the lien imposed on
goods by this act. imporsed between
April and the enactment of the act,
should be only TO the amount of tho ex-
cess of the duties of this act over the
Wilson bill.
The amendment to the amendment was
adopted. The vote was then taken by
tellels on the original amendment fixing
pril | as the date on which the bill was
to 30 into effect and it was adopted $50
100 The chair ruled that the bill
was next in order amt the clerk resumed
the reading Of the bill.
Mr. Linney, Republican of North
Carolina, made witty speech in support
of the bill.
Mr. Hartman. silver Republican of
Montana, declared that if this bill became
a law it would be by the corporation
of an anti-gold standard majority in the
Senate. Mr.. Pierce, Democrat of Ten
nessee, repudiated the Democrats on his
side who were selHshly seeking protec-