Evening star., 1897-06-09
Tax on Cotton Put in the Tariff
Bill.
SIX DEMOCRATS Vote FOR IT
Attack and Defense on the Floor
of the Senate.
SOME LIVELY PASSAGES

In the Senate yesterday afternoon the de-
| bate upon the tariff bill became very spir-
tied. following Mr.. Vests reply to the ap-
| peal of Senator Bacon of Georgia dem) for
| a duty on raw cotton. BY the decisive vote
| of AZ to 10 the Senate adopted an amend
ment placing raw cotton, the great pro-
duct of the south. on the dutiable list at
20 per cent ad valorem 1t is the first time
| fn the history of tariff legislation that a
duty on cotton has been Incorporated in a
| hill. The amendment was proposed by Mr..
Bacon on his individual responsibility and
without the approval of the finance COM
mittee, which thus far has been requisite
to the success Of every amendment except
minor one, which went through by de-
| fault. On the final vote six democrats
| Bacon and Clay Of Georgia, McEnery Of
Louisiana, McLaurin and Tfllman Of South
Carolina and Rawlins of Utah-voted with
| the republicans for the Bacon amendment
| while the negative vote was solidly demo-
| cratic with one exception-Kyle, populist.
| The debate on cotton tcck up the most of
the day and but little progress was made
on the bill. Less than two pages were dis
| posed H during the day.
Consistency Urged.
In the course of the de bate Mr. Vest said
that he had. as a southern democrat, al
ways pointed with pride to the fact that
cotton was admitted free of duty, as show
Ing the democratic consistency in support
| Ing free raw materials. Hence his disap-
pointment that this amendment should be
pr roposed by a southern senator as II would
justify and open the way for duty on
wool, lumber and all other articles classe1
| as raw material. Indeed" he exclaimed
| 1T leaves us naked without argument"
MI. Jones tArko also opposed the amend
ment In an incisive speech. He agreed
hot I<. ii
support the amendment in the hone of
creating disse1sion in the democratic party,
ana added that they also would support
II Ior the purpose of securing an excuse
Ior increased compensatory duties on cot
ton manufactures. He argued that the
| small lmportationS could not affect the
price OF the entire domestic CROP and said
that the DUTY would only add to the nrice
OF cotton goods. 1T amounts to. nothing
eho VIII bring nothing" he said but high
er prices on cotton manufactures" Mr.
ZONES said the cotton growers would not be
mlsled and deceived by a proposition SO
palpably thin as this 1t was the same
chan offered to the south that the rates
On other agricultural products gave to the
farmers.
Mr. Bacon answered briefly that if pos
lt1veness of assertion and vehemence were
TO control in this subject, then the senator
from Missouri WesD would have his views
prevsn. But tne senate was forum of
argument, and no senator was to be put
down by the mere vehemence of the sena-
tor from Missouri. however long and emf
nent his services might be-
Mr.. Bacon became impatient at one noint
over frequent Interruptions, the last one
coming from Mr.. Caffery
thlnk the senator has enough to do to
answer the questions addressed to him
yesterday Dy the senator from Massachu-
setts as to sugar." answered Mr. Bacon
SHARPLY The senator went on to saw thai
the Objectionable feature of the tariff In
sne IN, past mad been its sectionalism and its
nrf 30
against the other. But the democrats nlat
!Sfm recognizing a revenue tariff Insisted
mar II be free from sectional benefits and
that there be perfect equality in burden or
In benefit. This was the only new e,,an
gel to which the senator from Missouri
had referred. 'oii
Democratic Prfncfples.
ourine a colloquy between Mr.. Bacon and
MI. gray concerning the democratic doc-
'Flhe o1 tariff for revenue, Mr. Mason nm
Gained Tor order, so that he might hear this
family jar"
MI Gray asked if Mr.. Bacon believed in a
tarin for revenue only
MI Bacon answered that he believed i'm a
.ariH ..t Tor revenue but not for a tarifr
LOT revenue only" He insisted thar m,
tariff platform of the Chicago conven,inn
uiu not contemplate revenue duties which
utterly ignored questions as to the iustica
oI ihJustlce OF the duties toward sections or
principle of the democratic party was to
restrict the tariff to revenue purposes and
IN imposing it for that purpose to give
equal benefits and equal burdens 70 oil 90
tions. ~ '
In closing Mr.. Bacon referred to state
ments that his tariff views were shaped by
the interests of his own state He was
not. he said, Indifferent to the fact that his
people might be benefited or injured hv TN,
character of the rates imposed. As 1t was
recognized mat the country was to have a
revenue tariff bill, he intended to see to 1t
tnat his state received an equal share of its
benefits, for, in the words of the Bible, the
man VINO does not care for his own house
hold is worse than an infidel.
Mr.. Stewart (Nev) created amusement
by declaring that the hair splitting and dis
tinctions between a revenue tariff and a
protective tariff was all 'tweedle-dee and
tweedle-dum." He had followed this SUBJ
ject for thirty years and he did not under
stand this new language relating to the
tariff. The Georgia senator (Bacon) was
right, Mr.. Stewart said, in seeing that his
state should receive the same benefits as
other sections.
"What Are We Here FOrso
What are we here for?' asked Mr.. Stew
art vehemently.
The discussion had evidently aroused
feeling among senators, and this was given
expression soon after Mr. Caffery began
speaking. He said the position of Mr.. Bacon
Hdu Deen clearly exposed as one favorable
to protection for interests of his own state,
with revenue a mere incident.
How about sugar?' inquired Mr.. Bacon
mockingly.
Very deliberately Mr.. Caffery answered:
Twice the senator declined to answer my
questions, and now decline peremptorily
to yield"
II accept that status between u.s." an
swered Mr.. Bacon.
You made the status yourself" said Mr..
Canery.
1T is a very great deprivation" con-
tinued Mr.. Bacon in mocking tones, but I
will endeavor to bear it with equanimity."
Mr.. Caffery was soon interrupted with
another inquiry as to sugar, this time from
Mr.. McLaurin Is. c. The galleries were
much amused and Mr.. Caffery said: II see
that the bad precedent set by the senator
from Massachusetts, (Hoar) to put me in a
hole, is being followed by my associates on
this side of the chamber"
Before you are out Of the hole" inter-
jected Mr.. Hoar.
Mr.. Caffery went on to state that he was
not in favor OF free trade. He believed In
q tariff on sugar as q revenue peasure,
with any reductions which the requirements
Of revenue would permit.
IT WAS not because sugar was produced