The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-30

relevant discussions with which the time of
the House was being taken. and after Mr.
chair. had ruled him out of order he con-
tinued TO protest. Then the chair ordered
him to take his seat; Twenty times the
irate Indianian admonished to take his
seat. but the latter continued his defiance.
The greatest confusion prevailed. The
speaker was hurriedy summoned. Mr..
Johnson continued to stand defiantIy in his
place. Suddenly the doors burst open and
tne large form Of the speaker came into
peared on the scene Mr. Johnson quickly
dropped down into his seat. The speaker
looked towards Mr.. Johnson, who arose.
on with the bill so that he woald have an
opportunity to offer some amendments to-
wards the close. He did not want the bill
sent TO the Senate = crude measure, for"
said he. 1t has been so characterized by
the press and the public. He had pro-
tested with feeling and yehemence but, he
said. he thought the occas sion called for
warmth and vigor. His course may not
have been parliamentary. but precious time
measure fraught with such important con-
sequences TO the American people. Some
Th Te ePHeTsnn adpR,auded m MT s,Ir
IL NO matter what the provocation for
such protest, he said. the gentleman from
Indiana could not but agree that it was
the first duty OF a member 30 obey the d.
rections OF the presiding officer. The House
then went back into committee. and pro-
ceeded with the debate.
Mr.. Bland wanted fifteen minutes TO dis
cuss the silver question but was given five
MINUTES. MN and during the wrangle Mr. Bar
low tDem-, California; moved that all de-
blamed farce"
A committee amendment adding looking
glass plates to the varieties OF glass duta-
bic at 10 per cent. ad valorem was adopt
ed. and then Mr. Bland continued his re-
ute free-silver speeches on various amend
ments, thereby making a sort of continued
Mr.. Dalzen offered an amendment. which.
upon inquiry by Mr.. Bailey proved not to
nave been agreed 10 In regular meeting OF
the ways and means committee.
Mr.. Bailey intimated that the Democrats
would not raise any objection to such a
course If they were permitted to offer two
10 the differential duty on sugar and the
other an amendment aimed az Mr.. Bailey
said f5l.ea at Il the steel3rai trust Mr DngIsy
Bailey objected TO the consider alton of the
amendment. and his point of order was sus
tanned
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
While some general debate was i'm prog
ress the members of the ways and means
committee were convened and some amend
ments formally agreed to, which were i'm
medately presented to the House. One Of
them so changed the paragraph relating. to
forgings of iron and steel as to impose a
uniform duty of 1ls cents per pound on all
forgings without reference TO weight The
proviso placing a duty of 30 cents on seam
less steel or iron tubes used for bicycles
was stricken out
An amendment offered by Mr. Wheeler at
the direction OF the ways and means COM
mittee. was adopted. 1t reduced the rate
on malt extract from % TO 20 cents per gal
lon.
The duty on lead sheets. pine. shot. etc
was increased from pa to 21a cents to cor
respond with the duty OH lead in pigs The
paragraph placing copper In plates, etc, at
cent per pound was stricken out and cop
per placed on the free list. Albumen was
placed on the dutiable list at cents. The
paragraph relating to trees, nursery stock,
etc. was recast. The duty on dates and
currants was reduced from III to 1a cent
and the rate on toothpicks raised from liR
TO cents per thousand and Is per cent. ad
Mr.. Simpson at this juncture offered some
amendments. which were ruled out of or
der. He also had read long statement
which, he said. defined the position of the
Populsts towards the tariff. 1t stated in
effect, that the tariff had been the football
of politics for century. and that the Pop
ulists had no faith I'm the ability of either
the Republican or Democratic tariff law to
remedy the evils of the existing gold stand
ard.
Mr.. Mccall (Rep.. Mass) was the first Re-
publican 10 slap the hin in the face He
in the bill were too high. He especially
mentioned wool. The Democrats forthwith
became very much interested.
Are the duties on .woolens manufactured
in New England too high?" asked Mr.. Hop
Mr. Mccall at first evaded direct reply
say" he continued, that | think the duties
in this bill higher than necessary for
the just purpose of protection" Demo
But about woolens?" interposed Mr.
Hopkins. II insist upon an answer to my
question"
THE duties in this bill are too high" re-
iterated Mr. Mccall. Then. turning defiant
ly to Mr.. Hopkins. he continued: ITO reply
categorically to your question. do not hes
itate TO say think these duties could be re-
duced without detriment either to the wool
grower or the wool manufacturer tRe-
newed Democratic appause.)
Mr. Grosvenor expressed regret that a
representative OF wooden interests should
have criticised the duty on wool, inasmuch
as the duties on woolens were far above"
in ad valorem the duties on American wool
Citron and citron peel were placed in the
basket CLAUSE, and the rate on pineapples 2
cents per pound, was changed 10 duty OF
6 cents per cubic foot in barrels and $6 per
thousand when in bulk.
A MANUFACTURERS VIEWS.
Soon after Mr.. Lowering (Rep. Mass) a
large manufacturer, followed Mr.. McCall's
lead and again aroused the plaudits of the
opposition by declaring that the manufac-
turers of New England did not want the
duties in the cotton and woolen schedules
in the bill, neither the compensatory nor
the straight duties. I'VE want a tariff law
that Will 1--we ana Stanu Sald ne. we 90
not want to be strangled with free trade,
neither do we want to be smothered with
protection" loud Democratic applause)
Mr. Russell. one of the members of the
ways and means committee from Connecti-
cut, poured hot shot into the camp of the
Massachusetts dissenters exposing the fact
i'm the course of his remarks that Mr. Low
ering, who is cotton manufacturer, had
asked for increases OH the finer grades of
cotton yarns.
Mr.. Walker, of Massachusetts. also at
tackled the position of his colleagues, and
the extraordinary discussion" as Mr.
Dngley termed 1t, drew from the majority
leader a vigorous statement about the cot
ton and wooden schedules He said il was
the unanimous testimony of the cotton
manufacturers that they could not main
tain their own in the manufacture of the
finer goods without the duties in this bill
The Wilson law. they testified furnished
adequate protection to the coarser goods
which were being manufactured in the
South But the New England manufac-
turers. including Mr.. Lowering, testified to
the necessity for these increases. II take
it, said he that the gentleman has not
asked for more than was necessary He
does not mean 10 say that this duty will
smother the cotton manufactures. AS to
the woolen schedule, he said il was substan-
tally the schedule of the Mckinley law
and gave the manufacturer no more than
the cotton manufacturer obtained. 1t SIM
ply compensated the manufacturer for the
duty on wool The manufacturer had as
much protection under the act of 1894. but