The Portland daily press., 1897-07-03

MIR. Allison responded that an amend
ment relating to the increase of the reve-
nue. to be derived from the bill would be
| brought in later in the day AS to the
other questions little more time was de-
sired.
The provision for a tax on stock and
bond transactions in connection with the
tariff bill which was agreed upon at the
caucus of Republican Senators was sug-
gested by Senator Lodge of Massachusetts,
and grew out of statement that with
the tea and beer provisions withdrawn
the tariff bill was likely to fall short to
the extent of $15,000,000 in providing
sufficient revenue to meet the demands of
the government
The suggestion as made by Mr.. Lodge
was that tax of two cents per share
should be levied upon every share of stock
sold at stock exchange and at any other
place and that similar tax of two cents
should be collected upon all bonds sold on
the stock exchange or elsewhere.
Mr.. Teller of Colorado inquired what
the committee or caucus contemplated do
ing on the question of decreasing the tax
on distilled spirits, in view of the letter
written by the Secretary of the Treasury.
MIR. Allison answered that the whole
question of distilled spirits had been gone
over. Personally he believed lower tax
would be productive of greater revenue
but he thought it unwise to go into the
complex question in connection with this
tariff bill
Mr.. Teller said the letter of the Secre-
tary of the Treasury indicated desire for
legislation on this subject. Then the
Senator added:
Before this bill is disposed of I will
discuss what should be done in decreasing
the tax on spirits. will show that the
committee is giving away $1,000, 600 a
month to the detriment of consumers who
bear the tax burdens, and to the detri-
ment OF honest dealers in distilled
spirits
The consideration of the bill then pro-
ceeded. The paragraph relating to nickel
was changed, making the rates on nickel
ore three cents per pound on the nickel
contained therein; nickel matter four
cents per pound; nickel, nickel oxide,
alloy etc., eight cents per pound.
This brought the Senate to the retalia-
tory clause, SO called, providing that
whenever any country pays a bounty on
any article, then upon the importation of
that article into the United States there
shall be levied and paid in addition to
the duties otherwise imposed by this act
an additional duty equal to the net
amount OF such bounty or grant. however
the same be paid or bestowed
Mr.Gray of Delaware, spoke against the
amendment, saying..he regarded it as
opening the way to disregard of our
treaty obligations with at least two
European countries, Germany and
Austria Hungary. He read the protest of
Baron Won Theilmann, the German am
bassador and Baron Won Hengelmuller,
the Austrian minister against the pro-
posed discriminatory duty. He argued
against it not only as breach of inter-
national relations with friendly powers,
but also on the ground that discrimina-
tory duty was in the nature of compen-
satory rate to the sugar manufacturers of
this country for the cheap sugars coming
from sugar producing countries.
Mr.. Caffery of Louisiana differed from
Mr.. Gray, arguing that no breach of inter-
national obligations was involved, and
that retaliation of this character was in
the nature of self preservation to which
any country would resort when it's indus
tries were threatened by the payment of
foreign export bountiss.
Mr.. Chandler of New Hampshire said
he would vote for the retaliatory clause
with extreme reluctance. He had been
told that Germany would begin course
of commercial warfare against the United
States, and he would make sacrifices to
prevent friction between the Empire of
0Cllldlly buO Uuo OulUCu 0uctOtS.
There were circumstances now trans
piring, he said, that would make it un-
fortunate that commercial conflicts should
arise at this time between the United
States and Germany, France, England or
other countries. But the Senator said he
did not see how this retalitatory clause
could be avoided if the protective
character Of the bill was to be preserved.
D Mr.. Lindsay of Kentucky criticised
fha QDolndppnf nn6iSO11l cod
protection without excuse as a revenue
measure. The Senator criticised his
Democratic associates, Mr.. Caffery, for
defending this purely protective pro-
vision.
Mr.. Caffery defended his position as
consistent with Democracy.
The vote was then taken and the retail
iatory clause was agreed to 33 to 49,
Two Democrats, Caffery and McEnery
of Louisiana, and Messrs. Allen and Kyle
voted with the Republicans in the affirlna-
tive and Messrs Mantle and Teller with
the Democrats in the negative.
The reciprocity section was next con-
sidered, Mr.. Allison Offering the new pro-
vision, the text of which has been hereto
fore given. 1t was changed slightly by
providing that the reciprocity treaties be
made, "by and with the consent of the
Senate In brief, the section authorizes
the President to negotiate commercial
treaties to extend not more than five years
and granting reduction of the duties
imposed by this act to the extent of not
more than 20 per cent thereof for the
transfer during that period of designated
articles from the dutiable to the free list
being the natural products of such
countries and not of the United States.
Mr.. Mills of Texas said that the pro-
posed amendment sought to deprive the
House of Representatives of it's constitu-
tional rights to originate and participate
in ALL revenue measures.
Mr.. Vest took the same view, while Mr.
Allison and Mr.. Hoar contended that the
participation of the House in the passage
of this bill, was an authorization of the
treaties.
Mr.. Vest spoke of the assaults of this
bill on Germany, Japan, Argentine and
other countries and declared that not one
of these countries would want a reci-
procity treaty with us after being thus
assailed.
Mr.. Morgan said that while he shared
this view at one time. the United States
Supreme court had passed upon the re-