Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-07-20

| the only sugars which competed Of 20 $40
per hundred pounds, and that under the
proposed schedule Of 70 $40 cents.
Mr.. Swanson and Mr.. Northway Ohio
| then had brief controversy over the sud-
den boom in the price of sugar stocks, in
| which the latter contended that sugar
stock had gone up in sympathy with the
whole market.
In concluding. Mr.. Swanson declared that
when permanent prosperity at last came
back to this country 1t would not show
Itself first In stock gambling exchanges of
Wall street.
One of the greatest demonstrations of
the debate occurred when Mr.. Lanham
Tex.), who followed, paid a tribute to VIII
liam ]. Bryan. The democrats cheered for
several minutes, and many Of the specta-
tors Joined in the demonstration.
Mr.. Ball CTex.), who secured few min
utes' time, declared that 1t was not I'M
democratic to advocate the raising of rev.
enue by duties on wool, sugar, lumber ETC.,
but he denounced democrats who sought
protection for the industries of their Sec
lions. In the protection game Of grab, he
said, the south and west would go to the
wall. The world sold the products of The
south.
Mr.. Fleming (Ga) severely criticised the
democrats who voted for duties on cotton
and white pine
Mr. Handy Oel) said that the passage
of the pending bill by the republican party
constituted political betrayal of the sound
money democrats who had been the re-
publicans' allies in the last campaign.
Mr.. Kelly IN. d. thought that If an anti
trust amendment had been placed in the
bill Its most dangerous fangs would have
been drawn. He was proud of having sup
ported a man last fall who was not in
debted to any trust or combine, and If he
was nominated in 1900 he would again sup
port him.
Mr.. Grosvenor (Ohio) interrupted Mr.
Kelly to say that the increase of the duty
on lead ore was placed in the Senate bill
by populist senators and held in the bill
by the populist on the conference COM
mittee. Mr.. Kelly challenged Mr.. Gros-
venor to name the senators.
1.-The two senators from Nevada" replied
Mr.. Grosvehor.
Il was not aware that Nevada had more
than one populist senator. at most" said
Mr.. Kelly mo man who votes for the
sugar trust Is populist.'
Mr.. Lewis asked Mr.. Grosvenor whether
1t was not a fact that the duties on white
lead gave the lead trust So, 10000 of pro-
lection.
piled Mr.. Grosvenor. smiling.
Il knew the latter was true" responded
Mr.. Lewis with his most debonair air. THE
republican party does not care what out
rage II commits Democratic laughter.)
The House then. at p. M. took a recess
until p m. under the agreement made
earlier in the day.
Mr.. Bailey's Argument.
Mr.. Bailey, the democratic leader, who had
been reserving his speech for the close,
took the floor after o'clock. He made a
carefully prepared argument, dealing more
with the general principles involved than
with details. Time and again during the
progress of his remarks the democrats
were aroused by his eloquence to a high
pitch of enthusiasm.
Representative Bailey said:
Mr.. Speaker, if the final settlement of
this question depended upon the vote which
We are about to take, l would consider it
an imposition on the patience of the House
to occupy its time in further argument be-
cause l know that nothing which I may
say will change the opinion, and that moth
ing which any man could say would change
the vote of a single gentleman on this
floor. But, sir, it is a fortunate c!rcum-
stance that this, like all other great ques-
tons in our country, must be settled finally
by the l5.oO0,O00 voters whose representa-
tives we are, and not by the 357 members
who compose this body. 1t is not to YOU
therefore, but it is to those who must de-
eide between you and that L desire to
submit a brief and dispassonate statement
of our views.
Il am one of those who think that while
the tariff is second in Importance to anoth-
er great question, 1t is nevertheless ques-
this country. My judgment is that the
question of finance and taxation are our
greatest economic questions and though
1t may be proper to settle them one at
time, both must be settled wisely before
this country can attain its highest pros
perity. No tariff legislation can make
this country prosperous under its present
financial system, and no financial system
could make the agricultural sections of this
country prosperous under tariff law which
compels the farmers to pay exorbitant
prices for their manufactured goods
nave never been an enthusiastic SUD-
porter OF the present law, because I can
not subscribe to the theory of free raw
materials, which is one of it's marked
characteristics: but with that exception. it
is very much better than 1t has ever been
credited with being: No important meas
ure In the history of this country was ever
enacted under circumstances SO unfayor-
able for its fair trial. 1t was denounced on
It's hnal passage by the author of It. and it
was discredited by President Cleveland
whose course in reference to 1t no one
would undertake at this time to defend
And yet. sir, we have seen this despised
ana nameless outcast vindfcate itself :.s
revenue measure at least until all fair
minded men will now acknowledge that as
1t stands today it woald raise money
enough, under normal conditions to defray
ell proper and current expenses; and that
II would have provided the means for a
gradual eXtingufshment of the public debt
Il Its income tax provision had not been
nullhed by that remarkable decision which
has done more to destroy popular conf
dence in the integrity of the Supreme
Court than all the enemies of that court
could have done in a hun ircd years
The pretense that the bill under con-
sfderation is designed primarily to increase
the public revenues is a false enc upon its
very face. because If that had been the oh
1ect 1t could have been accomplished with
out disturbing all the business interests of
the country by general revision of cur
tarin duties. slight change in the ex-
fsting law would have sufficed.
While there Is no reasonable doubt as
to what the republican leaders of the
House expected and intended to do, their
purpose has been, at least partially, de-
feated by the amendments of the Senate.
do not mean to imply that the dominant
party In the Senate is entitled to any
credit for playing at cross purposes with
their friends in the House, for the Senate
appear to have amended the House bill
not so much because they were opposed to
the object which the House had in view as
because they seemed to think that the
Houses zeal had outrun it's Judgment, and
that instead of yielding a surplus which
would enable the present administration
to collect and retire the greenbacks. it's
bill would have resulted in deficiency"
A Sensational Incident.
Just tefore the close of Mr. Bailey's re-
-