Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-06-07
FIFTY-FIFTH CONGRESS-.
WASHINGTON, June Z.
SENATE.

In the Senate to-day Mr.. Quay pre-
scented several proposed amendments
to the tariff bill. One of them pro.
poses to strike out the duty on tea and
substitute duty of 10 per cent. ad va
loren on all articles proposed by the
bill to be placed on the free list, these
duties to continue until July /, 1901, af-
ter which the articles shall be exempt
from duty. Another amendment pro
poses a proviso to the paragraph fixing
3 duty on iron ore, so that all iron ore
from foreign mines owned by Ameri
can citizens and imported for their OWL
use and not for sale shall be exempt
from duty.
The consideration of the tariff bill
was resumed soon after the session
opened and the discussion proceeded
on the paragraph placing q duty of$2
per 600 feet on lumber. MIR. Allen
moved to substitute the provisions of
the Wilson bill which placed lumber on
the free list. The Senator spoke in par
ticular against restoring white pine to
the dutiable list, urging that the rates
were designed to be prohibitory against
Canadian pine.
There was nothing, he said, in the
"clap trap argument" of American high
wages, as the wages of lumbermen il
Canada were on the whole higher than
in the United States. This was simply
an attempt to pay back to the lumber
syndicate the advance which it had
possibly made less than year ago.
Larceny, he said, was larceny, no mat
ter under what name it was disguised,
and any law that permitted one class
of people to take from another class its
honest earning, was, in the eyes ofevery
honest man, nothing short Of absolute
larceny-legalized larceny. Mr.. Allen
referred TO the various interested ele
ments clamoring like jackals for the
benefits to be conferred by this bill.
Mr.. Berry spoke against restoring
the duty on white pine. He had been
appealed to by the lumber interests Of
his own State to support the duty but
he could not do it when it laid such
heavy tribute on the agricultural peo
pie of the western States. Mr.. Berry
expressed his establishment that any
democratic Senator would support this
restoration of duty on lumber.
Mr.. Bacon, VINO is supporting the
lumber duty, reminded Mr.. Berry that
his (Bacon's) support was due to the fact
that the duty was g revenue rather
than protective rate.
Mr.. Berry responded with a vehe
ment arraignment of the bill, framed,
he said, in the interest OF every trust
and combination in the country
When he saw in the bill that it gave
large increase of duty to the sugar trust
aud to every other combination Of capt.
tai, this satisfied him that the measure
was framed distinctly on the lines of
protection and not of revenue.
Mr. Gallery opposed the duty on
white pine and incidentally criticised
the position of Mr. Bacon, of Georgia,
who, he said, favored protective duty
This the Senator from Georgia denied.
Mr. Gallery announced his opposition
to all protective duties. He favored
the imposition oil pure revenue duties.
He could not understand how MIR. Ba
con could defend the duty as revenue
duty.
''rhe platform stand on, interposed
Mr.. Bacon, ''the orthodoxy Of which
the Senator from Louisiana, may
not subscribe to (Mr. Gallery supported
the Indianapolis gold ticket warrants
my position"
Mr.. Gallery sat down, but Mr.. Hosr
brought both him and M. Bacon to
their feet. ~ suggest" said he, that
the Senators could save the time of the
Senate if they could agree upon terms.
The Senator from Georgia should ap-
ply his protection principles to sugar
and the Senator from Louisiana his pro-
lcctive principles to lumber"
IF the Senator will substitute reve-
rue principles for protective princi
ples,'" observed Mr.. Bacon good ma
turedly, 81 will agree"
"a protective duty on sugar by any
other name would be as sweet" re-
plea Mr.. Hoar, land be protective
duty still"
MIR. Bacon asked Mr.. Hoar what he
would do about duty on hides.
Mr.. Hoar said he would support
tariff bill lift contained duty on hides
which his colleagues thought proper.
He said he thought duty of cent q
pound on hides was not protection and
from that point of view was folly.
Mr.. Stewart insisted that while there
was duty on the products of leather
there should be protection on hides for
the benefit of the farmers who were
subject to competition from South
America.
Mr.. Gallery defended his vote on the
Wilson bill saying it was a protest
against the action of his own side in
changing the time when the bounty
should be repealed. He said while he
might have deceived himself Cd the
tariff, he did not, like MIR. Hoar, de-
ceive others.
Mr.. Hoar confessed that duty on
hides was absurd, but only because it
was not protection enough to do any
good.
MIR. Allen said Mr.. Hoar's statement
that the proposed duty on hides was
only one cent was not correct. He
then continued the debate on the lum-
Der schedule.
HOUSE.
Mr.. Bailey, the minority leader, was
in his seat when the House met to day
for the first time in fortnight.