The times., 1897-06-25

men5 specifically, but everyone smiled
at the description.
Mr. Caffery then got up and said: MI
President, now propose to make lew
remarks on the pending bill, which
statement amused the Senator's and Mr..
Cafferv himself lie first xamined tariff
doctrine in the abstract and then replied
to tile new Democratic principles enun-
ciated recently in the chamber His
general reply was: Precedent and prin
cipie alike refute these propositions. Vet
Gran Democrats, who Were born and will
die with true Democratic faith in their
mud and hearts, repudiate them. They
look upon them as an effort To cruelty
their creed And, like the Christian who
embraces the image OF his crucified savior
as the last hour of mortality approaches,
So will they embrace and cling with
love and faith which no sophistry can
destroy and no temptation betray--el,e
ancient doctrine of tariff for revenue
onIy-as the nearest approach to that
free trade hoped for by the Democratic
party. Is it possible that we deDounce
plunder only to join the plunderers?
That we point to the straight and honest
path of Democratic duty only, and then
tread the primrose path of Republican
wickedness2 That We .abhor sin and join
the sinners?''
Mr.. Caffrey's speech was d general re-
view of tariff legislation from the early
times TO the present; and covered in great
measure great many considerations which
have already been presented to the Senate
A very interesting part of his contention
was the exhibit showing that from 1S47
70 nricpc
higher under free trade on that material
than since 1890 under q tariff. Brave
words and many words have been spoken
about prosperity, but it cannot come by
law, but by trade, which the other side
is trying 10 destroy.
"To sum up, L believe in tariff on
luxunes. l believe in an income tax.
believe in tariff on imports, to be placed
solely in the Golfers of the Government and
not in the pockets of private individuals.
/ do not believe in protection, save for
the citizen, as to his inherent and constitu-
tionaI rights and liberties.' tApplause)
Mr. Jones, of Arkansas, continued his
argument on section 363, he having moved
To insert the words where wool is the
chief component" instead of ''in part Of
wool" AS the law stands it will give
Il 1dEr1C tIc DtllcJG Oh Il teIili Oh Wuui
even if it contained only a small part Of
wool Even in the case where fabric
was one-half cotton and ont half wool, 1t
was un lust TO give the compensation as If
it were all wool. And so when the bin
proposes to extend fun compensation in
cases where there was only one-teDth wool
the outrage was more apparent. This
plain matter OF fact could not be denied
OF cvaded Mr.. Jones said 1t was frand
and tie other side knewit
Mr. Allison did not attempt to reply aid
permitted the rolll to be called without
defense.
On Mr.. Jones' motion to have the duty
regulated with reference TO the component
of chief value the vote was yeas %, nays
80.
This was undoubtedly the most flagrant
steal in the bill, and none of its injustices
was more definitely proven.
Mr.. jones renewed his amendment as
TO the next section, lis idea being that
Guties shall he laid on the components of
fabric equitabIy.
Mr.. Allison said that he did not propose
TO have foreign wool introduced in fabrics
under the guise Of wool. He said tina. it
was practically impossible to determine the
relative components of wUol-cotton
fabric.
Mr.. Jones asked how did the trainers
of the hll hold the exact reverse in the
silk and flax schedule.
Mr.. Allison said that the cases were
different because in the wooi-cotton fabric
1t would be necessary to determine the
relative weights of tie comronents.
Nr. Jones said that the same must be
true of Ill mixed imported goods; to which
Mr. Allison said that Mr.. Jones merely
differed from all the other experts. The
roll was called on MI. Jones motion and
resulted. yeas %, nays %.
Mr.. Jones then moved that the specific
duties on wool shall not 20 into effect
until twelve months after the passage of
the bill Mr.. Allison, he said, had admitted
there was now n twelve months supply
OF wool in the country, and ii was unfair
to give compensation to manufacturers for
wool on which no tariff had been paid.
Mr.. Vest said that the arguments OF Mr..
Jones were unanswerable. The compen-
satory duty was simple gratuity to the
manufacturers, it was a robbery under
the form OF law.
Mr.. Plart said there was nothing 20 show
that this years supply of wool was In
the hands Of the manufacturers. 1t was
possibly in the hands of SPECTATORS
Mr.. Caffery remin ded Mr. Platt that Mr..
AldTich had stated that they did not cx-
pect any great revenue from wool Cor
about two years.
Mr.. White said it was not likely that
thr wool manufacturers were SO blind TO
their own interests that they had not
bought wool in advance.
Mr.. Mills said that Mr.. Platt's theory
was rather a c1eation of his imagination.
AS matter of fact, the manufacturers do
their own buying through very high-priced
experts.
Mr.. Allen made speech, In which he
said that the United States Senate was
acting In a very Juvenile way by con-
suming time in the splitting Of hairs and
the discussion of greasy wool. The bill.
he said, would fail In its object; and if
things were carried out to their logical
conclusion, with greenbacks and legal
tender notes retired, there must be In the
end an extension of the taxing power, and
the final submission of the country to the
jackals, the manufacturers, the bankers,
and the railway corporations. 1.-The bill, :"
he said, will fall short Of producing the
required revenue 1 want to see that the
body of honest American citizens who
believe there is hing in the tariff
Issue learn from bitter experience-if they
can't learn it wiSe-tbat the tariff
is n delusion and a snare; and that the only
question for the American people to decide
the great question which they must de-
eide, and must decide correctly, of the
Government is to survives the oueSt i'm