The San Francisco call., 1897-07-20

price for the animals on which they grow,
bat be the means of adding to the receipts
of the great cattle trust AS whole the
proposed bill levied a tax of 140 per cent
on articles imported into the country
against 81 imposed by the Mckinley bill
and "a by the Wilson.
Swanson of Virginia, also a mem ber of
the Committee on Ways and Means, de-
voted himself largely to the sugar sched-
ule in discussing Dingley's assertion. The
pending bill, he said, gave the refiner less
protection than the Senate's schedule.
Swanson alleged that the differensiaI was
40k cents per 100 pounds, instead of 1213,
as claimed by Dingley, on granulated
sugar. Swanson figured out that the diff
ferential under the Wilson bill in favor of
the trust was 29H cents per 100 pounds
while under the proposed law it would be
7S $40 cents per 100.
Debate was con tinued by Ball and Lam
ham Of Texas, Fleming of Georgia, Handy
of Delaware and Kelley of South Dakota
the Speaker filled the gap with the start
ling suggestion:
1.-The question is upon agreeing with the
report"
Whereupon Bailey remarked: "Because
there does not appear to be any one on the
Republican side ready to defend the
report, the chair must not assume that
there is no one on this side to attack it. !"
Looking over the Democratic seats, he
continued: None of the mem bers of the
Committee on Ways and Means being pre-
pared to speak, | ask recognition for my
colleague. DR.. Lanham."
The same experience was repeated Just
before Fleming took the floor, and he had
an hours time simply because none of the
leaders desired the time.
Al 5:55 the House barely escaped a vote
L.- l.
agreeing to a recess until 8 o'clock.
The novelty of night session filled the
galleries, and at o'clock the desultory
discussion was resumed by Mcdowell of
Ohio. The speech of the evening was by
Bailey, who spoke first of the fact that the
final settlement of the question was not
with the House nor with Congress. but
with 100000 voters of the country, and
to them he submitted q statement of his
views. In his opinion 1t was impossible
that the country could have prosperity
under the present financial system, nor
would any fnan cial system make the peo-
pie prosperous when farmers were COM
PEELED to pay exorbitant prices for manu-
factured goods
Discussing the Wilson bill, Bailey said
that the country had seen this despised
and nameless outcast vindicate itself as a
tariff measure, until fair minded men to-
day acknowledged that under normal con-
ditions it would raise money enough to
oefray all proper expenses.
mo i'm portant measure in the history
of this country" he said, twas ever en-
acted under circumstances so unfavorable
for its fair trial. 1t was denounced on it's
final passage by the author Of it and it
was discredited by Cleveland whose course
in reference to it no one would undertake
at this time to defend. For waen the
passions of that contest had cooled we
were all ready to agree that his duty to
his party required him to approve that
bill or else his duty TO the country re-
qured him to disapprove 1t. There was
no middle ground. If the bill was so bad
that for the sake of his party he could not
sign it, then it was 80 bad that for the
sake OF his country he ought to have
vetoed it; but he stuDbornly refused to do
either and suffered it to become law,
derided by foes. deserted by friends''
The remedy for deficiency, Bailey said,
was economy OF expenditures rather than
increase of taxation. Protection inter-
fered with the free interchange of products
with foreign countries, which is the basis
of International commerce and which
must curtail production. Il also fostered
COLE nations of capital formed for limit
ing production in order to main tain
prices. AS TO the sugar schedule Bailey
said:
81 am not willing to charge in this high
place that the Republican party has sold
its intellect and conscience to the sugar
trust, and / prefer 10 believe that it has
been driven by the logic of its position TO
the assistance z.-s...sss.e..aonoly which has
grown - ~. privileges