The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-06-09

'iie seu Tate III the bill, 80 cents per bushel.
we now enter upon series of enor-
!g liious increases In behalf of the farmer, J"
sald Mr.. vest, ironically, "and withou
violating the rules Of Parliamentary
shame and pretense.'
He declared that the idea of protecting
the farmer on barley, wheat oats. etc, :,
when millions OF bushels Of these pro-
ducts were being exported was palpable
1t was designed to cajole the farmers by
absolutely spectacular duties.'
HIt was an old stale subterfupe. he
asserted, ''and the Republican party
was trying to play on the Ignorance Of
the farmers, by saying:
My dear bucolic friend, we. YOUR
friends, will undertake to deceive YOU as
we did in 1890 in order to catch your
votes.'
Mr.. Gear, Iowa, lnterposed the state
ment that the debate was on the barley
paragraph, and on barley the imports
from Canada, where there was cheap labor
and cheaper lands, were over II 1000, ,OUO
bushels the year prior to the Mckinley
act and these fell to 5000, 900 bushels af-
ter that act.
Mr.. Gear said the farmers of his state
supported this increase duty on barley
and the Grand Master of the State Grange
was one of it's chief advocates.
Mr.. Vest turned his attention to general
features of the tariff debate reverting to
the course of some of his Democratic as :
sociates in supporting revenue tariff
rates.
On corn meal Mr.. Vest moved to SUBJ
stitute 20 per cent or 20 cents per bushel.
Mr.. Pate, Tennessee, wanted a record
vote on all these cereals but Mr.. Vest
said it was useless as he was afraid the
votes would show that the Democratic
vote was lonesome.
The Vest amendment was disagreed to
without division.
offered an individual amendment to be
known as paragraph 225 1-2, placing a
duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem on raw
cotton. Mr.. Bacon said the omission OF
this article from the dutiable list was
violation of the principle of the Democra-
tic platform that tariff taxation should
be SO imposed as to discriminate against
no section.
Mr.. Platt, Connecticut, who was in
charge of the bill pending Mr.. Allison S
absence, indicated a readiness for vote
favorable to the amendment and Mr..
Chandler, Republican of New Hampshire,
added
''We are just dying to support the Sena-
tors amendment.
''Of course they will vote for it, - re-
marked Mr.. Vest sotto voce.
Mr.. Vest said the amendment would be
adopted as it was in the line of increased
rates of duty and would receive Republi-
can support for that reason and because
it was calculated to cause dissension in
the Den ocratic party. He claimed that
the addition of the 20 per cent. provided
would simply add that amount to the
finished product. He took issue with
Mr.. Bacon on the contention that the
amendment was In line with the platform
adopted at Chicago. IT, he said 81
had thought the platform meant what
the Senator from Georgia says it does, I
would not have touched it any more than
would have touched rattlesnake
knowing there was no whiskey within a
hundred miles. God help us If the new
evangelists prevail
In conclusion Mr.. Vest said that he
had as a southern Democrat always
pointed with pride to the fact that cotton
was admitted free of duty, as showing
the Democratic consistency in supporting
free raw materials. Hence his disappoint-
ment that this amendment should be pro-
posed by a southern Senator as it would
justify and open the way for a duty on
wood, lumber and all other articles classed
as raw material. Indeed" he ex-
claimed, cit leaves us naked, without ar
gument."
Mr.. Jones, Arkansas, also opposed the
amendment in an incisiye speech. He
agreed with Mr.. Vest that the Republi-
cans would support the amendment in the
hope of creating dissension in the Demo-
cratic party, and added that they also
would support it for the purpose of Sc
curing an excuse for increased compensory
duties on cotton manufactures.
During a colloquy between Mr. Bacon
and Mr.. Gray concerning the Democratic
doctrine of tariff for revenue, Mr. Ma
son, Illinois, called for order so that he
might hear this family JAR"
Mr.. Gray asked if Mr.. Bacon believed
in a tariff for revenue only.
Mr.. Bacon answered that he believed
in tariff 'for revenue, but not for
tariff for revenue only" He insisted
that the tariff platform of the Chicago
convention did not contemplate revenue
duties which utterly ignored questions as
to the justice or injustice of the duties
toward sections or classes. He insisted
that the fundamental principle of the
Democratic party was to restrict the
tariff to revenue purposes and in impos-
ing it for that purpose to give equal bene-
fits and equal burdens to all sections.
In closing Mr.. Bacon referred to state
ments that his tariff views were shaped
by the interests of his own state. AS it
was recognized that the country was to
have revenue tariff bill he intended to
see to it that his state received an equal
share of it's benefits, for, in the words of
the Bible, the man who does not care for
his own household is worse than an in
fidel
Mr.. Stewart, Nevada, created amuse-
ment by declaring that the hair splitting
and distinctions between a revenue tariff
and protective tariff was all ''tweedle
dee and tweedle dunn - He had followed
this subject for thirty years and no did
not understand this new language relat-
ing to the tariff. The Georgia Senator
(Bacon), was right, Mr.. Stewart said,
in seeing that his state should receive the
same benefits as other sections "What
are we here for,' asked Mr. Stewart
vehemently. ''To get the Offices sug-
gested some Senator jocularly in stage
whisper.
''No, not all of us, - continued Mr..
Stewart, "we are here to represent our
constituents and see that our states have
equal rights under the tariff and all
other laws"
Mr.. Stewart insisted that it was time
the raw materials of the south and west
received equal benefit with the manufact-
ured products of New England
The discussion had evidently aroused
much feeling amOnp Senators and this