Evening star., 1900-04-04
Speech by Representative Lane Of
Iowa.
SENTIMENT OF The PEOPLE
1t is Opposed to the Measure Al
ready Passed.
ESIDENT'S MESSAG GE

Porto Rican tariff Mr. Lane is repub-
| lican.
He was not here to vote on the bill when
it passed the House, but he has been west
and knows the sentiment of the people. 1t
will be remembered that the lower branch
of the Iowa legislature recently expressed
views in line with Mr. Lanes position. Mr..
Lanes speech was made during the debate
on the Hawaiian bill
'If by this tariff bill, Mr.. Chairman"
said Mr. Lane, 'it was intended to fasten
upon this country a permanent policy. then
l say it is only consistent that a lapse of
more than four weeks since its passage
and a constant discussion ever since has
only intensified the people of this country
against it. This sentiment is not only one
from the people who live beyond the Ale
gheny mountains and upon the Mississippi
river. 1t is not confined alone to the states
of Indiana and Iowa and Illinois and Min
nesota, but see by vest arday's paper that
1t has broken out in the old state of Rhode
Island, and / ask the clerk TO read the
speech of Governor Dyer of Rhode Island.
delivered last Saturday. he being candi-
date for reelection, who appreciates the
sentiments of the people of his state" The
extract was read and Mr.. Lane continued:
The Sentiments of the People.
''This question appeals to the sentiments
of the people. 1t arouses their judgment.
justice. equity and right And l now warn
you that whenever the standard of justice
and right of any political party materially
differs from the standard of the people
upon any great question, the people rise in
their might and that party goes down In
defeat. Therein, I say, to a large extent
is to be found the safety and the perpetuity
of our form of government
Mr. Chairman, concede, If we may, that
&c rnt tba info h,-t 1Ni h
lish permanent doctrine of tariff inequali-
ty. Concede, IL We may. that this legisla-
tion is purely temporary. Is 1t eXpedient?
Is it wise? Leave out of the discussion all
query as to Its legality, ii the constitu-
tionality of it. Is it wise? Is it eXpedient?
Two reasons, Mr.. Chairman, have BEEN
given which 1t is claimed estab blish both the
necessity for and the wisdom of the bill.
What are these claims, and what do they
establish? AS L understand it. the first
necessity suggested for the bill is the claim
that to establish a civil government on an
equality without a tariff of some amount
will embarrass the future in relation to the
Philippines In other words, to maintain
and preserve the claim that the Constitu-
ton does not extend to the Philippines. we
must put tariff of some amount on Porto
Rico; that by enacting a tariff on Porto
Rico of 10 per cent, any other amount,
We thereby stop the Constitution from ex-
tending to the Philippines, or rather place
the republican party record as saying
that the Constitution does not extend to
newly acquired possessions, such the
Philippines, except by express enactment.
The Constitution.
why. would be glad to have the Con-
stitution stop from extending to the Philip
pines, but it does seem to me that the
passage of a plain and simple resolution
from Congress directed to the Philippines
would most clearly establish the position
of the republican party on this question.
The people would know exactly what was
said and possibly what was intended.
Let us not grind the poor Porto RicanS
with tariff tax for two years to the tune
of S4,OO0OOO for the purpose of studying
the Constitution with relation to the Philip
pines. l do not know how that method
impresses you. but I would say that it was
course of study entirely too long and eX
pensive, and the Lord only knows whether
the poor Porto Ricans would be able
stand the treatment or not. 1 am afraid
not
But 1t is suggested that the tariff bill
will furnish means to raise the constitu-
tional questions and have the Supreme
Court decide them within two years. Well.
that may be true, but why go to all this
trouble? When did the Constitution extend
to Porto Rico, if at ala | do not believe
wait till the 1st day of February. 1900. 1t
went, if 1t went at all. when our military
forces took possession under the Paris
treaty: and If it extended at all it has been
there ever since.
During all that time and now the United
States has been collecting the Dingley tariff
law under the Constitution, and it seems
to me, although I do not profess to be a
constitutional lawyer, no difficulty could
arise to start litigation in relation to the
payment or the refusal to pay the Dingley
tariff. That would bring all the light on the
Constitution that the proposed bill can pos
sibly bring. And notice by reading the Rec
ord of last Saturday that the senior senator
from Indiana in his remarks stated it to
there in
the courts of New York city litigation
against the customs collector for over ST.
soo.oao. upon the ground that the ConStitu-
ton extended to Porto Rico and that the
duties could not be lawfully collected"
Mr.. Grosvenor's Suggestion
Mr.. Grosvenor-"If it will not interrupt
the gentleman, will he allow me to make
a suggestion there? There are several
suits of the character suggested by the
gentleman pending. but they do not and
cannot raise in those cases the same ques-
ton that will be raised by an actual en-
actment of Congress affecting that terri
tory This only raises the question
whether or not the acquisition of Porto
Rico put an end not to the power of Con-
gress to legislate over it. but to a law a.
ready existing. which only did have APP
plcation to the ports of the United States
and to goods coming from foreign terri
tory Therefore. the real question that
must affect all the island possessions mus
De d Inherent one ana raised IN a different
suit from the one that the gentleman is
speaking about. That is my suggestion
Mr.. Lane-'I am very thankful for the
suggestion. / have heard of it before. bat
iC seems to me that there is no question
but what the proposition want to have
raised can be raised without going through
the farce of laying down a tariff upon a
district that belongs in and is a part of the
United States. 1 say. Why depart from
the plain path of duty here so clearly
stated by President Mckinley in his mes
sage to Congress? Why depart from the
plain path of duty acceptable to the
people of this country and the people of
Porto Rico? Why. let us look at the
Record. On January 10, 1900. only a few
months ago, the Congressional Record
shows that the gentleman from New York,
the chairman Of the ways and means COM
mittee (AIr. Payne), on this side of the
House. himself introduced plain duty
BILL No. $3.50.
THAT bill simply and clearly extended
the customs laws and the internal revenue
laws of the United States to Porto Rico-a
bill drawn upon the plan of the plain
duty'-a bill to establish equity, and that
was all. If that bill had been reported to
this body in my judgment, it would have
received at that time the support of every
member on this side of the House, if not on
the other. Why? Because at that time ii
was in accord with the individual judg-
ment of the members of this side of the