The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-09


Iular government Is three million dallars.
Mr. Lindsay-What was the cost during
he last year OF Spanish dominion there
Mr.. Foraker cannot tell
Mr. Lindsay-Did il amount to one-third
Of that
MIR. Foraker-Yes. it amounted TO four
millions. and It was a miserable govern
ment al that.
Mr.. Gailinger-Nou must remember that
Ne are assigning about a million dollars TO
sai1d school houses, and about million 10
Sonstruct roads
Mr.. Forake--Spain eXacted four uilions
3 year from Porto Rico and spent ID only
as Spain knows how 20 spend money.
Spain did not spend IL for the school
houses. We have done more for schools
IN Porto Rico since we have been there
than Spain did in three centuries.
Nr. Scstt-Do you provide for courts in
Porto Rico?
Expenses IN Detail.
Mr.. Foraker-Certainly; we provide for
q complete civil government We have
executive. judicial. and legislative depart
ments. We appropriate the three millions
In this way: one million 20 defray the
expenses Of the government and msinte-
nance Of jails and almshouses. Then we
provide FOR the expenditure OF nearly
are no roads there except two or three
military roads. There are no highways.
nothing but bridlepaths. The prosperity
OF the island requires that there shall be
large expenditures made for that purpose
sn the near future; and we estimate that
one million OF the three millions may be
expended in that way.
Mr. Davis-You estimate the expenditure
OF million dollars for schools and mil
lion for roads?
Mr.. Fofaker-Yes
Mr. Davis-Ts il necessary TO do that
within two years. or might not the time
be properly extended
Mr. Foraker eneral Davis testimony
was that there should be at least a million
year expended on roads Tor quite a num-
Der OF years.
Mr.. Davis-The Senator from Ohio sd-
mits that this method Of raising revenue
and handing it back to a political sub
division OF the country is without prece-
dent. II has not been done for Hawaii and
has never been done for any Territory.
The theory and practice has always been
for the General Government to pay itself
all the expenses Of a Territory. Why not
raise the revenue in Porto Rico. cover it
into the Treasury, and pay IL by means
OF direct appropriation? What is the
reason that this tariff rate. anomalous.
unheard Of, unprecedented. and temporary,
should be applied to Porto Rico. while
the other day a bill was passed In the
other house appropriating two millions for
the island from the Treasury?
Mr.. Forsker-There has never been an
instance where IL has been the practice
10 collect revenues in a Territory, cover
them into the Treasury and then 3ppro-
pirate them for the benefit OF the Ter
Titory. The case Of Porto Rico is auoma-
lOus and without precedent, not only as
10 the legislation proposed, but also as
to the conditions which exist there II
Porto Rico is to have schools and roads.
81 must have money; and il is an utter
impossibility to raise money there by
direct taxation on property.
Mr.. DaYis-Then the wise and proper
thing to do is to make an appropriation
from the general revenues OF the Govern
ment.
Mr.. Foraker-This bill is not unjust and
ungenerous. as charged. We are doing
for Porto Rico what has never been done
for any other Territory. Whether that
is good policy is a matter FOR the Senate
to consider have undertaken TO show
that il Is. that it is one Of the necessi- +
ties Of the case. and that we should be
liberal and generous to the extent to
which ! have indicated.
Mr.. Davis-Where is the justice Of i'm
posing on Porto Rico the Dingley bill
and then turning round and imposing Is
per cent on her exports to the United
States?
Mr.. Foraker-Whore is the justice OF
imposing the Dingley bill on the people
OF the United States?
MY question is not separable2" Mr.. +
Davis objected.
DinGIey Law Necessity.
But I shall separate it II ! think it." I
Mr.. Foraker snapped back. The question .
implies that there is some injustice in
imposing the Dingley law on the people Of .
the United States. The Dingley law was .
a necessity OF our condition. Under il +
the country has been brought 10 a pros
perity never realized before"
Mr.. Davis-So old a protectionist as I .
an is not 10 be put in a false position by
anybody.
Mr.. Foraker-I do not want to place the .
Senator in any false position.
Mr.. Bacon-I understand that the pro-
ducers in Porto Rico have been already
paid FOR their products to which this IS
per cent applies. Am correct in that?
Mr.. Foraker do not pretend to have
any personal knowledge about it, I un-
derstand that the tobacco and sugar have
been bought very largely by the tobacco
and sugar trusts.
Mr.. Hoar said he would like to state
constitutional difficulty which occurred 10
him.
IAN seasons are summer, Mr. Foraker
quoted pleasantly. when the Senator
from Massachusetts has q question to
ask"
Mr.. Hoar stated the diHiculty at some
length II was that as a duty on exports
is forbidden by the Constitution. the pro-
posed duty Of Is per cent on goods from
the United States and Porto Rico would be
q violation Of that prohibition.
Mr. Foraker replied that the Constitu-
tional prohibition had no application what
ever 20 the government Of Porto Rico or 70
the action OF Congress in governing the
island The persistence. he added. with
which the Senator from Massachusetts
pressed his points showed that the question
had passed beyond the law-b book stage"
And that Is your answer Mr.. Hoar in
terposed.
That last sentence was not Intended as
an answer 10 the Senator's question" said
Mr.. Foraker This debate has been going
on practically two years. and there are two
opposing views. / might stand here and
discuss the opinion OF the Supreme Court
from now until the last Porto Rican has
starved to death without my being able 10
make any impression whatever on the Sen
ator from Massachusetts. or any other Sen
ator. and without their being able to make
any impression upon me. for men con-
WINGED against their Will are OF the same
opinion still"
There never Will be a settlement OF
this question except by the Supreme Court
OF The United States. And I rejoice In the
fact that the provisions Of this bill are Of
such a character as 10 make IL inevitable