Page images
PDF
EPUB

He spoke in praise of President Cleveland's stand upon the tariff question. In conclusion he said:

If any President ever satisfied the American people that he subordinated private ends to public interests, and had the courage to express his convictions, regardless of personal consequences, President Cleveland in this message, in his veto of the dependent pension bill, and in his enforcement of absolute integrity in the conduct of public officials, high and low, has satisfied them that he is acting with an eye single to the public good. He can say, as the Marquis of Montrose said to those who urged temporizing measures on him as the safest:

He either fears his fate too much,

Or his deserts are small,

Who dares not put it to the touch,
And win or lose it all.

The debate in the Senate repeated the arguments on the general subject of the tariff, which had been presented in the House, and entered extensively into the discussion of the schedules of the Senate bill. Owing to the fact that the presidential campaign was at its height the speakers often lost sight of the particular issue before them and entered into general indictments of the opposing party and eulogies of their own.

The session closed before the bill came to a vote. Republican success in the presidential election of 1888 killed the bill. Senator Benjamin Harrison [Ind.] was elected President.

THE TARIFF OF 1890

[THE MCKINLEY BILL]

William McKinley [O.] Introduces in the House a New Revenue BillDebate: in Favor, Mr. McKinley, Julius C. Burrows [Mich.], John H. Gear [Ia.], Joseph H. Walker [Mass.], Sereno E. Payne [N. Y.], Daniel Kerr [Ia.], Robert M. La Follette [Wis.], Nelson Dingley [Me.], David B. Henderson [Ia.]; Opposed, Roger Q. Mills [Tex.], Benton McMillin [Tenn.], Roswell P. Flower [N. Y.], Benjamin F. Shively [Ind.], Charles F. Crisp [Ga.], William McAdoo [N. J.], William M. Springer [Ill.], Amos J. Cummings [N. Y.], John M. Allen [Miss.]; Joseph McKenna [Cal.] Opposes Free Sugar; Joseph G. Cannon [Ill.] Opposes Free Works of Art; Mr. McKinley, Henry Cabot Lodge [Mass.], William C. P. Breckinridge [Ky.] Defend Free Works of Art-Bill Is EnactedGrover Cleveland Is Re-elected President.

O

N April 16, 1890, William McKinley [O.] reported from the Committee on Ways and Means the tariff bill which bears his name. It came forward for discussion in the Committee of the Whole on May 7.

THE MCKINLEY TARIFF BILL

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 7-21, 1890

Mr. McKinley explained the measure.

In the bill which the Committee on Ways and Means have presented we have not been compelled to abolish the internalrevenue system that we might preserve the protective system, which we were pledged to do in the event the abolition of the one was essential to the preservation of the other. That was unnecessary. [Applause.]

The bill does not amend or modify any part of the internalrevenue taxes applicable to spirits or fermented liqucrs. It abolishes all the special taxes and licenses, so called, imposed upon the manufacture of tobacco, cigars, and snuff, and dealers

therein, reduces the tax upon manufactured tobacco from 8 to 4 cents per pound, and removes all restrictions now imposed upon the growers of tobacco. With these exceptions the internal-revenue laws are left undisturbed.

From this source we reduce taxation over $10,000,000, and leave with the people this direct tax which has been paid by them upon their own products through a long series of years.

The tariff part of the bill contemplates and proposes a complete revision. It not only changes the rates of duty, but modifies the general provisions of the law relating to the collection of duties.

Here Mr. McKinley went into detailed discussion of several of the modifications. Among these were the following:

1. A repeal of the provision which allows the United States to import any article for its use free of duty.

2. The value of personal effects accompanying the passenger returning from foreign travel to be limited to $500.

3. Foreign merchandise imported into the United States to be stamped with the name of the country in which such articles are manufactured.

4. All articles manufactured in whole or in part in any foreign country by convict labor to be prohibited. Mr. McKinley continued:

By way of encouraging exportation to other countries and extending our markets, the committee have liberalized the drawbacks given upon articles or products imported from abroad and used in manufactures here for the export trade. Existing law refunds 90 per cent. of the duties collected upon foreign materials made into the finished product at home and exported abroad, while the proposed bill will refund 99 per cent. of said duties, giving to our citizens engaged in this business 9 per cent. additional encouragement, the Government only retaining 1 per cent. for the expense of handling.

We have also extended the drawback provision to apply to all articles imported which may be finished here for use in the foreign market. Heretofore this privilege was limited. This, it is believed, will effectually dispose of the arguments so often made that our tariff on raw materials, so called, confines our

own producers to their own market and prevents them from entering the foreign market, and will furnish every opportunity to those of our citizens desiring it to engage in the foreign trade.

Now, the bill proposes that the American citizens may import any product he desires, manufacture it into the finished article, using in part, if necessary, in such manufacture domestic materials, and when the completed product is entered for export refunds to him within 1 per cent. of all the duty he paid upon his imported materials.

That is, we give to the capital and labor of this country substantially free trade in all foreign materials for use in the markets of the world. We do not require that the product shall be made wholly of the foreign material. Already, under special provisions of laws and regulations of the Treasury Department, the fact that parts of a finished product are made here and attached to the finished article does not deprive the exporter of his drawback.

We have extended this provision and in every way possible liberalized it, so that the domestic and foreign product can be combined and still allow to the exporter 99 per cent. upon the duty he pays upon his foreign material intended for export; which is, in effect, what free-traders and our political opponents are clamoring for, namely, free raw material for the foreign trade. And, if you are desirous of seeing what you can do in the way of entering the foreign market, here is the opportunity for you. [Applause on the Republican side.]

In the same direction we have made, by section 23, manufacturing establishments engaged in smelting or refining metals in the United States bonded warehouses, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, and have provided that metals in any crude form, requiring smelting or refining to make them available in the arts imported into the United States to be smelted or refined and intended for export in a refined state, shall be exempt from the payment of duties. This, it is believed, will encourage smelting and refining of foreign materials in the United States and build up large industries upon the sea coast and elsewhere, which will make an increased demand for the labor of the country.

Here Mr. McKinley discussed the important changes in the rates of duty which the bill proposed. The committee, he said, had recommended increased duties upon glassware, carpets, and tinplate. He continued:

An advanced duty is placed also upon wheat and other agricultural products. Though we are the greatest wheat-producing country of the world, the increased product of other nations during the past few years has served to diminish proportionately the demand for ours; and if we will only reflect on the difference between the cost of labor in producing wheat in the United States and in competing countries we will readily perceive how near we are if we have not quite reached the danger line so far even as our own markets are concerned.

In the further interest of agriculture the committee has recommended an increase of duty in the wool schedule. It is also to be noted that having increased the duties on wools we have also increased the duties on the product-the manufactures of wool-to compensate for the increased duty on the raw product.

Now as to the free list, Mr. Chairman, we have taken from it and placed upon the dutiable list eighteen articles, ten of which are products of agriculture. If these eighteen articles are imported in the same quantities dutiable as now the revenue will be increased in the sum of $2,456,030.14.

We have taken from the dutiable list and placed upon the free list forty-four articles, which last year yielded a duty of $60,936,536, $55,975,610 from sugar alone.

Here the speaker discussed at length the question of foreign trade. He said in conclusion:

If our trade and commerce are increasing and profitable within our own borders, what advantage can come from passing it by, confessedly the best market, that we may reach the poorest by distant seas? In the foreign market the profit is divided. between our own citizen and the foreigner, while with the trade and commerce among ourselves the profit is kept in our own family and increases our national wealth and promotes the welfare of the individual citizen. Yet in spite of all the croaking about foreign trade our exports were never so great as they are to-day. We send abroad what is not consumed at home, and we could do no more under any system.

And, if the United States would give the same encouragement to her merchant marine and her steamship lines as is given by other nations, her commerce on the seas under the American flag would increase and multiply. When the United States will expend from her treasury from five to six millions a year, as do France and Great Britain, to maintain their steamship lines,

« PreviousContinue »