petitors of small capital ruined, that they may gobble up their factories to increase their fortunes, would coin money out of the sufferings of their fellow-men.

On the other hand, these smaller manufacturers, in patriotic love of country and a fellow-feeling for the men at the loom and work-bench, some of whom are their fathers, brothers, and cousins, and all of whom were so recently their companions as wage-earners, are fighting a hard battle with greedy importers and traders, whose profits at the expense of their customers are from twice or four times as much on many imported goods as on better goods of the same kind which are sold at the same prices to the consumer.

David B. Henderson [Ia.] supported the bill. He spoke particularly upon the question of trusts.

Trusts have only been born and become able to walk during the last four or five years under Mr. Cleveland's administration. How does it come that the ninety-five years when there were no trusts and when there was constant protection are lost sight of? Does any intelligent person wish to be understood as believing that the tariff creates the trusts?

If any facts could be presented to support this theory, then would come this question:

Where do you get the four leading trusts of this countrythe Standard Oil trust, the cotton-seed trust, the anthracite-coal trust, and the whisky trust, the greatest and most powerful in the country? Have they any parent? Are these four great Democratic trusts bastards? [Laughter and applause.]

It will not do to bring up and maintain such a doctrine on the floor of the House of Representatives. The tariff has created no trusts. But I will tell you what is true, Mr. Chairman. Strike down protection, leave the industries of this country to grapple unprotected against the cheap labor from abroad, and the combinations and trusts that now control every industry in Europe, reaching with strong arm into the tea and the coffee and the sugar industries of every country, yes, and reaching out to control the markets of this country-strike down that protective barrier and what must be the result? The industries of this country will be forced into combinations and trusts in order to save their very life. Protection is a great panacea for the very evils of which you complain, and it will do much to solve the question of destroying the trusts and combinations. [Applause.]

Joseph McKenna [Cal.] opposed putting sugar on the free list, saying this was a blow to the principle of protection and a repudiation of Republican declarations.

Mr. Chairman, we can not make sugar the scapegoat of the surplus without involving the protective system itself; and, believe me, sir, we have struck it a harder blow than any tariffreformer or free-trader has ever struck or can strike, unless he strike on our principles; and, sir, will it not be odd if future Democratic Congresses shall quote a Republican Congress and put wool on the free-list on protection principles? [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.]

I think the Committee on Ways and Means has made a mistake. It appears to have acted under the influence of a scare about the surplus, and has cast to the pursuit of the tariff reformer the most precious thing we have, as the Russian woman tossed her children to the pursuing wolves.

On May 20 John M. Allen [Miss.] opposed the bill. In the conclusion of his speech he said:

I have noticed through this whole debate the representatives of the "jute-bagging trust," that has been preying on our cotton-planters for a few years back, sitting in the galleries watching the McKinley bill, in which they have so much interest and which is to be passed without our having an opportunity to vote an amendment to put jute bagging on the free-list. Our cotton-planters ought to feel very grateful to the Republican party for increasing the duty or tax on cotton-ties from 35 per cent. to 115 per cent. This certainly ought to earn for the Republican party the everlasting gratitude of the colored Republicans of the South. This is one of the greatest outrages of this outrageous measure.

I had hoped that I might have an opportunity before the final vote was taken to offer as an amendment to this bill a bill I have prepared providing for an income and succession tax. I wanted to make some of these great fortunes pay some of the taxes, bear some of the burdens of the Government. I made application to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole several days ago to get recognition for the purpose of offering such an amendment. I did want a vote on it so as to let the people see where the members of this House stand. But it is very evident the Ways and Means Committee do not mean to

let us vote on that, or but very few other amendments. Never mind, gentlemen, the income tax will come.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I must close; but before doing so I had promised to give some word of consolation to the representatives of the combinations, trusts, and struggling infant industries, who are watching this debate with so much interest from the galleries, and as I have discussed this bill in poetry and prose I will now close the discussion in song, which is really my strong suit. This is for the struggling infants. SEVERAL MEMBERS.-Sing, sing!

MR. ALLEN, of Mississippi.-It is (Singing)

Rock-a-bye, babies, you are on top,

When the fat fries the cradle will rock;
When the fat stops the cradle will fall,
And down come Republicans, babies and all.
Rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye; nothing to fear;
Rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye, the G. O. P.'s here.

[Great laughter.]

Joseph G. Cannon [Ill.] moved to retain the existing duties upon works of art, which the bill placed on the free list.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the law had better stand as it is touching these productions. They are luxuries. They go to the few, and the policy of the Republican party, as outlined in its platforms and illustrated by its practice heretofore, requires that they shall be upon the dutiable list. I offer this amendment at the request, I believe, of the majority of the members of this side of the House, and I hope it will be promptly adopted.

Mr. McKinley opposed the amendment.

I should regret very much if this provision of the bill were stricken out by the Committee of the Whole. It has been asked for by substantially all the artists of the United States. A committee of the Union League Club of the city of New York two years ago sent inquiries to every artist in the United States whose address could be found, in order to obtain an expression as to the desire of members of the profession touching the question whether works of art should be dutiable or should be admitted free.

There were 1,435 replies received from artists in the United States, and out of that entire number 1,345 petitioned the Congress of the United States to remove this onerous duty upon art which is for educational purposes. And I want to simply read to the committee what the artists themselves have said upon the subject.

JOSEPH H. WALKER [Mass.].—They are the workingmen. MR. MCKINLEY.-They say:

We, as American artists, proud of our country, confident of its future, and jealous of its honor and credit, are opposed to all special privileges and discrimination in our behalf. We ask no protection, deeming it worse than useless. Art is a universal republic, of which all artists are citizens whatever be their country or clime. All that we ask is that there should be a free field and no favor, and the prize adjudged to the best.

[Applause on the Democratic side.]

HENRY CABOT LODGE [Mass.].-An impost is either a tax, pure and simple, for the purpose of raising revenue only, or is a duty imposed to protect home industries. In the nature of the case this duty must belong to the former class. It is not a protective duty, for no one, of course, pretends for a moment that you can create artistic genius by a protective tariff. The artists of America, who are the producers in this case, desire free art and they desire it in the interest of art alone.

I say let us encourage the importation of works of art in the interests of the people, for it is really and in the end in their interest, and in theirs alone. All the greatest works of art in the world to-day belong to the people, and are gathered in the galleries and museums, which are open to mankind, and which give pleasure and instruction to all alike, to gentle and simple, to rich and poor. The rich man buys them, it is true, but in the end the people own them, and the ownership of the people is perpetual.

Let us encourage the importation of all that is best in painting and sculpture, and not, by degrading them to the rank of a luxury, put a tax upon education and popular pleasure and instruction. Let us leave them free, too, for the sake of our artists and for the benefit and development of American art. [Applause.]

Our own artists are now forced to go to Europe, where schools of art are thrown open to them, owing largely to the fact that we put a burden of this character upon art here and keep pictures and sculpture out of the country, drying up the springs from which the museums and galleries are fed.

WILLIAM H. H. COWLES [N. C.].-How about the copyright bill? We want free knowledge as well as free art.

MR. LODGE.-It stands on exactly the same principle as the copyright bill. Universal copyright, which places all writers on the same footing, is free copyright. I would make art and literature free, and every artist and every literary man asks for the same thing. They ask justice and a fair field, nothing more and nothing less.

MR. CANNON.-The gentleman from Ohio says the artists in this country are not demanding protection. I do not vote for this bill as a matter of protection for the artist. I vote for it in harmony with the platform of my own party, recognizing that these works of art are luxuries and therefore, in the language of the platform, the men who buy them in this country to the extent of a round million of dollars every year can afford to pay 30 per cent. ad valorem upon them. [Applause.] That is the reason I propose the amendment.

For schools of

Now, a further word about this matter. art, for art purposes, and for institutions of education, under the law now and in this bill, these works come in free for that purpose, and there is the education of the people to which reference has been so strongly made.

Another thing: over on the other side, in Italy, the sculptor who does the mechanical work and carves out the slab of marble works cheap. It is not done by the artist who conceives the sculpture himself; and therefore I can readily understand how parties of great wealth in this country, who are able to buy these works of art when they do come over, and how people of this country who desire to avail themselves of that kind of labor on the other side, can go to the marble quarries there and make this statuary out of cheap marble, utilizing the cheap labor for that purpose.

I think this provision should be stricken from the bill, and I ask a vote upon the amendment. [Cries of "Vote!" "Vote!"]

WILLIAM C. P. BRECKINRIDGE [Ky.].-Mr. Chairman, extremes meet. The artist is indeed the highest form of skilled labor. You cannot think of a man having higher art and more skill than he; and with the eye and intellect of genius and the hand of skill he produces a great picture; and therefore he is in favor of free trade, and the more you get of skilled labor the less protection you will need for anything. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

I am in favor of the provision of the bill because it is a step in the right direction. I am in favor of it because it is becom