nessing the violation of their confidence in this new license for unlimited pillage. Amusing, indeed, were the ponderous assurances of Mr. Taft that the Republican party would revise the tariff downward. His volcanic predecessor realized the hopelessness of such a proposition and evaded it to the last. Is it possible that the complacent Mr. Taft may succeed where the bifocal whirlwind that recently swept from Washington to Oyster Bay failed utterly? [Laughter.] I say to you that there is more real power in one 5-cent cigar between the iron lips of Joseph G. Cannon, the stand-pat leader, than in the big sticks of a whole regiment of Roosevelts and Tafts. [Laughter and applause.]

On March 27 Nicholas Longworth [O.] supported the bill. In defending the Republican party in its relation to the tariff he said:

The President of the United States, in his inaugural address, said that, on account of the changes in conditions since the passage of the Dingley Act, a measure could be drawn on a principle equally protective which will permit the reduction of rates in certain schedules and require the advancement of few if any.

This bill illustrates the truth of that statement.

A number of gentlemen on that side have said that this bill in effect was not a reduction measure; that the reductions were insignificant in number. I propose to show that this claim is not founded on fact.

I do not see any better way to determine whether a tariff bill reduces duties than to take the number of duties it reduces, and the Payne bill has reduced five duties for every one that it has increased; and if you include the whole free list and include those articles transferred from the free list for dutiable purposes it reduces fifteen articles for every one that it increases. If that is not a genuine reduction I do not know how there can be one.

On March 29 Ollie M. James [Ky.] opposed the bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal said about the Republican platform and its provisions with reference to the question under consideration. The truth of it is that the last utterance of the Republican platform was the highest protectivetariff declaration ever written by any party. All the other Re

publican platforms heretofore have contented themselves by declaring for a protective tariff that would equalize the cost of production at home and abroad; but the Republican platform adopted at Chicago in 1908 goes a step farther in this pillaging of humanity and declares not only that the tariff shall be high enough to equal the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad, but in addition thereto that there shall be given to the manufacturer a "reasonable profit." Now what is a "reasonable profit"? Who shall decide how much it shall be? And what right have you to provide that a certain class of our people shall receive a "reasonable profit" from all the rest?

As the trusts gather about this bill, looking over its various items, seeing safely written upon its pages their continued license to steal, a broad smile spreads over their faces, as they throw their hands up and exclaim, "Thank God, there is loot enough in it for us all!" [Laughter and continued applause on the Democratic side.]

On March 31 William Sulzer [N. Y.] opposed the bill as class and sectional legislation, and as injurious to our foreign trade. On the latter point he quoted President McKinley's last speech. He continued:

Sir, there is not a line in the Payne bill to restore the American merchant marine; and increase our revenue by taxing the carrying capacity of foreign-built ships in our deep-sea trade; and it is a matter of much regret that the few Republicans in Congress who control its affairs and dictate legislation favor a ship-subsidy bill, which is another phase of protection, but no remedy at all, only a mere temporary makeshift to rob the many for the benefit of the few by taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayers generally and giving it to a few favored individuals.

Sir, I am in favor of immediate action by Congress for the resumption of the shipping policy which prevailed under the first five Presidents of the Republic, and which brought forth and maintained the best merchant marine on the ocean without the cost of a cent to the American people. We do not need to take a dollar out of the treasury of the United States to revive our shipbuilding industries or restore our merchant marine. All we need to do is to repeal the restrictive laws against our deep-sea shipping now on our statute books, put in their place laws similar to the navigation laws that were enacted by the

early statesmen of the country-laws that built up our merchant marine in those historic days-laws that placed our flag on the high seas and gave us nine-tenths of our entire over-seas carrying trade, and we would do it if it were not for the greed and the selfishness of the shipping trust. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

On April 1 Joseph H. Gaines [W. Va.] supported the bill. He spoke chiefly on the question of trusts. In conclusion he said:

I do not hesitate to say that, so far as I am concerned, being as hostile to what are known as "trusts" in all their unlawful operations as any other gentleman on this floor, I yet would not send the business of the country out of the country, even if it were under the control of a trust; and it might just as well be repeated here, that it may be known to as many persons as possible, that this country is the least trust-ridden country in the world. The other countries of the world have trusts more than we have. They may not have such big ones; they cannot have anything of any kind as big in a small country as in a country the size of this; but it ought to be known-and our Republican speakers have made very little of this fact in the great debates they have held with our Democratic friends-it ought to be known that, whereas our Government does whatever it can to destroy trusts or prevent their formation, almost all the other commercial countries of the world foster and aid the formation of manufacturing and selling combinations.

Arsène P. Pujo [La.] opposed the bill, particularly its provision for an inheritance tax.

I am not entirely persuaded that the inheritance tax, as provided for in the measure, will stand judicial scrutiny. While, of course, an inheritance tax has always been construed not as a tax upon property, but as a tax upon the right of succession, yet strong argument could be urged that it is as much a tax upon real estate, constituting the principal asset of the inheritance, as it was held in the income-tax cases that a tax upon rents was a direct tax, and could only be levied by apportionment among the several States. Conceding for a moment the constitutionality of this measure, the policy of its adoption is of doubtful wisdom.

The effect of the adoption of this measure would be the im

position of a double tax upon the right of inheritance by bequest or by the operation of law.

The measure under discussion provides for a tax upon all inheritances exceeding $500. It is my firm belief that a large per cent. of the tax contemplated under this provision would be collected from people of moderate means, whose estates would not exceed $5,000 or $10,000, and I do not believe that it is a wise policy to impose taxes which would be borne principally by one class of people. However, it seems these days that the function of government is to devise new methods of taking away from the people that which they have worked for instead of making their burdens as light as possible.

Samuel W. McCall [Mass.] supported the bill.

I believe of this bill, as a whole, when we consider the necessities for revenue and the general conditions of the country, that it contains the best set of tariff schedules ever submitted to the House of Representatives by a Committee on Ways and Means. While it recognizes the principle of protection to American industries, and recognizes it as a national and not as a sectional policy, it is leveled against the idea that it is an important function of tariff taxation to increase the fortunes, already great, of those gentlemen who have secured control of some of the great natural resources of the country, or that it is a function of a tariff law to put duties so high that producers in this country by a combination to destroy competition may use them for the purpose of extorting excessive profits from the people.

On April 5 John Dalzell [Pa.] submitted, from the Committee on Rules, a resolution that general debate on the bill should close and certain specified amendments (as to duties on lumber, hides, barley, and petroleum) be acted upon. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 195 to 178.

The bill was amended upon the designated points generally by an increase in duties, and was passed on April 9 by a vote of 217 to 161.

The Senate referred the bill to the Committee on Finance, which, through its chairman, Nelson W. Aldrich [R. I.], reported it with amendments on April 19. It was debated at great length until July 8, when it was passed

by a vote of 45 to 34. A conference was appointed, which reported on July 30. Mr. Payne spoke upon the report on July 31.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this conference report, I do it with confidence that it will be accepted by this House and that it will be accepted by the country at large as meeting the full requirements of the Republican platform, as meeting the pledges made by our candidate, now the President of the United States [applause on the Republican side], and at the same time will not stop a single wheel of industry, will close no factory, and will deprive no man of labor at a decent, fair wage. [Applause on the Republican side.]

The Senate did not agree with the House as to its provisions in the bill. Exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution, and in accordance with the usual practice, they made many amendments. Many of them were substantial. Great was the divergence of thought and great the disagreement as to the provisions of the bill. Your conferees have had no easy task in the past three weeks in striving to maintain the mandate of the House as put forth in the bill which passed the House. We have made concessions. We have exacted concessions from the Senate, and the concessions on both sides are embodied in this report. I am frank to say that many of the concessions which we made to the Senate improved the original bill, and, on the other hand, some of the concessions which we were obliged to make did not improve the original bill. But I think upon the whole the result is one upon which we may congratulate ourselves on having framed a bill which, if it becomes a law, will reflect credit upon the Congress which enacted it. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Here Mr. Payne discussed in detail various schedules of the conference report, comparing the duties with those imposed in the House bill. The most important changes were as follows:

The ad valorem duty on cotton was increased from 40.87 per cent. to 44.07.

The duty on paper was advanced from $2 a ton to $3.75.

The reciprocity provision concerning bituminous coal was omitted, and the duty reduced from 67 cents a ton to 45 cents.