CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



173 



" I can only say, as far as I am concerned, 

 that I shall be very glad to have this important 

 question taken up and discussed at the earliest 

 possible moment. Of course it touches the 

 revenue. We ail know the sensitiveness of the 

 other House of Congress on this subject, and 

 that any attempt upon the part of the Senate to 

 diminish a duty or to add a tax is at once looked 

 upon by them as an invasion of their preroga- 

 tive, and they find occasion to disagree with us. 

 Here is a bill which proposes to submit the 

 whole of this question to a commission, which 

 is certainly indicative of the desire of the Sen- 

 ate to see a systematic revision of the tariff in 

 preference to considering it piecemeal. I have 

 no doubt in my own mind that that is the prop- 

 er way that it should be considered, and have 

 signified that view by giving my assent indi- 

 vidually and reporting, as the organ of the com- 

 mittee, the bill favorably to the Senate." 



Mr. Garland, of Arkansas : " Two years ago 

 yesterday, I believe, I introduced a bill into the 

 Senate for the purpose of organizing a com- 

 mission on the subject of the tariff, which re- 

 ceived, I believe, the favorable indorsement of 

 the Committee on Finance. I introduced an- 

 other also at this session, the same bill in fact. 

 That bill was before the committee, and also 

 the bill reported from the committee, intro- 

 duced by the Senator from Connecticut. I 

 have been anxious, in fact, extremely so, to 

 have this subject brought up and considered, on 

 account of the very great want of information 

 we have upon it, deeming it necessary that the 

 subject should go to a commission in order to 

 furnish the Congress of the United States the 

 proper information in detail upon which to 

 legislate permanently. The Committee on Fi- 

 nance reported favorably upon the bill intro- 

 duced by the Senator from Connecticut, and 

 adversely upon the bill that I introduced. The 

 distinctive difference between the two bills is 

 that the bill of the Senator from Connecticut 

 provides for a commission outside of Congress, 

 and the bill that I had the honor to introduce 

 provides for a mixed commission, composed ot 

 members of each branch of Congress, and three 

 members outside of Congress. I am of the 

 opinion that that feature is better than the one 

 introduced by the Senator from Connecticut." 



Mr. Beck, of Kentucky: "Mr. President, I 

 desire only to say that, while the report of the 

 Committee on Finance presents the bill' of the 

 Senator from Connecticut, it is not a unani- 

 mous report. I shall oppose that bill to the 

 best of my ability, and shall insist upon the pas- 

 sage of the bill which will be moved as a sub- 

 stitute by the Senator from Arkansas. I am 

 one of those who believe that the two Houses of 

 Congress ought not to put themselves into the 

 hands of any body of experts outside, who may 

 make reports favorable or unfavorable, as they 

 may happen to be selected by the President, 

 but that the men who make the reports should 

 be members of the respective Houses, who can 

 be able to tell the reasons why they acted, so 



as to give all the information they can before 

 the respective Houses, and state the reasons 

 why. Outside commissions, I think, are gen- 

 erally managed (and J think it is very apparent 

 from the number of petitions presented before 

 us all containing a single letter from a single 

 man) for the purpose of advancing some spe- 

 cial interest. However, I merely desire to say 

 that the bill was not a unanimous report from 

 the Finance Committee." 



Mr. Eaton: "The Senator from Kentucky is 

 very much mistaken when he says that the pe- 

 titioners here are represented by the same class 

 of petitions. There has been one petition of- 

 fered by gentlemen of "every shade of opinion 

 upon the question of the tariff; a petition that 

 represents more than five hundred thousand 

 people ; a petition that represents an industry 

 that consumes 1,500,000 bales of cotton ; a pe- 

 tition that is represented by $200,000,000 of 

 capital, and these men are of every class and 

 shade of opinion with regard to the tariff'. 

 Therefore, the Senator from Kentucky, how- 

 ever much he may antagonize the bill which I 

 had the honor to introduce, ought not to say 

 that they are machine petitions, for, when the 

 petitions that are upon the table of the Senate 

 come to be examined, they will be found not 

 to be machine petitions at all. I ought to say 

 to my friend from Kentucky that in the bill 

 which he proposes to introduce there are three 

 of these very outside men, as it proposes a 

 commission to be composed of three members 

 of the Senate, three members of the House, 

 and three gentlemen not members of either 

 branch of the national Legislature." 



Mr. Dawes: "I now ask for the considera- 

 tion of the regular order." 



The Presiding Officer : " The regular order 

 is the bill known as the tariff-commission bill, 

 on which the Senator from Massachusetts is 

 entitled to the floor." 



Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa : " I desire to offer 

 an amendment to the pending bill. I under- 

 stand the Senator from Massachusetts intends 

 to direct his remarks to the bill introduced by 

 the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Eaton). 

 I desire to offer an amendment to that. I do 

 it that the Senator from Massachusetts may 

 direct his attention to it. 



" My amendment is to the text of the ori- 

 ginal bill, in section 3, line 7, after the word 

 'tariff' to insert 'and the existing internal- 

 revenue laws.' " 



Mr. Dawes: "Mr. President, I am in favor 

 of the bill reported by the Committee on Fi- 

 nance, because I am in favor of a revision and 

 reform of the tariff. Great inconsistencies 

 and inccngruities exist in the tariff. A great 

 many excessive duties remain upon the statute- 

 book. Many dutiable articles should be on 

 the free list, and many of the provisions of the 

 tariff have become obsolete and inoperative. 

 The present is a favorable time for such a re- 

 vision. The increased prosperity of the coun- 

 try and of all business in it has so increased 



