1T2 



CONGRESS. (THE DIXGLEY BILL.) 



mats, rugs, screens, covers, hassocks, bedsides, art 

 squares, and other portions of carpets or carpeting, 

 made in whole or in part of wool, the specific square- 

 yard duty imposed on each of such articles by said 

 act approved Oct. 1, 1890, and subject to all the 

 conditions and limitations thereof, in addition to 

 the ad valorem duty imposed on such articles by 

 said act which became a law Aug. 27, 1894. 



"SEC. 3. That from and after the passage of this 

 act and until Aug. 1, 1898, there shall be levied, 

 collected, and paid on all imported lumber and 

 other articles designated in paragraphs 674 to 683, 

 inclusive, of an act entitled 'An Act to reduce 

 taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, 

 and for other purposes,' which became a law Aug. 

 27, 1894, a duty equivalent to 60 per cent, of the 

 duty imposed on each of such articles by an act en- 

 titled ' An Act to reduce the revenue and equalize 

 duties on imports, and for other purposes,' approved 

 Oct. 1, 1890, and subject to all the conditions and 

 limitations of said last-named act ; but pulp wood 

 shall be classed as round unmanufactured timber ex- 

 empt from duty : Provided, That in case any foreign 

 country shall impose an export duty upon pine, 

 spruce, elm, or other logs, or upon stave bolts, 

 shingle wood, pulp wood, or heading blocks ex- 

 ported to the United States from such country, 

 then the duty upon the lumber and other articles 

 mentioned in said paragraphs 674 to 683, inclusive, 

 when imported from such country, shall be the same 

 as fixed by the law in force prior to Oct. 1, 1890. 



" SEC. 4. That on and after the passage of this act, 

 and until Aug. 1, 1898, there shall be levied, col- 

 lected, and paid on all the imported articles men- 

 tioned in Schedules A, B, C, D, P, G, H, I, J, L, M, 

 and N, of an act entitled ' An Act to reduce taxa- 

 tion, to provide revenue for the Government, and 

 for other purposes,' which became a law Aug. 27, 

 1894, a duty equivalent to 15 per cent, of the duty 

 imposed on each of said articles by existing law in 

 addition to the duty provided by said act of Aug. 

 27, 1894 : Provided, That the additional duties im- 

 posed by this section shall not in any case increase 

 the rate of duty on any article beyond the rate im- 

 posed thereon by the said act of Oct. 1, 1890, but in 

 such case the duty shall be the same as was imposed 

 by said act: And provided further, That where the 

 present rate of duty on any article is higher than 

 was fixed by said last-named act, the rate of duty 

 thereon shall not be further increased by this sec- 

 tion, but shall remain as provided by existing law." 



In the debate of three hours and a half which fol- 

 lowed the bill was supported by Mr. Dingley, of 

 Maine ; Mr. Payne, of New York ; Mr. Dalzell, of 

 Pennsylvania ; Mr. Hopkins, of Illinois ; Mr. Grosve- 

 nor, of Ohio ; Mr. Johnson, of Indiana : Mr. Ar- 

 nold, of Pennsylvania ; Mr. Dovener, of West Vir- 

 ginia ; Mr. Watson, of Ohio ; Mr. Knox, of Massachu- 

 setts; Mr. Dolliver, of Iowa; Mr. Wilson, of Ohio; 

 and Mr. Meiklejohn, of Nebraska. It was opposed by 

 Mr. Crisp, of Georgia; Mr. Dockery, of Missouri; 

 Mr. Wheeler, of Alabama ; Mr. Turner, of Georgia ; 

 Mr. McMillin, of Tennessee; Mr. Underwood, of 

 Alabama; and Mr. Bell, of Colorado. 



Mr. Dingley said in part: 



"The Committee on Ways and Means immedi- 

 ately took up the subject and proceeded to con- 

 sider what measures of relief could be proposed. 

 The first thing that attracted the attention of the 

 committee the first in order because the most im- 

 portant and lying in large measure at the very 

 foundation of "the difficulties through which the 

 Treasury had passed was the fact that for two 

 years and a half there has been a constant defi- 

 ciency of revenue an insufficiency of current in- 

 come to meet the ordinary expenses of the Govern- 

 ment until that condition has become chronic. 



" Gentlemen have said in the debate upon the 

 rule which was presented that there is no demand 

 for more revenue, that the revenue is sufficient. I 

 remember that in the last House, almost a year 

 ago, when I presented upon this floor what seemed 

 to me the urgent demand for an increase of rev- 

 enue, it was replied by gentlemen on the other side 

 that ' next week,' ' next month,' there would be 

 revenue sufficient. And so we have gone on with 

 this cry of hope all through this year up to this 

 hour; and almost every month from the 1st day of 

 July, 1893, up to to-day there has been an insuffi- 

 ciency of revenue to meet the current expenditures 

 of the Government, amounting now to the enor- 

 mous sum of $132,000,000. And in the present 

 fiscal year, commencing on the 1st day of July last, 

 up to night before last, there was, as shown by the 

 official report in my hand, a deficiency of $18,500,- 

 000 ; and in this very month of December, as shown 

 in the same way, there has been a deficiency ap- 

 proximating $3,000,000. 



" Now, gentlemen tell us that there is revenue 

 enough to meet the expenditures of the Government. 

 What do they mean ? What does the Secretary of 

 the Treasury mean when he says that we need no 

 more revenue? What did he mean one year ago 

 when he communicated to one of the Houses of 

 Congress that there was no need of additional rev- 

 enue I His own reports presented from day to day 

 show that there has been a deficiency all through 

 this fiscal year, and never larger than at this mo- 

 ment. He means simply this (and I ask the atten- 

 tion of the House to the manner in which this issue 

 is being avoided, for I wish to show the evil results 

 which flow from it) he means that after he has 

 borrowed gold under the resumption act of 1875 

 for the purpose of redeeming United States legal- 

 tender notes as they are presented for redemption, 

 and after those notes have been thus redeemed by 

 the proceeds of bonds sold, he has taken the very 

 United States notes thus redeemed and immediate- 

 ly paid them out to meet a deficiency of revenue 

 from day to day, from month to month, and from 

 year to year. I ask, gentlemen, if so plain and 

 practical a matter as this is to be met in this man- 

 ner, what difference does it make if the Secretary 

 of the Treasury sells bonds and immediately uses 

 the proceeds to pay, a deficiency in the revenue, or, 

 having first used the proceeds of the bonds to re- 

 deem greenbacks, then to turn around and use the 

 greenbacks to pay the necessary expenses of the 

 Government and meet the deficiencies of the rev- 

 enue? I ask gentlemen to point out the difference. 

 Is not this in effect practically selling bonds to pay 

 the deficiency ? 



" Now. Mr. Speaker, if this policy is to be pur- 

 sued, if we are to go on with insufficient revenues 

 to meet the expenses of the Government, and then 

 when bonds are sold for gold to redeem outstand- 

 ing legal-tender notes those notes are to be imme- 

 diately used to pay deficiencies of revenues, then I 

 say to you that the ' endless chain ' of which the 

 Secretary of the Treasury complains is fully estab- 

 lished, and he may continue selling bonds without 

 limit to put gold into the Treasury, taking the 

 greenbacks to pay the deficiency in revenue, and 

 never stop the raids upon the Treasury gold. Is 

 there any doubt of this? Can it be questioned? 

 And yet gentlemen say to us that because we have 

 to-day $75,000,000 of cash above the redemption 

 fund in the Treasury $25.000,000 being required 

 for a working balance, leaving $50.000,000 of free 

 United States notes gentlemen tell us that we 

 may proceed to use those notes to meet a deficiency 

 in the Treasury, placing the notes so that they may 

 be presently presented for a second redemption in 

 gold, and still need no more revenue. Is there any 



