176 



CONGRESS. (THE DINGLEY BILL.) 



the Treasury of the United States was the effect of 

 untoward trade conditions and of the passage of 

 the Sherman act, which, under the Treasury con- 

 struction, resulted in an issue of $150,000,000 of 

 gold obligations, with no gold in the Treasury to 

 redeem them." 



In the course of his speech Mr. Grosvenor said : 



" First, let me point out to the gentleman from 

 Georgia, who has attempted a comparison be- 

 tween the two administrations, that it is an un- 

 fortunate suggestion of his that we should now 

 institute a comparative statement between the 

 two administrations. During the administration 

 of Benjamin Harrison we paid off nearly $250,000,- 

 000 of the national debt and destroyed the bonds, 

 and put an end to the necessity to relieve the coun- 

 try of that burden. Under Mr. Cleveland's admin- 

 istration we have already increased the national debt, 

 first, by $162,500,000 of bonds, bearing a high rate 

 of interest, added to an additional floating debt or 

 deficit, which present the sum total of about $200,- 

 000,000, and within the next ten days it is safe to 

 predict that the sum will be increased by another 

 $100,000,000 of bonds. All these are the true ele- 

 ments of comparison which the gentleman from 

 Georgia has entirely omitted to refer to." 



Mr. Turner said in the course of his speech : 



" We have more money in the Treasury than we 

 need ; why, then, should we want to put more of 

 the same kind of money there ? I have here a state- 

 ment from the Treasury showing the form in which 

 our customs duties have been paid during the last 

 few days. From this statement it appears that not 

 a cent of gold has been paid into the Treasury, not 

 a gold certificate has been paid into the Treasury, 

 not a cent of anything has been paid into the Treas- 

 ury under our customs laws but greenbacks and 

 Sherman notes. Why, I ask, should gentlemen seek 

 by another tax levy to pile up in the Treasury forty 

 millions more of this same kind of money, which 

 will no more relieve the situation than the money 

 of which we have already a surplus of over seventy 

 millions. 



"But, sir, gentlemen to commend this bill claim 

 for it magnanimity on their part. They assume 

 that they are coming to the relief of this Adminis- 

 tration. The Administration declines it. 



" Mr. Speaker, there lies behind this measure a 

 motive which is not apparent on its face or in the 

 avowals made by its friends and champions on the 

 other side. My friend from Tennessee adverted 

 briefly to the motive which directs this measure. 

 It is proposed by this measure to put the tariff 

 question behind for the session. What has come 

 over the 'grand old party' that its chieftains dare 

 not meet responsibilities on their own account? 

 What is it that has induced them to tent on our 

 abandoned camp grounds ? This is a bill which 

 treats in a special way, with a sort of popgun policy, 

 one or two articles ; and you ought to send by ex- 

 press an apology to William M. Springer, among 

 the savages in the Indian Territory. You de- 

 nounced that great Democratic statesman, William 

 K. Morrison, -for a horizontal bill, as has been said 

 here ; yet you have to-day simply adopted his pol- 

 icy, and you ought to send a resolution of thanks 

 tu him for having instituted a policy which you 

 are copying here in a great emergency. 



"And, sir, as was also stated by my friend who 

 {(receded me, this is a bill which is claimed by the 

 gentlemen advocating it to be a bill ' for revenue 

 only.' In view of the history of this country since 

 IMTfi, you ought to apologize to the Democratic 

 party and the whole world. I again ask you what 

 has come over the spirit of the 'grand old party"? 

 When I first came to Congress 1 heard one of the 

 gentlemen, now supported by his friends for the 



highest office in the gift of the American people, 

 declare that he was for a tariff for protection with 

 incidental revenue. He afterward gave to the 

 tariff which was constructed strictly on that prin- 

 ciple the benefit of his name. You say you can not 

 afford to enter now on general legislation. Why 

 can you not follow his lead ? He was once a doughty 

 champion in your cause. 



" If, as the gentlemen from Pennsylvania has said, 

 the existing law is wicked and iniquitous, why did 

 you not in two or three sentences provide that the 

 existing law be repealed and the McKinley act re- 

 instated ? It would have taken but a few words, 

 and it would have brought into the ranks all the 

 followers of protection. But you do not do that. 

 You see fit not to adopt the policies of your own 

 distinguished men. You repudiate their leader- 

 ship. You go back on all your own traditions, and 

 you misapply and pervert devices of ours that we 

 have long since repudiated. If you did not see fit 

 to repeal the Wilson act and re-enact the McKinley 

 law, why did not my good friend from Maine, the 

 distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways 

 and Means, offer here a bill to tax beer $1 a barrel 

 more a proposition which he favored during the 

 last Congress ? On this one item alone he could 

 have raised nearly all the money which he now ex- 

 pects to raise by a tax on the necessaries of the 

 American people; and it would not in any degree 

 have disturbed the business of the country. 



" Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that after distinguished 

 Democrats have been by Republican orators here 

 and elsewhere accused of dreadful crimes and com- 

 binations in connection with the sugar-trust scheme 

 in the present law, the gentlemen on the other side 

 have simply passed over that so-called iniquitous 

 feature without touching it up or touching it down I 

 They have simply followed their denunciation of 

 that scheme by letting it severely alone. Senators 

 were put under investigation on account of it, and 

 the President also came in for some share of abuse 

 in this connection ; but this bill stays its hand at 

 the sugar schedule ! 



" Why is it, if the Wilson tariff act is bad. that 

 this bill does not attempt to correct its wickedness? 

 Where is the courage of that great party ? Even 

 during the last Congress, as during all my service 

 here, there sat on that side a man from whom a 

 stern look was like the frown of offended majesty. 

 There was on that side a courageous hand the mere 

 motion of which could put down or put up every 

 member on that side. That same hypnotic hand, 

 once so potent in action, now silences associates 

 and represses their ardor while it wields the gavel 

 of this House. I think it is wise in him. I think 

 he will rejoice still more at the end of two years 

 from now than he did at the end of the last four 

 years if he can congratulate himself on having sup- 

 pressed a reagitation of the tariff during his pri- 

 macy in this Congress. But the country will take 

 up this battle." 



Mr. Arnold said : 



" But the gentlemen on the other side say there 

 is no deficiency and no need of revenues. I refer 

 them to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 

 page 52, wherein he states that the expenditures 

 exceed the receipts from July 1, 1893. to Dec. 1, 

 1895, over $130,000,000. How the gentleman from 

 Georgia can arrive at the conclusion that there 

 is no deficit it is difficult to understand, and 

 it can only be explained by believing that he 

 calculates from the Treasury reports with the same 

 peculiar system of mathematics which he applies to 

 the silver question namely, that the one half of 100 

 cents is $1. For months and months and many 

 months the deficit has been millions per month, 

 and this is known to all people who read. Your 



