TARIFF REVISION. 



783 



While the classifications and rates of duty 

 fixed in the schedules were not satisfactory to 

 all the members of the commission, they re- 

 ceived their final assent. Commissioner Un- 

 derwood, however, did not concur in the 

 recommendation for the establishment of a 

 customs court. Commissioners Ambler, Por- 

 ter, and Underwood withheld their approval 

 from the retention of compound duties in any 

 case. Commissioner Ambler did not concur 

 in recommending the abolition of duties on 

 what are known as "dutiable costs and 

 charges," considering those to be a legitimate 

 part of the cost of the goods. Commissioners 

 Garland and Ambler recommended the adop- 

 tion of a system of valuation for goods, subject 

 to ad valorem duties, based on the value of the 

 goods in the markets of the United States at 

 the time of their importation. With these 

 qualifications, the report was signed by all the 

 members of the commission, except Mr. Mc- 

 Mahon, who died before it was finished. 



The report was referred, on the first day of 

 the session of Congress, to the Ways and 

 Means Committee of the House of Representa- 

 tives, which proceeded to construct a bill of 

 its own, based on the suggestions of the com- 

 mission. The Finance Committee of the Sen- 

 ate also set about framing a measure which 

 was attached as an amendment to the House 

 bill for reducing internal revenue taxes which 

 had passed the lower branch at the preceding 

 session. The Senate bill was the first to be 

 reported, and was called up for consideration 

 on the 10th of January. The House bill was 

 reported by the Ways and Means Committee 

 on the 16th. A caucus of the Republican 

 members of the House, held on the 19th, de- 

 cided that it should be brought up for con- 

 sideration on the 21st, and have preference 

 over all other legislation, except appropriation 

 bills, until disposed of. It was not, however, 

 brought up until the 25th. Both the House 

 and Senate bills contained many variations 

 from the rates proposed by the commission, 

 and some changes in classification were made. 

 The Ways and Means Committee of the House 

 had taken a number of articles, including qui- 

 nine, from the free list and subjected them to 

 duties, and had raised the rates in many cases, 

 especially in the metals and wool and woolen 

 schedules. In the Senate bill there were 

 fewer instances of increase, while some re- 

 ductions were made from the rates proposed 

 by the commission. The two bills were under 

 discussion, and subject to amendment, for sev- 

 eral weeks. Many changes were made in the 

 Senate bill, the general disposition appearing 

 to be in favor of reduction, while there was 

 a strong pressure of special interests to main- 

 tain or advance rates. The schedules which 

 excited most debate were those including lum- 

 ber, iron and steel, sugar, and woolen manu- 

 factures. By the 20th of February the House 

 had practically abandoned all effort to dispose 

 of its own measure, and had failed in an effort 



to pass a bill for the reduction of internal 

 revenue taxes by a two -thirds vote under a 

 suspension of the rules. On the date men- 

 tioned the Senate passed its bill, by a vote of 

 42 to 19. Nine Democratic Senators voted 

 for the bill, and 18 against it Mitchell, of 

 Pennsylvania, being the only Republican re- 

 corded in the negative. 



The bill as passed by the Senate was satis- 

 factory neither to the revenue reformers nor 

 to the high protectionists. The latter class 

 had the predominating influence, and were 

 determined to secure further modifications by 

 forcing the matter into the hands of a com- 

 mittee of conference, without permitting a 

 direct vote on the question of concurrence in 

 what was nominally an amendment of the 

 House revenue bill, or on the question of 

 passing the bill. The measure might be passed 

 under a suspension of the rule by a two-thirds 

 vote, or it might corne up for concurrence or 

 non-concurrence in the Senate amendment, 

 when the question could be settled by a ma- 

 jority vote. The chance of its being reached 

 under the rules for the latter action was slen- 

 der, and a rule was proposed by Mr. Kasson, 

 of Iowa, permitting the House to take up the 

 bill for concurrence or non-concurrence at any 

 time by a majority vote. Those who desired 

 to make further changes in the rates, were not 

 willing to risk the chance that the bill might 

 pass by a two-thirds vote under a suspension 

 of the rules, if a motion to that eifect were 

 made, and were afraid that the Senate amend- 

 ment would be concurred in, should a vote on 

 that question be taken under the proposed new 

 rule. Their desire was to shut off every al- 

 ternative but a reference to a committee of 

 conference. A caucus of Republican mem- 

 bers of the House was held on the 22d of 

 February, and, after considerable discussion, 

 the following resolution was adopted : 



Resolved, That in the opinion of this caucus the 

 House should vote to non-concur in the Senate 

 amendment to the House revenue bill, and should 

 refer the same to a committee of conference of five 

 members from each House. 



Although there were 118 members present 

 at the caucus, only 85 votes were cast for the 

 resolution. Mr. Kasson tried to get a decla- 

 ration in favor of so amending the rules as to 

 "enable the majority of the House to reach 

 and finally act at this session upon the reve- 

 nue and appropriation bills," but did not suc- 

 ceed. On the 24th the House Committee on 

 Rules reported the following : 



That during the remainder of this session it shall 

 be in order at any time to move to suspend the rules, 

 which motion shall be decided by a majority vote, to 

 take from the Speaker's table House bill iNo. 5,538, 

 with Senate amendments thereto, entitled " A bill to 

 reduce internal revenue taxation," and to declare a 

 disagreement with the Senate amendments to the 

 same, and to ask for a committee of conference there- 

 on, to be composed of five members on the part of the 

 House. If such motion shall fail, the bill shall re- 

 main on the Speaker's table unaffected by the decision 

 of the House on said motion. 



