SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.


Debate on the passage Of the TARIFF BILL,
August 27 1912
{"character_count": 6087, "word_count": 1062, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9571999907493591], "ccnet_perplexity": [1157.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
I MIR. woodbury. spoke IN substance as follows:


Were we all pursuing one end by different
NODES it would be proper, in this great exi gency
to make mere form yield 10 substance. 1t would,
sir, be manly and patriotic to relinquish any di-
versity Of opinion about means-if all legal in
Ithemselves-in order to attain one important and
common object. Nor would l, for one, in such
a case, be behind either the Senator from New
York, or the Senator from Pennsylvania, in such
a public sacrifice.


But, unfortunately, that is not the condition of
the momentous question before us. From the
start sir, it has been the deplorable policy of the
friends of this bill to SEEK not end object,
but three: and those three involving principles of
cardinal Importance rather than being different
modes or means of subordinate consequence to at
I tain single purpose. Those three objects are,
first TO procure revenue to discharge the ordinary
obligations of the treasury and public cred
it from its present shameful depreciation; next, to
give direct, high and exclusive protection to man.
ufactures; and last, to assume, through distrbu-
ton, portion of the existing State debts There
is no use in circumlocution or concealment. These
have all been-these are all now essential ends
connected with the present measure. L shall not
add-as to any of them-that they are bad ends
in the opinion of their friends though, in my own
opinion, all are, in themselves incompetent and
llegtimate for the General Government to pursue,
except the first. That is a paramount object on





cure revenue should be the only object in a bill
entitled like this-"A bill to raise revenue" -


If it is also constitutional and expedient for us
virtually to assume State debts to the extent OF
three or four millions, why is it not attempted in
separate, independent measure? Why this log-roll-
ing and combination or bargaining, which unites
in one bill heterogeneous and irrelevant subjects,
and makes the success of one dependent on the
success or failure of another? If you have right
TO- CfaFo doh h1v ha IN ira
them in these distressed times, why not do it open
w. and not under cover of distribution of
plus, when no surplus exists So, if you have
the right to give protection to one branch OF IN
dustry, as legitimate constitutional end under
the powers of the Federal Government, and not
merely as an incidental consequence of duties i'm
posed for revenue why not march up manfuily to
such protection in a separate bill Why not, as
in France, expressly prohibit what comes from
abroad, and competes with our manufactures,
which it is deemed so important to cherish? ? Why
not add likewise, direct bounties in other cases,
where found necessary TO sustain them? That
would al least be Ineligible aboveboard, and the
country would see and understand what Congress
was really doing and that policy would not, as
in this case by an unnatural combination, embar-
rass or endanger the only avowed object of this
measure on its ace-which is, to raise revenue.
do not impute this to any one as designed
wrong: but merely state facts, and complain of
their bad tendency. This state of things, there
fore, developes a case where gentlemen are not
called on to Weld up forms for substance, as most
of us would cheerfully do in connexon with either
of the three great objects in the bill, If they stood
alone. But it is where we are required to
give up some one or two great ends, IN order to
secure another and are thus obliged to examine
and decide whether any end we obtain by the bill
is of sufficient magnitude to justify our voting for
other parts of it which we dislike and oppose.


This is the conflict and embarrassment The
whole secret has been inadvertently disclosed in
some of the remarks of the Senator from Massa-
chusetts. Manifestly, he deems the high protec-
ton in the bill to manufactures, of more lmpor-
tance than either distribution or revenue, or both
combined Hence, there is no wonder that he
should vote for it. though he loses thereby the 9TH
er desirable yet subordinate end of distribution
and lessons aso somewhat the still other (yet, in
his view, less vitaD end of revenue. While, on
the contrary it is to be inferred that other gentle
men, who deem distribution and the partial as
sumption of State debts by it, paramount to all
other considerations, either in party or public
view will vote against the whole bill, because 1t
suspends distribution .~-


An intermediate class of gentlemen-like the
Senator from New York-deem the last effect of
the BILL in relinquishing Distribution its greatest
merit; and on that account alone are induced to
vote for it. coupled with the consideration that it
secures the collection of revenue when now doubt
full and may be eminently useful to the manufac-
turing interest.


Now, sir if conceded in opinion with either
of these classes, should have voted with one of
them, without explanation or delay at this late
hour. But as l do not coincide with them,
minute or two more of the indulgence Of the Sen
ate is asked, to define my own position, and to
show the reasons which are to me conclusive for
still opposing the bill.


place out of view entirely the consideration
which seems to influence some-that we are like
" to have no revenue if they vote against the bill;
because the bill is destined to pass. If every Dem
ocrat in the Senate votes against it. This have
said and predicted from the outset. 1t secures a
high and discriminating tariff for manufactures
and that alone is sufficient, with most of the ma
iority in this body-the high-tarif party-to in
sure its triumph, whatever may be its violation OF
compromises, or its temporary effect on dstribu-
ton. Next it secures the rightful collection OF
revenue, when now it is, in their opinion, doubt
full; and when the imperative duty has been de-
yolyed on them ever since last June, at once to
provide for that contingency, ifnotling else:


But why Senator should vote for this bill who
is hostile to high and exclusive system of pro
tectop and who is looking to revenue as the CHIEF