"The practice, sir, of counting members present and refusing to vote to make a constitutional quorum has not only been adopted in New York in the case cited, but in Indiana; in Tennessee; in Kentucky, and I pause to state that a bill so passed in that State and with full knowledge of the situation was signed by Hon. Proctor Knott, the then Governor, whose deserved high position as a lawyer is attested by his having occupied the position of chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives; in Illinois, and the regularity of such proceeding has been indorsed by the supreme court of that State in a case reported in Volume 113 of the reports of that court; in Ohio indorsed in like manner by the Supreme Court of that State, 37 Ohio State Reports; in Massachusetts, by a decision of the presiding officer of the Senate in 1885, and since followed; in Pennsylvania; in Virginia, by rule in the House of Delegates; and as I am credibly advised. in the State of Texas, on a ruling by Gov. Hubbard, not unknown to Democratic politicians, with so many States yet to hear from; and singularly enough, Mr. Speaker, not one so far as I can learn the

other way.

"The number of 'good Democratic precedents that could have been found' have not as yet materialized in a single instance adverse to our contention here.

"I am aware that the precedents in this body have in earlier days been against the view I am presenting; but gentlemen will notice that when the question was first presented, and decided by Mr. Speaker Blaine, it was considered rather as a matter of parliamentary procedure, rather than the deeper one of constitutional law, because the apparent question discussed and decided was made to turn on whether a member could be compelled to vote; that seemed to be regarded as the important factor, while here the question is, if present, though not voting, does he form a part of a constitutional quorum? And may the Journal show the exact fact, subject, of course, to its being approved by the House. A very different question.

But if the cited precedents were exactly in point my views would not be changed.

"Precedents in procedure should always be overturned, not only when wrong, but when the changed condition of affairs demonstrate the necessity for new rules or new decisions.

The law-books show numerous instances of overruled cases, and here is an excellent opportunity for the exercise of a better judgment.

"I feel content with these views on the question of power to adopt the rule.

"As to the policy, because of the necessity for its exercise, I feel equally clear.

"While there is nothing in the language of the Constitution asserting directly that a member in attendance shall be compelled to vote. yet the duty rests upon him; it is his duty to do so. If he is present, he is presumed to be participating and to acquiesce in whatever is done in the body if he does not affirmatively express his disapproval either by words or vote."

Mr. Dockery, of Missouri, in arguing against the rule for the counting of a quorum cited a number of parliamentary authorities: "As I turn to the record of the debate in this hall

Jan. 28, 1880, upon a similar amendment to the rules offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tucker), I find arrayed against the proposition some of the greatest leaders known to the history of the Republican party. I find you, Mr. Speaker, not only ably championing the present position of the Democratic party, but in this eloquent and forcible language defending dilatory and filibustering proceedings: Now, what is the practical upshot of the present practice? It is that the members of the minority of this House upon great occasions demand that every bill which is passed shall receive the absolute vote of a majority of the members elected. They do this in the face and eyes of the country. If they demand upou any frivolous occasion that there shall be such an extraordinary vote as that, they do it subject to the censure of the people of this land. This practice has hitherto kept this House in proper condition upon this subject, so that there has been no improper impeding of the public busine-s.

It is a valuable privilege for the country that the minority shall have the right by this extraordinary mode of proceeding to call the attention of the country and of party feeling is endeavoring to enforce upon to measures which a party in a moment of madness the citizens of this land. And it works equally well with regard to all parties, for all parties have their times when they need to be checked, so that they may receive the opinions of the people who are their constituents and who are interested in the results of their legislation.

"I also find that eminent Speaker Mr. Blaine, during the pendency of the famous dead-lock on the force bill, was frequently solicited to enforce the view contemplated by this rule. He refused to accede to the demand made by several gentlemen on the floor. To one he replied as follows:

If the point be raised, a gentleman addressing the Chair may be taken off the floor by any member raising the point that no quorum is present. The question being so raised, the Chair, according to his judgment and on his responsibility, can rule that a quorum is present. But when the roll call is resorted to, that is the last mode of certification, from which there is no appeal. Now, that the rules absolutely require gentlemen to vote is undeniable; but how the gentleman from Missouri, on whom the point has been made, can be compelled to stand up and pronounce his vote "aye" or "no" the Chair does not know. "To another he said:

The Chair never heard of that being done. He begs to remind the House, whereas that might and doubtless would be true that there is a quorum in the hall, the very principle enunciated by the gentleman from Indiana has been the foundation probably for the greatest legislative frauds ever committed.

Where a quorum, in the judgment of the Chair, has been declared to be present in the House against the result of a roll call, these proceedings in the different Legislatures have brought scandal on their name. "To yet another he declared:

There can be no record like the call of the yeas and nays, and from that there is no appeal.

The moment you clothe your Speaker with power to go behind your roll call and assume that there is a quorum in the hall, why, gentlemen, you stand on the very brink of a volcano.

I find, further, that in this same debate the views of yourself, sir, and of our present distinguished Secretary of State were confirmed and supplemented by the gifted and lamented Garfield in these words:

I call attention to the first phase of the question, and ask my friend from Virginia, without any regard

NAYS-Abbott, Anderson of Mississippi, Andrew, Bank head, Barnes, Barwig, Bland, Blount, Boatner, Breckenridge of Arkansas, Breckinridge of Kentucky, Brickner, Brookshire, J. B. Brown, Buchanan of Virginia, Buckalew, Bullock, Bunn, Bynum, Campbell, Candler of Georgia, Carlton, Caruth, Catchings, Cate, Chipman, Clancy, Clarke of Alabama, Clements, Clunie, Cobb, Compton, Cooper of Indiana, Cothran, Covert, Cowles, Crain, Crisp, Culbertson of Texas, Cummings, Dargan, Davidson, Dibble, Dockery, Dunphy, Edmunds, Elliott, Ellis, Enloe, Fitch, Fithian, Flower, Forman, Fowler, Geissenhainer, Gibson, Goodnight, Grimes, Hare, Hatch, Hayes, Heard, Hemphill, Henderson of North Carolina, Herbert, Holman, Hooker, Kerr of Pennsylvania, Kilgore, Lane, Lanham, Lawler, Lee, Lester of Georgia, Lester of Virginia, Lewis, Magner, Maish, Mansur, Martin of Indiana, Martin of Texas, McAdoo, McCarthy, McClammy, McClellan, McCreary, McMillin, McRae, Mills, Montgomery, Moore of Texas, Morgan, Mutchler, Norton, O'Ferrall, O'Neall of Indiana, O'Neil of Massachusetts, Outhwaite, Owens of Ohio, Parrett, Paynter, Peel, Pendleton, Penington, Perry, Pierce, Price, Quinn, Reilly, Richardson, Robertson, Rowland, Rusk, Sayers, Seney, Shively, Skinner, Spinola, Springer, Stewart of Georgia, Stewart of Texas, Stockdale, Stone of Kentucky, Stone of Missouri, Stump, Tarsney, Tillman, Tracey, Tucker, Turner of Georgia, Turpin, Venable, Walker of Missouri, Washington, Wheeler of Alabama, Whiting, Wike, Wiley, Wilkinson, Willcox, Williams of Illinois, Wilson of Missouri, Wise, Yoder-144.

NOT VOTING-Alderson, Allen of Mississippi, Biggs, Blanchard, Boothman, Brunner, Carlisle, Forney, Frank, Haynes, Hopkins, McKinley, Morrow, Oates, Phelan, Randall of Pennsylvania, Rogers, Stahlnecker, Turner of New York, Van Schaick, Whitthorne, Wilber, Wilson of West Virginia-23.

The Tariff Measure.-On April 16, 1890, Mr. McKinley, of Ohio, introduced the bill "to equalize duties upon imports and to reduce the revenues of the Government" which is commonly called by his name. It had long been under consideration in the Committee on Ways and

Means.

The measure was brought up for discussion May 7, and it was determined to limit general debate to four days, and then allow eight days for consideration, section by section, under the five-minute rule.

In opening the debate Mr. McKinley said: "If any one thing was settled by the election of 1888, it was that the protective policy, as promulgated in the Republican platform and heretofore inaugurated ‍and maintained by the Republican party, should be secured in any fiscal legislation to be had by the Congress chosen in the great contest and upon that mastering issue. I have interpreted that victory to mean, and the majority in this House and in the Senate to mean, that a revision of the tariff was not only demanded by the votes of the people, but that such revision should be on the line and in full recognition of the principle and purposes of protection. The people have spoken; they want their will registered and their decree embodied in public legislation.

"The bill which the Committe on Ways and Means have presented is their answer and interpretation of that victory and in accordance with its spirit and letter and purpose. We have not been compelled to abolish the internal-revenue system that we might preserve the protective system, which we were pledged to do in the event the abolition of the one was essential to

the preservation of the other. necessary.

That was un

"The bill does not amend or modify any part of the internal-revenue taxes applicable to spirits or fermented liquors. It abolishes all the special taxes and licenses, so called, imposed upon the manufacture of tobacco, cigars, and snuff, and dealers thereof, reduces the tax upon manufacttured tobacco from eight to four cents per pound, and removes all restrictions now imposed upon the growers of tobacco. With these exceptions the internal-revenue laws are left undisturbed.

"From this source we reduce taxation over $10,000,000, and leave with the people this direct tax which has been paid by them upon their own products through a long series of years.

66

The tariff part of the bill contemplates and proposes a complete revision. It not only changes the rates of duty, but modifies the general provisions of the law relating to the collection of duties. These modifications have received the approval of the Treasury Department, and are set forth in detail in the report of the committee, and I will not weary this committee in restating them here. A few of the more important changes, however, are deserving our attention.

66

There has been for many years a provision in the law permitting the United States to import for its use any article free of duty. Under this provision gross abuses have sprung up, and this exemption from duty granted the United States has served as an open doorway to frauds upon our revenue and unjustifiable discriminations against our own producers.

"Not only has the Government imported supplies from abroad, but its officers, agents, and contractors have been held to enjoy the same privilege, which has been exercised to the injury of our own citizens. The result has been that supplies imported by contractors for governmental work have, in many instances, been in excess of the demand for such public work and been applied to other and different uses.

"This provision of law has been eliminated in the proposed revision, and if approved by the House and Senate and the President, the Government, its officers, agents, and contractors, will hereafter have to pay the same duties which its citizens generally are required to pay. Your committee have been actuated in this by the belief that the Government should buy what it needs at home; should give its own citizens the advantage of supplying the United States with all of its needed supplies, and that the laws which it imposes upon its own people and tax payers should be binding upon the Government itself.

"The committee have also fixed a limit upon the amount and value of personal effects accompanying the passenger returning from foreign travel to $500. It has been too common for citizens of the United States visiting other countries to supply themselves not only for their immediate uses but for future uses and for the uses of their friends, and there has heretofore been no limit to the amount and value of foreign articles which could be brought in free of duty under the designation of "personal effects" if accompanied by the returning passenger.

"The practical effect of this provision was that the wealthy classes who were able to visit distant countries secured exemption from the

payment of duties, while the average citizen unable to go abroad was compelled to pay a duty upon the articles which he might want to use. The limit of $500 is believed to be sufficient for all honest purposes.

"We have also introduced a new provision in the bill which requires that foreign merchandise imported into the United States shall be plainly stamped with the name of the country in which such articles are manufactured. There has been a custom too general in some foreign countries to adopt American brands to the injury of our own manufacturers. Well-known articles of American production with high reputation have been copied by the foreigner and then by the addition of the American brand or American marks have fraudulently displaced American manufacture, not in fair competition, but under false pretenses. The counterfeit has taken the place of the genuine article, and this we propose to stop.

"Section 49 of the bill provides that goods, wares, and merchandise and all articles manufactured in whole or in part in any foreign country by convict labor shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is prohibited. Nearly, if not all of the States of the Union have laws to prevent the products of convict labor in the State penitentiaries from coming in competition with the product of the free labor of such States. The committee believed that the free labor of this country should be saved from the convict labor of other countries, as it has been from the convict labor of our own States, and so recommend this provision. It will be of small account to protect our workmen against our own convict labor and still admit the convict-made products of the world to free competition with our free labor.

"By way of encouraging exportation to other countries and extending our markets, the committee have liberalized the drawbacks given upon articles or products imported from abroad and used in manufactures here for the export trade. Existing law refunds 90 per cent. of the duties collected upon foreign materials made into the finished product at home and exported abroad, while the proposed bill will refund 99 per cent. of said duties, giving to our citizens engaged in this business 9 per cent. additional encouragement, the Government retaining only 1 per cent. for the expenses of handling.

"We have also extended the drawback provision to apply to all articles imported which may be finished here for use in the foreign market. Heretofore this privilege was limited. This, it is believed, will effectually dispose of the argument so often made that our tariff on raw materials, so called, confines our own producers to their own market and prevents them from entering the foreign market, and will furnish every opportunity to those of our citizens desiring it to engage in the foreign trade.

66

Now, the bill proposes that the American citizen may import any product he desires, manufacture it into the finished article, using in part, if necessary, in such manufacture domestic materials, and when the completed product is entered for export refunds to him within 1 per cent. of all the duty he paid upon his imported materials.

"In the same direction we have made, by section 23, manufacturing establishments engaged in smelting or refining metals in the United States bonded warehouses under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, and have provided that metals in any crude form requiring smelting or refining to make them available in the arts imported into the United States to be smelted or refined and intended for export in a refined state, to be exempt from the payment of duties. This, it is believed, will encourage smelting and refining of foreign materials in the United States, and build up large industries upon the sea-coast and elsewhere, which will make an increased demand for the labor of the country.

"It completely, if the provision be adopted, disposes of what has sometimes seemed to be an almost unanswerable argument that has been presented by our friends on the other side, that if we only had free raw material we could go out and capture the markets of the world. We give them now within 1 per cent. of free raw material, and invite them to go out and capture the markets of the world.

"It is asserted in the views of the minority, submitted with the report accompanying this bill, that the operation of the bill will not diminish the revenues of the Government; that with the increased duties we have imposed upon foreign articles which may be sent to market here we have increased taxation, and that therefore instead of being a diminution of the revenues of the Government there will be an increase in the sum of fifty or sixty million dollars.

66

Now, that statement is entirely misleading. It can only be accepted upon the assumption that the importation of the present year under this bill, if it becomes a law, will be equal to the importations of like articles under the existing law; and there is not a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, there is not a member of the minority of that committee, there is not a member of the House on either side, who does not know that the very instant that you have increased the duties to a fair protective point, putting them above the highest revenue point that very instant you diminish importations and to that extent diminish the revenue.

"The bill recommends the retention of the present rates of duty on earthen and china ware. No other industry in the United States either requires or deserves the fostering care of Government more than this one. It is a business requiring technical and artistic knowledge and the most careful attention to the many and delicate processes through which the raw material must pass to the completed product. For many years, and down to 1863, the pottery industry of the United States had had little or no success, and made but slight progress in a practical and commercial way. At the close of the low-tariff period of 1860 there was but one pottery in the United States, with two kilns. There were no decorating kilns at that time.

66

In 1873, encouraged by the tariff and the gold premium, which was an added protection, we had increased to 20 potteries, with 68 kilns, but still no decorating kilns. The capital invested was $1,020,000, and the value of the product was $1,180,000. In 1882 there were 55 pot

teries, 244 kilns, 26 decorating kilns, with a capital invested of $5,076,000; and the value of the product was $5,299,140.

"The wages paid in the potteries in 1882 were $2.387,000 and the number of employés engaged therein 7,000; the ratio of wages to sales in 1882 was 45 per cent. In 1889 there were 80 potteries, 401 kilns, and decorating kilns had increased from 26, in 1882, to 188 in 1889. The capital invested in the latter year was $10,597,357, the value of the product was $10,389,910; amount paid in wages $6,265,224, and the number of employés engaged, 16,900. The ratio of wages to sales was 60 per cent. of decorated ware and 50 per cent. of white ware.

"The per cent. of wages to value of product, it will be observed, has advanced from 45 per cent. in 1882 to 60 per cent. in 1889. This increase is not due, as might be supposed, to an advance in wages, but results in a reduction of the selling price of the product and the immense increase in sales of decorated ware in which labor enters in greater proportion to materials.

"In 1882 an assorted crate of ware sold for $57.89, and the same, only a better ware, is now sold for $46.30. In 1864 we paid for the same crate of ware $210.75. On decorated ware the immense benefit to the consumer is even more apparent. The selling price of all decorated ware was from 50 to 100 per cent. higher in 1882 than in 1890.

"In 1852, with the low revenue-tariff duty of 24 per cent. and no domestic manufactures, an assorted crate of white ware sold at $95.30; in 1890, with the 55-per-cent. duty and domestic competition, with large potteries, which are the pride of the country, employing labor and capital at home, buying our own raw material, the same assorted crate is selling for $46.30.

"We have recommended an increase of duties upon glassware. Since the tariff act of 1883, by which duties were reduced, importations from the other side have been constantly increasing, and our own workmen have not been employed at full time as a result. Our sharpest competition comes from Belgium, where the labor, skilled and unskilled, is much lower than in the United States. There they work seven days in every week.

"It will appear that the cost of labor in Germany may be set down at one third of the cost in the United States; that of Great Britain at five eighths, and that of France at a medium between Germany and Great Britain. The American Flint-Glass Workers' Union, through their president, stated before the committee that this large difference in the cost of labor between foreign countries and the United States makes it impossible for the home product to compete with the foreign-made goods in the market of the United States under the present duty, and that to maintain the present rates of wages an increase of duty is demanded.

"The agricultural condition of the country has received the careful attention of the committee, and every remedy which was believed to be within the power of tariff legislation to give has been granted by this bill. The depression in agriculture is not confined to the United States. The reports of the Agricultural Department indicate that this distress is general, that Great VOL. XXX.-13 A

Britain, France, and Germany are suffering in a larger degree than the farmers of the United States. Mr. Dodge-statistician of the department-says, in his report of March, 1890, that the depression in agriculture in Great Britain has been probably more severe than that of any other nation, which would indicate that it is greater even in a country whose economic system differs from ours, and that this condition is inseparable from any fiscal system, and less under the protective than the revenue-tariff system.

"It has been asserted in the views of the minority that the duty put upon wheat and other agricultural products would be of no value to the agriculturists of the United States. The committee, believing differently, have advanced the duty upon these products. As we are the greatest wheat-producing country of the world, it is habitually asserted and believed by many that this product is safe from foreign competition. We do not appreciate that while the United States last year raised 490,000,000 bushels of wheat, France raised 316,000,000 bushels; Italy raised 103,000,000 bushels; Russia, 189,000,000 bushels; and India, 243,000,000 bushels; and that the total production of Asia, including Asia Minor, Persia, and Syria, amounted to over 315.000,000 bushels. Our sharpest competition comes from Russia and India, and the increased product of other nations only serves to increase the world's supply and diminish proportionately the demand for ours; and if we will only reflect on the difference between the cost of labor in producing wheat in the United States and in competing countries we will readily perceive how near we are, if we have not quite reached the danger-line, so far even as our own markets are concerned.

"The cost of farm labor in Great Britain, estimated by the statistician of the Agricultural Department, is $150 per annum; in France, $125; in Holland and Austria, $100; in Germany, $90 in Russia, $60; in Italy, $50; and in India, $30; while the same labor costs in this country $220. The farmers of the United States have therefore come to appreciate that with the wonderful wheat development in India and Russia, with the vast sums of money which have been expended on irrigation and in railroads for transporting this wheat, taken in connection with their cheap labor, the time is already here when the American farmer must sell his product in the markets of the world in competition with the wheat produced by the lowest-priced labor of other countries, and that his care and concern must in the future be to preserve his home market, for he must, of necessity, be driven from the foreign one, unless by diminishing the cost of his production he can successfully compete with the unequal conditions I have described. Now as to other products of agriculture.

"During the last year Canada exported to the United States eggs to the value of $2,159,725; horses, $2,113,782; sheep, $918.334; poultry, $110,793; wool, $216.918; barley. $6,454,603; beans, $435,534: hay, $822,381; malt. $105,183; potatoes, $192.576; planks and boards, $7,187,101. There were exported of fish of various kinds, lumber, and other commodities to the amount of at least $20,000,000 more.

"The increase of importations in agricultural