Mr. PAYNE. The insular government is for this bill. They think they will get along without the revenue they will lose under these items. They are all for it. They come here demanding it. They say they can afford to give up the small amount of duties that they will have to give up under this bill, and that the bill will be a benefit to agriculture and a benefit to this manufacturing industry. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this bill is a sort of affirmation of the Massachusetts Republican idea of what the tariff ought to be. This report says, in speaking of one paragraph of the bill:

This paragraph would reduce the duty on silvered copper foil to 50 per cent per kilo. Large quantities of silvered copper foil is used in the manufacture of buttons, and the reduction of the duty would be an aid to manufacturers who use this as their raw material.

Then later down in the same report we find the following: There is a button factory at Manila, controlled by the Filipinos, in which it is said there are 100 hands employed in the manufacture of buttons. These two changes are made for the purpose of encouraging this industry and protecting it by an adequate tarif.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that meets the ideal views of the Massachusetts Republicans-free raw material that he wants to use in manufacturing the goods that he sells to the country, but a high protective tariff on the manufactured goods that he compels the American consumers to buy. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

There seems to be one other New England idea revived here. Just exactly what it means I do not know, as we are legislating here now every day without knowing scarcely what we do. These measures are called up and put through under these arbitrary rules and by some understanding with the Speaker, and we hardly know what we are going to do or what we are doing. And I want to predict right now, Mr. Speaker, that hereafter votes that are being cast by Members on that side, as well as some in rare instances by Members on this side, are going to rise up to plague you, because you are putting through illadvised legislation here frequently. There is something said a little later along in this report about 'whisky, rum, gin, brandy, per proof liter, 35 cents." The bill itself provides: That each and every gauge or wine liter of measurement shall be counted as at least 1 proof liter.

66

Now, I understand the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] to say that that is put in there because of the internalrevenue tax on intoxictaing liquors over there. I do not know what a liter is. Some of you on that side may. Nobody on this side knows how much a dram is, because we are not used to such things. We know very little about how much is contained even in a glass, and we know very much less about a liter and about proofs. I do not know. It may be a gallon or 5 gallons. I do not know, and I shall, on account of my objections that I have pointed out and my lack of knowledge about the provisions of the bill, content myself in this case, as I often dovoting on the safe side of a proposition-by voting "no," because nearly everything you bring in here is bad, and I shall have to vote "no."

I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS]. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, the activities of the American Republic are being spread all over the world; pretty nearly From Greenland's icy mountains To India's coral strand;

at any rate from the frozen shores of Alaska to the tropical islands of the Philippine Archipelago. The chief governing body on the legislative side of the American Republic consists of the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives. It is struggling around all through our possessions. This committee has during this session found nothing it could do at home. It has found some things it could do for or against "the heathen," I hardly know precisely which.

necessary to carry on various industries upon the free list, but they can not put the mower, the reaper, the plow, the hoe, the ax, the cotton gin, the bagging, and ties of the American farmer on the free list to save their lives.

They can put the "machinery for refrigerating and ice making, for pile driving, dredging, and hoisting," machinery for the benefit of those who are engaged in the Philippines in river and harbor improvements, and machinery for the reduction and smelting of ores, for the benefit of the Filipino miner, upon the free list, but they can not do anything for the benefit of the American minor, or of the American adult, either one, as far as I have been able to learn. The gentleman from New York did not tell us in his explanation of the bill whether wood pulp and print paper were upon the free list when they were imported into the Philippine Islands or not, so I can not enter into any sort of comparison with regard to his refusal to put them on the free list for the American publisher and reader. It seems to me, however, that this is a bill framed very largely upon Democratic ideas, to wit, increase the duty upon luxuries, and especially upon the sort of luxuries that men can easily do without to their own benefit, and reducing the duty upon the necessaries of life and the necessaries of industries.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Ways and Means Committec this idea: That when they are acting with regard to somebody else way off yonder, where there are no special interests tagging at the committee's elbow all the time to obtain enrichment for themselves by the exploitation of the consumer, they seem to understand the duty ought to be high on luxuries and low upon necessaries, but in dealing with our own people, where the special interests are potential, I would advise them to disregard those special interests for a moment and frame tariff legislation upon like lines to a greater extent. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I left? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama has twelve minutes remaining.

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield four minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. SULZER].

Mr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker, the argument of the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] in favor of this bill is interesting but not illuminating. If I understood the gentleman aright, there seems to be a different economic law applicable to the Orient from the economic law the Republicans have applied in the Occident. What is good economic law for the United States does not seem to be good economic law for the Philippines, and vice versa. The Republicans in this House ever since I came to Congress have declared that it was necessary to levy a tax on raw material imported into this country in order to protect the domestic manufacturer. Now the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] tells us that it is necessary to take off the tariff tax on raw material imported into the Philippine Islands in order to protect the manufacturers in the Philippines. Hence a universal economic law, according to the gentleman, is quite different in the Orient from what it is in the Occident.

66

It is all very queer to me. I am seeking light, but the more the gentleman talks on tariff taxation the more confused I confess I become regarding the subject-matter. Something must be wrong. I can not understand the inconsistent statements of the gentleman. Either I am dull or the gentleman is awry on his facts. I have been under the impression, from my study of political economy, that a universal law was a universal law," applicable here and everywhere, and I was astounded to hear the political leader on the Republican side of the House enunciate a new doctrine so contrary to the views of every writer on the subject, from the days of Adam Smith down to the present time. But perhaps they were wrong and the gentleman from New York is right. Who can tell? All things now seem possible with the leaders of the Republican party in this House. They can change a universal law, it appears, just as readily as they can change any other kind of a law. Their constructive ability is almost as great as their recuperative powers, and this seems to lend color to the declaration this morning of the other gentleman from New York [Mr. VREELAND] about the cohesive power of the Republican party. [Applause.]

perous. They take from those least able to pay and give to those most able to pay. Most of the Dingley tariff schedules are for the rich and against the poor-for the few and against the many. These high-protection tariff schedules that foster trusts and shelter monopoly should be revised, not by their friends the Republicans but by those who would see to it that they are revised in a business way and in harmony with the progressive spirit of the times.

The Democratic Representatives in Congress have been making an heroic effort to get the Republicans to revise the Dingley tariff tax schedules, but their efforts are in vain. The Republican leaders in Congress turn a deaf ear to the burdened taxpayers of the country and decline even to take the tariff off wood pulp and white print paper, demanded by nearly every newspaper publisher in the country. The removal of this tariff tax on wood pulp and white print paper would protect our forests and give the owners of the newspapers of the land cheaper white paper. But the paper trust says no, and the Republican leaders in Congress say no, and that is the end of the matter until the people turn the Republicans out and elect a Democratic Congress that will respond to the urgent demands of the people of the country. [Applause on Democratic side.] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. SULZER. Give me a couple of minutes more.

Mr. CLAYTON. I am very sorry I can not give the gentleman any more time. I yield four minutes to my colleague from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD].

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an ideal Republican tariff bill. It takes care of the manufacturer. It is framed so as presumably to take care of somebody outside of the manufacturing interest. I note that the bill gives free trade, or a reduction of duties, on agricultural implements. The United States practically makes all the agricultural implements that go into the Philippine Islands. Therefore, we are taking care of our own or their own by reducing the tariff on agricultural implements. On the other hand, to protect the great manufacturer, the labor involved in a button industry that is composed of 100 men, this bill proposes to increase the tax on buttons 50 per cent to 8,000,000 of people. Now, that is strictly in accordance with the Republican idea of writing a tariff bill. The report shows that there are 100 men in the Philippine Islands engaged in the business of making buttons. There are 8,000,000 people living in the Philippine Islands, many of whom, at least, are supposed to use buttons, and for the benefit of the 100 gentlemen engaged in the manufacture of buttons, we propose to raise the duty 50 per cent.

Now, I do not think there is very much in the bill one way or another. It reduces the duty on some things and raises it on others, but it is strictly along the line of Republican legislation, and the only material comment that I can see in reference to the matter is that it almost makes the American citizen wish he was a Filipino.

We have been struggling for years to secure a revision of the

tariff in the United States. We have had the doors of the Ways and Means Committee locked hard against the American people, but it seems that if we were Filipinos we could get the doors opened, not only in this Congress, but in the last Congress.

We can get legislation for the Filipinos, but we can not get tariff legislation for the American people.

Mr. CLAYTON. In that connection, I understand the gentleman to say that this bill gives the Filipinos free agricultural implements, but the American farmer must stand the tariff on the implements that he buys?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Unquestionably.

Mr. CLAYTON. And therefore, so far as the tax by the Federal Government is concerned, the American farmer had better be a Filipino than an American.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, in some respects, probably; yes. I agree with my colleague.

Mr. OLLIE M. JAMES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD] if he does not think the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee might be appealed to to give unanimous consent to allow this section to apply to the American farmer and let him have the agricultural implements the same as the Filipino farmer free of any tariff duty?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I can not agree with the gentleman from Kentucky that an appeal to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee on this section would be productive of fruitful legislation.

Mr. OLLIE M. JAMES. Do you mean to assert that he has a greater love for the Filipino farmer than for the American farmer? [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I can not speak for the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] myself.

Mr. OLLIE M. JAMES. I hope the opportunity will be given to the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE], because he ought to love farmers, to deal with the American farmers as he does with the Filipino farmers.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] to use some of his time. Mr. PAYNE. I want to say to the gentleman that there will not be more than one speech on this side.

Mr. CLAYTON. Then I yield the rest of the time, which, I believe, is four minutes, to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SHERLEY].

66

Mr. SHERLEY. Mr. Speaker, we had an era of phrasemaking a few years ago, and one of the phrases that did duty for a time was 'sphere of influence," and we were told of the great "sphere of influence" that was to come to the American people by virtue of the Philippines, and, in return, to the Philippine people by virtue of our acquisition of those islands. Now, to any man who has ever been in the Philippines or has even ever read of them, two fundamental facts will be apparent. The first is that that country is now and must remain an agricultural country. The second is that the city of Manila, of which we are wont to brag so much and on which we have spent so much of American money, can never be made the center of a sphere of influence as a rival to the other great cities in the Orient, unless it is an absolutely free city. Manila will never compete with Hongkong if there is any restriction upon trade, for Hongkong has absolutely no restriction and has also the advantage of an earlier start. What we need to do for the Philippines is not only to make Manila a free city, but to give the Philippine people a market for their products here in America.

that great equity that should be extended to the Philippine The bill has an equity, but it is insignificant alongside of people of giving them a market in America for their products. The attempt to build up an industry in button manufacturing is of no real value, though the admission free of duty of agricultural implements should be of considerable value; but what we really need to do, as I have said, is to take our tariff duty and thereby a chance to live. We may indulge in all sorts of off exports from over there and give these people a market here, protestations as to our good will to the Filipinos, but in the last analysis we will be judged not by our words, but our deeds. The Filipino people have been clamoring for an opportunity to have a market here for their products. We may talk about enlightening them,. about improving them, making them ready for self-government, but any government that does not enable them to enjoy prosperity, not as a matter of charity but by the

operation of economic laws that will be of benefit to them, can

not possibly justify itself when the verdict of history is written. What I would like to see the distinguished gentleman from New York do is to bring in a bill along these lines, a bill that give Manila a chance as a free city to compete with the other will give the Filipino people a market here at home, and also

cities of the Orient.

And we can not, with very much face, talk about the open door in the Orient and attempt to shut it in that part of the Orient that floats our flag. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. PAYNE. Has the gentleman from Alabama consumed his time?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama has consumed his time, and the gentleman from New York has seven minutes remaining.

Mr. PAYNE. I only desire to speak for a small portion of the time.

Mr. SULZER. If you have any time to spare, we will use it over here.

Mr. PAYNE. I think you might abuse it.

Mr. Speaker, silvered copper foil is used as a raw material in the manufacture of buttons in the Philippine Islands. No silvered copper foil is manufactured in those islands, and there is no prospect of any manufacture of that kind in the future; so there is no reason for any tariff upon that article except for a tariff for revenue, there being no industry to protect. It is not like the United States, that furnishes all our coal and all our iron ore and all those other things that the Democrats roll as a sweet morsel under their tongues when they talk about free raw material. It shows an advance in the Filipinos that they looked far enough into their industries to see that their button industry was languishing because of the competition that comes from oriental countries, that they themselves

its ventilation and acoustical properties, and to reduce its size, and to report with plans to the Speaker on the first Monday of December, 1908. The expenses hereunder, not to exceed the sum of $5,000, shall be paid

out of the contingent fund of the House.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to yield me three

minutes.

Mr. McCALL. If I may yield the gentleman three minutes, I will gladly do so.

Mr. CLAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may have three minutes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection ?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the right to object, and I understand that the gentleman yields.

Mr. OLLIE M. JAMES. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. In giving the gentleman from Mississippi unanimous consent to speak, does that shut off the right of any other Member on the floor to object?

The SPEAKER. Undoubtedly not. Is there objection to the gentleman from Mississippi addressing the House for three minutes? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, as I understand this resolution, it merely provides that the Architect, together with other architects, may study this question and submit plans next December to the Speaker, and those plans can then be considered by the House; and among other things he is to consider the arrangement and construction of the Hall, the question of whether or not the Hall can be placed so as to get ventilation from windows connecting with the free air, removing the Hall to the outer wall, and the balance of it. Understanding that, I consider this is a matter going to the comfort and health of the Members of the House, and I reserve the right to object and ask to make these remarks so that the remarks might explain why I do not object to unanimous consent.

Mr. OLLIE M. JAMES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if under this resolution it is contemplated to reduce the size of the House and put benches in here.

Mr. McCALL. I would say that nothing is contemplated; that I consulted my colleague upon the committee, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. THOMAS], the gentleman from Alabama, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE], who made a speech against the proposition on this side, and I endeavored to draw that resolution so as to refer this whole question to architects who may perhaps submit half a dozen plans next winter to the House, and nothing will be decided whatever until we have the plans.

Mr. OLLIE M. JAMES. But has not the Speaker the right now to have architects make such plans as may be necessary? Mr. McCALL. He can not get consulting architects, and in the matter of this importance, I would say to the gentleman from Kentucky, we want to authorize our Architect to consult with the most eminent architects of the country.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for two or three minutes on this question.

ing by such proceedings as you see before you, men all accumulating down there in front of the altar-if you choose to give it that name-confessing thereby they can not hear without going there?

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. They were here when I began, or they would have been in their seats now. [Laughter.] This matter is well worth discussing. The average Member can not be heard at all unless the Speaker keeps good order, and the Speaker does the best he can-for a Republican-but he does not succeed very well. [Applause.] My own notion about it is-and I have studied more about it since the other confabulation that we had before-I think the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS] is entirely right about it, that this Hall ought to be in some way run to the outside wall so that we could have light and air in here. [Applause.] Now, if the Speaker and his committee can accomplish that proposition and reduce the size of the Hall and still leave us a comfortable place to sit, then I will have no objection to it; but I am eternally opposed to sitting on a straight-back bench anyway. I did enough of that when I was a boy at school, and some of the benches did not have any backs at all.

Mr. McCALL.

Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Yes.

Mr. McCALL. The resolution does not put any power in the hands of the Speaker to settle anything, but simply to have an investigation of this kind made by architects with a view of getting to the outer wall and reporting plans for doing the same on the first Monday in December.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I am in favor of that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. And those plans will come before the House, and the House will then determine.

Mr. McCALL. And we can determine at that time. I will admit that I did not have that degree of information the other night that would justify us in settling so important a question. However, I did not mean to take the gentleman from Missouri

off the floor.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. That was all I had to say, anyhow. Mr. THOMAS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for a minute or two.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina asks unanimous consent to address the House for two minutes. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. THOMAS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this resolution does not contemplate the removal of the desks. As the Members of the House well know, I was opposed the other night to the removal of the desks and the changes contemplated by the original resolution reported from the Committee on the Library. This resolution simply contemplates the preparation between now and the next session of plans, under the direction of the Speaker of the House and the Superintendent of the Capitol Buildings and Grounds, with a view of reducing the size of the Hall, and especially with a view of taking out this south wall, in order that we may get nearer to the southern end of the Capitol.

All that the resolution contemplates, Mr. Speaker, is simply

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I had a good deal to do with defeating this resolution here the other day, and I will state why. If there was any guaranty that they would not have benches, I would not have any objection to this scheme, and I have not any now to this particular resolution pending here. I think the Hall of the House ought to be remodeled.

Whether a clear, loud, penetrating voice indicates an empty head, as some of them insinuated here the other day, I have a vast advantage over nearly everybody here in point of voice. It does not make a bit of difference to me whether the House is in good order or bad order when I commence a speech. They always get into good order before I get very far into it [laughter], and they do it because they can not help themselves. A clear, strong, penetrating voice does not make its possessor an orator, but it is very advantageous in a large and tumultuous assembly.

But I do not think that everybody ought to be expected to have as clear a voice or as strong a voice as I have, or anything of the sort, and I think that people ought not to be compelled to wear themselves out in an effort to make themselves heard here.

Mr. ADAMSON. Will the gentleman permit a question?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Yes.

Mr. ADAMSON. What about the case of men who are less interesting than the gentleman, but who are talking about something in which you and your people are interested and a matter you would like to hear and whom you are prevented from hear

the next session of Congress, with a view, not to take out the the desks, but simply to remodel the Hall so we will be nearer to the air on the south side of the Capitol. I can see no objection to the resolution in its present form.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I wish to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts a question. Mr. McCALL.

Certainly.

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a prejudice against any action by this House toward removing these desks if they are to be replaced by benches.

But if gentlemen will go over to their offices occasionally and see those large, roomy, comfortable chairs over there, I want to know why they would conclude that chairs could not take the place of these desks, and not cost the country any more, or not as much. And if this resolution does not contemplate getting rid of this nuisance, I do not see any use in wasting time in making an attempt to do anything.

Mr. McCALL. I will say to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SIMS] that that question will all be left open.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for two minutes. [Cries of "Vote!"]

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for just two minutes; or, one minute will be enough.

The_SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. HENRY] asks unanimous consent for two minutes. Is there objection? There was no objection.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say this to