The Holt County Sentinel

End of The Big Tariff Talks.
Saturday closed in the House the 29 days' debate by agreement on the tariff. Two of the foremost orators of the House, Speaker Carlisle and Reed of Maine, following Randall, McKinley of Ohio, and Breckinridge of Kentucky, who were the argumentative and rhetorical powers of the day before. Thus the discussion closed up with the efforts of strong men, just as it was opened by other strong men— Mills and Kelley—in the beginning. And now becomes the inevitable question, what good has been accomplished by this three or four weeks of formal delivery of elaborately prepared speeches? What member of the House has been converted from one side to the other? What change of purpose has come about as to the vote to be given upon the bill in gross, if a vote should be taken upon it as it stands now, after the latest patching made by its friends with the view of gaining a possible vote here, or saving the loss of a doubtful vote there? No one can point to a single practical result of this long season of delivery of long speeches, except as far as it has strengthened the probability that the bill will not pass the House of Representatives in its present shape, or until it has at least gone through the usual ordeal of proposed amendment and five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole, where the inherent defects of the measure can be best exhibited, and where its strength as a sound economic measure can be best tested and determined. What has been most clearly shown during the twenty days of formal speech-making is that the oratorical and rhetorical and theoretical force of the House is, for the most part, arrayed in favor of the Mills bill; and that the practical common sense and business ability of the House is, for the most part, against it. Of course, it is true that some astute sensible, well-informed men favor the bill, just as it is equally the fact that some talented speakers are among its strongest opponents. But, as already said, the business ability and approved experience of the House is opposed to it; while it has the ardent favor of nearly all the very brilliant rhetors. On the merits the weight of the debate was against the Mills measure as it stands; but it must be admitted that the greater part of the mere graces and brilliancy of oratory were on the other side. The concluding speech by Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, was particularly fine, but—
Did sweeter sounds adorn his flowing tongue
Than ever man pronounced or angel sung

the fact would remain the same, that the United States of America, under twenty odd years of a tariff designed for the protection of the wages of American workmen as well as for raising revenue, have made a march in material and mental progress, in prosperity and comfort, and in everything which goes to advance the condition of an immensely populous commonwealth—beyond anything recorded in the history of the world—even including our own wonderful antecedent history. The "revenue reformers" attribute this to our vast expanse of cheap lands and in a limited degree, to our liberal institutions; but this is an explanation that does not explain, except to those who are willing to accept any sort of effort to get rid of those two over-whelming coincident facts—the marvellous prosperity of the United States since the close of the war and the existence during nearly the whole of that period of a tariff whose ruling idea is the protection of the industrial interests of the country against the damaging if not ruinous effects of competition with the low wages paid the workmen in similar industries in Europe. Take a glance at the Canadian Dominion, with its illimitable lands, on our own border, and its liberal institutions. We repeat then, that the overwhelming, irremovable, indestructible fact remains—of the unparalleled—the marvellous progress and prosperity of our country, and the coincident existence of a tariff which guards and protects the products of American industry. Notwithstanding the greatly elaborated debate, that remains in full force, and that it is, and not the set speeches, which will rule the fate of the Mills bill in Congress, and in all probability decide the Presidential election, unless the St. Louis Convention shall prove to be wiser than the Democratic Revenue Reform leaders of the House of Representatives.