wss ^mmM::fi^mmrm /^ r^-r^ DEMOCRATIC INCOMPETENCY. The Treasury vrrecked, the Republican policy of protection alone can restore money to the Treasury and confidence to th« country. SPEECH OF Hon. CHARLES H. GUOSVENOR, OIF OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, "Wednesday, April 1, 1896. -W-ASHING-TON". 1896. ^1i>^ •^^7 SPEECH OP HON. CHARLES H. GEOSVENOR. The House, as in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration the bill (H. R. 7(104^ making appropriations tor sundry civil expenses of the Gov- ernment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1897, and for other purposes — Mr. GROSVENOR said: Mr. Chairman: I move to amend by striking out the last word. It is greatly to be regi'etted that it becomes the duty of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee of this House to state constantly to the representatives of the people that there is exist- ing in this country a condition which requires something more and worse than economy in the public expenditures. Economy is one thing — just economy — economical administration of the country. Parsimony is another thing. But worse than either of those is the existence of a public necessity for the expendi- ture of public money, with an impossibility on the part of the House of Representatives to furnish that money. That is not economy; that is not parsimony: that is an admission of a condi- tion whicli at the present time is unsurmountable and which we are all compelled to recognize and which we are all bound by. I stood here in the Fifty-first Congress, when we were making appropriations liberally and generously — not extravagantly. No Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives ever did its duty more faithfully than did the Appropriations Commit- tee of that Congress. In the two sessions of the Fifty-first Con- gress we appropriated something like a billiou dollars; and our enemies called us, in language intended to be a reproach, "the billion-dollar Congress." That was their watchword and battle cry in the unfortunate campaign in 1892. In passing I desire sim- ply to say that in no single instance were they able to point out where there was a dollar of money appropriated that was not needed for the public service, which was not wisely appropriated. Yet the cry was that we had been extravagant because of the enormous aggregate of appropriations. Now we find ourselves limited. The question vdth us now is not, What is the public demand? The public buildings of the coun- try, partly constructed, are wasting and suffering bj- the lapse of time, and we are unable to make the appropriations for their pres- ervation or maintenance. The public works on the rivers and harbors of the country are wasting by erosion to the extent of more than a million dollars annually, and we are unable to appro- priate the necessary money either to push forward the work or to providently protect the work already done. The demands of com- 2295 3 merce for greater depth of water in our harbors and rivers have to be met by the declaration of our inability to do anything in that direction. Now, I want to point out (and I have not quite as much time as I should like) a comparison between two enactments — one a Re- publican enactment and one a Democratic enactment — through which and by which practically the whole of the revenue of this Government is derived. And I want to show you in figures, fig- ures that nobody will criticise or dispute, jiist where the fault lies, so that the Committee on Appropriations of this House is to-day compelled, in the execution of a plain duty, to stand here protest- ing against appropriations that are absolutely needed and ought to be made, in which the representatives of the people are interested, and appropriations which they are in duty bound to insist upon. During the Fifty-first Congress we had enacted a revenue law, supplementary to a Republican revenue law, based upon the gen- eral principle not of revenue but of protection, and yet we had money enough under that law, and I propose to put in contrast now — and I can do it without any great exhaustion of the time of the committee — a few tables compiled for me from the official records of the Treasury Department by Mr. O. P. Austin, an effi- cient man who has given the subject careful attention and con- sideration, and who is especially efficient in these matters. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. STEELE. If I can be recognized, I will yield to the gen- tleman. Mr. GROSVENOR. If it is competent, I would like five min- utes more. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman will pro- ceed. Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Chairman, these tables, one by one, are as follows: The first I offer is a table of the receipts and expendi- tures for the first nineteen months of the operation of the Wilson law. I want the country and I want my friends on the other side of the House to realize what it is that they are responsible for, and to ask them to atone for what they have done in the past by a recantation in the present. I give by months the receipts and expenditures of the first nineteen months of the general operation of that law. It will be seen from this table that the total receipts amount during that period to $481,433,509. During the same period the expenditures of the United States for the necessities of the Government araoimted to a total of $557,581,385, showing a deficiency between the receipts and expenditures during that period of $76,157,876. This table, which I append, is in detail as follows: Receipts and expenditures, first nineteen months of Wilson law. Receipts. Expenditures. September 1894. $33,621,238 19,i:ffl,340 19,411,403 31,366,136 $30,323,018 32,713,039 October November .. .. 28, 477, 188 December 27,135,460 Receipts arid expenditures, firxt nineteen nmnths of Wilaon /ai« —Coutiuued. Receipts. Expenditures. 1895. January Foln'uary March April May June July August September October -- November December 1896. January February March -- Total •Zi.:i\i. 29,(»tiil, 27,9()1 25, 9K6 36,288 29, 207. 670 26,0.59.228 26,041,148 $34, .52.$, 447 2.5,(l!»t),035 25,71(1,957 32,990,r,76 28,5.">«,213 21,t;8;!,029 38,.51»,(K)3 32, .588, 184 24, 320, 4«1 34, 503, 425 27,199,2*3 25,814,317 32, 694, 830 26.749,956 27,:i44,000 481. 423, .509 5.57,581,385 Deficiency, $76,1.57,s7t;. I give also in this connection the customs receipts for the same period, by months, under the McKinlej^ law as compared with the Wilson tariff law. For the first nineteen months of the McKin- ley law the total receipts were $;J02,884.886. while for the same period under the Wilson law the total was $257,069,373. The table by mouths is as follows: Customs receipts under MeKinley and Wilson tariff laws. Month. 1890. October . . . November December . 1891. January February -. March April May June July August September . October — November . December . 1892. January . . February March April Total 2295 Customs receipts first 19 months of MeKinley law. $24. 934, 114 15. 227, 641 16,104,533 Month. September - October November. December . 1895. January — February . . March April May June July- August September. October November. December . 1896. 302, 884, 886 January .. February. March Total 3.57,069.273 Customs receipts first 19 months of Wilson law. $15. .564, 990 11,963,118 l(),2(iO,693 ll,2(j:5,049 17,361,916 13, :m, 6.91 14, 929, 789 12.453,086 12, 474, .558 12, 130, 443 14,076,934 15, 639, 047 14, 6.53, 967 13,773,045 11,4.55.314 13,169,172 16,380,796 13,906,393 13, :M4, 215 6 I have also a table of the internal-revenue receipts under the McKinley and Wilson laws, to which I ask your attention. For the first nineteen months under the McKinley law the total re- ceipts were $231,222,122, while under the Wilson law the total was $201,069,812. The table by months is as follows: Internal-revenue receipts under McKinley and Wilson laws. Month. 1890. October , November December , 1891. January February March April May June July August September October November December 1892. January February March April Total .... Internal- revenue re- ceipts first nineteen months of McKinley law. $12,840,250 11,323,047 12,944,173 ,253, , 4.S9, Month. Internal- revenue re- ceipts first nineteen months of Wilson law. 11.4^^0,956 1^;. ]W»,387 I2,i:i:i,5(il 12. 048, U22 331,232,122 1894. September October November December 1895. January February March April May June July August September October November December 1896. January February March Total 16,183,149 6,493,438 7,774,074 9,934,039 480 977 880 053 385 405 104 008. 563 084 771 11,041,401 10, 800, 652 11,536,364 301,069,812 Now comes a table of the total receipts of the Treasury Depart- ment for the first nineteen months under the Wilson law as com- pared with the fii'st nineteen months, and also the last nineteen months, under the McKinley law. I ask your special attention to this. It shows for the first nineteen months of the McKinley law a total of receipts of $566,919,004, and the total receipts under the same law for the last nineteen months, after the law had been assailed and discredited by the presence of a Democratic majority in the country, of $521,819,675, while under the operations of the Wilson bill for the first nineteen months the total was but $481,- 423,509. The table showing the total receipts to which I have referred by months, and also a summary giving a comparison of the two laws and the net results of the same, I append here. 2295 Total TreasuTTti receipts first nineteen monthsof Wilson law compared with first nineteen months and last nineteen inonths of McKinlcy law. Receipts, Receipts, Receipts, Month. McKinlev law first 19 Month. McKinlev law last 19 Month, Wilson law first 19 months. mouths. m(mth8. 1890. 1893. 1894, October $:?9,3;J3.17-1 February. .. $29,698,142 September . $22,621,228 November .. 28.t;>78.ti74 March :U. 115, 809 October 19.i:i9,240 December .. 27,(i-lli,515 A])ril 28,415.;!(;7 November . 19,411,403 May 30. 928, 8.57 December . . 21,;fti6,136 1891. June 30, 717, 101 July 30. 905, 776 1895. January 36,8](),2S3 Au!4:ust 2:1, 890, 885 February . . . 29. 27:!. 17:5 Sojitember . 24, .582, 750 January 27,804,399 March 29, 427. 455 ()ct(}ber 24,.55:i,594 Feln-uary .. 22,888,057 April 25. 4(;5, 2;!1 November.. 2:5, 979, 400 March 2.5,470,575 27,t>--;i.84'.l 31. 2,-9. ,205 December . . 22,312,027 April 1 Mav 24,247,8:16 June ^ 25, 272. 078 July 34,1.5S.,244 1 1894. June 2.5.615,474 August 28. 77;!. 981 July 29,(m;9,697 September.. 27.5r.5.4.-)4 January 24,082,738 August 28, 952, 696 October 28,448,.5li2 February... 22,269,:i99 September . 27. .540, 678 November.. 2(3,804.887 March 24,842,797 October .... 27,901,748 December .. 27,646,515 April 22, 692, ;i64 November . 25, 986, .503 May 23, 006, 994 December . . 26,288,937 1892. June 26, 485, 125 July 34,809,;^:S9 1896. January 30, 38;?, 478 August 40,117,605 February . . . 30,598.944 January 29, 207, 670 March 29,8:;ii,()06 Total... .521,819,675 February .. 26,059.228 April- 26,971,.-i24 March Total... 26,041,148 Total.... 566,919,004 481,423,509 SUMMARY. Comparative receipts of two larvs. McKinley law receipts first nineteen months $.566,919,004 McKinley law last nineteen months' receipts .521,819,675 Wilson law receipts first nineteen months 481,423,509 Comparative net results of two laws'' operation. McKinley law first nineteen months, surplus $24,988,221 "Wilson law first nineteen months, deficiency 76,15^,876 These tables, Mr. Chairman, show simply this, that while we are here clanioring for higher appropriations, and nobody is more in favor of them than I am. we are met by a condition of the country that compels this economy of administration, or whatever term you may choose to apply to it, and it all comes from the domination in this country of a, party— the Democratic party— a party which undertook legislation for revenue only and condemned the prin- ciples of the Republican party, repudiating in toto the proposition that we had a right to legis.ate in favor of the protection of Ameri- can industries. It has come about in some way, in more ways than one, in fact, but the great way which rises above all the other ways is the fact that it inflicts upon the country a paralysis of business from which we have not yet recovered and from which we never can recover while the existing law presses down upon ua as it now does. People are coming here to-day asking the Republican majority of the Committee on Ways and Means to lift from a great industry of this country— the sugar industry— the incubus put upon us by 2295 8 Democratic legislation, and when we point to them that in the other end of the Capitol there are two representatives of their own State alisolutely blocking the way of the very legislation they ask for, tlii^y turn in astonishment and say: " Why. we never under- stood it to Vje so." A very small matter is asked for in the matter of a change in the tariff law, but we are compelled to say to the representatives from Louisiana: "Go to the other end of the Cap- itol and tell your two Senators to step out of the way and permit the Dingley law to pass, and we will attach to it the amendment that will give you the relief you seek against the legislation of the German Empire;" and they stand aghast when they learn that the men claiming to represent the interests of the State of Louisiana to-day stand and obstruct the passage of tariff legislation of any kind at the other end of the Capitol. Silence alone on their part and the Dingley bill can come up and we can add this relief to the bill in conference. Will these Democrats do that much for their own local interests? Mr. TALBERT. If the gentleman will permit me, I would ask if he has made a calculation as to how much the income tax would have brought to the Treasury if that law had been sustained by the Supreme Court, and whether, in his judgment, it would not have met the deficiency of which he speaks? Mr. GROSVENOR. My dear sir. we might have gone out on the high seas as pirates and seized the ships of foreign nations and robbed them and put the proceeds into our Treasury. [Ap- plause and laughter.] One would have been piracy Mr. TALBERT. Was the income tax of im7 a robbery? Mr. GROSVENOR (continuing). One would have been piracy, and the other was a violation of the Constitution. Mr. TALBERT. Was the other income tax that was passed before a violation of the Constitution? Mr. GROSVENOR.. I turn you over to the Supreme Court of the United States. [Laughter.] Mr. TALBERT. I think I should be in very bad hands. I should rather stay in your hands, bad as you are, than to go to the Supreme Court. Mr. GROSVENOR. Is that the idea? The Democratic party have depleted the Treasury. They have left it bankrupt, and now their idea is, " What is the Constitution among friends?" when it comes to a matter of that sort. [Laughter.] 2295