e was no longer necessary, many of these
taxes were repealed, and then the tariff again became a political
question between the Republican and Democratic parties. I then
stated the five principles or rules of action adopted by the
Republican party in the reduction of taxes, all of which were
applied in the framing of the McKinley tariff law, as follows:

"First. To repeal all taxes on home production, except on spirits,
tobacco, and beer.

"Second. To levy the highest rates of duties that will not encourage
smuggling, on articles of luxury which enter into the consumption
of the rich.

"Third. To place on imported articles which compete with articles
that can be manufactured or produced in the United States, such a
rate of duty as will secure to our farmers and laborers fair prices,
fair wages, and will induce our people to engage in such manufacture
and production.

"Fourth. To repeal all duties on articles of prime necessity which
enter into the consumption of the American people and which cannot
be produced in sufficient quantity in this country.

"Fifth. To grant to foreign nations the reciprocal right of free
importation into our ports of articles we cannot produce, in return
for the free introduction into their ports of articles of American
production."

I entered into full details of the tariff and contrasted the McKinley
act with the Mills bill proposed by the Democratic party, but which
never became a law, and in conclusion said:

"And now, gentlemen, it is for you to say whether it is better for
you, as farmers, or producers, or consumers, to give this law a
fair trial, with the right at all times to make amendments, or to
open it up and keep it in a contest between two political parties.
If we could all divest ourselves of the influence of party feeling
we would have no difficulty in agreeing that either bill is better
than a constant agitation and change of our tariff system. I say
to you that if the Mills bill had become a law in 1888, I should
have been disinclined to agitate its repeal until it had a fair
trial, though my study, both in the Senate and committee on finance,
led me to oppose it. It seemed to me a retrograde measure, born
of the ideas of the south, narrow in its scope, and not suited to
a great country of unbounded but undeveloped resources. Still, as
I say, if it was the law, I would not repeal it without trial.
Now, this McKinley bill does meet, substantially, my views o