Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (July 2, 1909)
T" "-. JULY 2, 1'009 5 y THE TARIFF IN THE SENATE Senator Carter of Montana, protesting against free hides, said: "If the conference com mittee on this tariff bill decides Anally to place hides on the free list there will bo found twenty two republican senators who will vote to put boots and shoes, harness and all leather pro ducts on the free list. It is also certain that this extraordinary session will be greatly pro longed." When the vote was taken on hides the amend ment offered by Mr. Aldrich and fixing a duty of 15 per cent ad valorem was agreed to by a vote of 4G to 30. This is the rate under the present law, but under the rulings of the treasury department is applicable only to hides weighing more than twenty-five pounds. The house placed all hides on the free list, but the senate committee re stored the Dingley policy, and now the senate has sustained its committee. Senator McLaurin undertook to have the pro vision amended so as to make the duty appli cable to hides weighing less than twenty-five pounds, but failed, his amendment being voted down, 31 to 48. An amendment by Mr. Stone placing not only hides but many of their pro ducts on the free list was also lost. Declaring that he had voted with McKinloy for free hides in 1890, Senator Burton said that the subject had been very carefully con sidered on that occasion. The "beef trust," he said, probably tans 60 to 70 per cent of the hides aild the whole tanning industry was threatened by the operations of these packers. "I think," said Mr. Burton, "it requires a great deal of ingenuity to show that the farmer is benefited by this duty on hides." By an aye and nay vote an amendment by Mr. Cummins fixing the duty on hides at 10 per cent ad valorem was rejected. The finance committee's amendment re-enacting the Dingley rate of 15 per cent ad valorem was then adopt ed, 46 to 30. The democrats voting with the majority were: Bailey, Culberson, Fletcher, Foster, Hughes, McEnery, Newlands, Smith of Maryland, Stone and Taliaferro. The republicans who voted against the amend ment were: Brfggs, Burnham, Burrows, Bur ton, Clapp, Crane, Cullom, Dupont, Frye, Johns ton, LaFollette, Lodge," Nelson, Page, Root and Smith of Michigan. Reverting to the leather schedule, Senator Dolliver offered an amendment which was ac cepted by Chairman Aldrich, placing a dut;r of 15 per cent ad valorem in addition to the rate provided for the leather in them, on leather cut into shoe uppers or vamps or other forms suitable for conversion into manufactured articles. Mr. Aldrich then reported from the commit tee an amendment increasing the duty on lum ber to $1.50 per thousand, and additional rates of from 37 to 50 cents, according to the num ber of sides upon which it was planed. These rates, Mr. Aldrich explained, are a re 'duction of 25 per cent on rough and finished lumber below the Dingley rates, except lumber planed on one side, which retains the duty of the present law. An amendment increasing the duty on shingles from 30 to 50 cents a thousand was also re ported. The senate made short work of the lumber schedule. An Associated Press dispatch said: The first vote was on an amendment by Sen ator McCumber proposing the rate of $1 per 1,000 on sawed lumber instead of the rate de cided upon by the finance committee, which was $1.50 per 1,000. The committee was sus tained, 44 to 24. From the beginning of the session there has been a decided contest over the lumber rate and one of the hardest fights made by the north western senators had been for free lumber. In the house the reformers succeeded in reducing the Dingley law rate from $2 to $1. They con tinued their efforts in the senate, but finding themselves unable to make any impression there they would have been willing to accept the house rate. So stiff, however, was the sentiment against them that they succeeded only in get ting a reduction of 25 per cent from the Ding ley duties and the majority against any reduc tion as shown by today's vote indicates that not only the committee's schedule will remain unchanged in the senate, but that the sentiment for a pronounced duty is so strong there that it "will be difficult to change the senate rates in conference. The air in the senate chamber was close and sultry when,. at 10 o'clock, President Pro Tem- The Commoner pore Frye rapped for ordor. Thero woro compara tively few senators In their treats and a call for a quorum was made as soon as Mr. Aldrich had indicated his desire to havo the senate pro ceed with the consideration of the lumber sched ule. A quorum once obtained, Mr. McCumber took the floor and presented his amendment. To the surprise of all no one rose to speak, and Senator Frye, always especially prompt in tho chair, immediately put tho question to a vote. Thero was a demand for tho ayes and noes and the ballot resultod in the dofeat of tho amend ment, 44 to 24. Of the affirmative votes only ten were cast by democrats as follows: Bankhead, Clay, Davis, Gore, Hughes, Johnston, McLaurin, Overman, Paynter and Tillman. Tho republicans who cast their votes in sup port of tho amendment were: Boveridge, Brls tow, Brown, Burkett, Burton, Carter, Clapp, Crawford, Cummins, Curtis, Gamble, LaFollette, McCumber and Nelson. The democrats voting against the amendment Were Bacon, Bailey, Chamberlain, Fletcher, Fos ter, Martin, Money, Simmons, Smith of Mary land, Taliaferro and Taylor. Insisting that the differentials on planed or finished lumber provided by the finance com mittee were unnecessarily high, Mr. McCumber offered an amendment reducing them 33 1-3 per cent and reducing the duty on sawed lumber to $1.25 a thousand feet. Action on this amend ment was not ss prompt as on tho preceding. Mr. McCumber's amendment was rejected by 30 to 49. On this vote Senators Dolliver, Du pont and Johnson, republicans, who had voted no on the former ballot, changed to tho affirma tive, as did Senators Bacon, Owen, Rayner and Stone, democrats. This was a gain of seven, but as Senator Bankhead, who had cast his vote in the affirmative on the previous ballot, failed to vote on the second ballot, this reduced tho net gain to six. Tho additions to tho negative vote were due largely to tho arrival of senators who had not previously been in the chamber. Senator Lorimer was among thom. He stood by the committee. Without loss of time the vote was then taken on the main proposition, the finance commit tee's amendment placing a duty of $1.50 on sawed lumber with differential on finished lum ber. "This won by tho largo majority of 50' to 28. On the day following the vote on the lumber Bchedule the time was given over by senators to speeches. Beveridge made an attack on the tobacco trust. Bailey talked upon his favorite subject free raw material. Ho declared that previous to the Cleveland administration tho established democratic policy was in opposition to the free admission of raw material, and un . dertook to show that such a policy was really a part of tho republican school of high protection. Mr. Newlands gave his attention to the in come tax question, devoting especial consider ation to the president's recommendation for a corporation tax. He discussed at length tho legislation of 1898, providing for a tax upon the gross receipts of oil refiners, on which the Spreckles case was decided by the supreme court and wliich is relied upon by the president as a precedent for the proposed corporation tax. He pointed out that the law of 1898 was ap plicable, not to corporations alone, but to every person, firm, company and corporation carry ing on such business, and suggested that a tax applying only to corporations might violate tho constitutional requirements of uniformity. Reading a list of administrative items in tho taTiff bill that have not been reported upon by the finance committee, Mr. Money, in the senate appealed to the chairman of the committee to' bring in a report upon all of them. He said he could form no fdea of the time neces sary to complete the measure until he knew what is to be considered. Mr. Aldrich said he could not see why before the present week closed the senate would not be able to dispose of all the dutiable list, and added that he would en deavor to promptly report all of the administra tive items mentioned. Beginning one day's session with an increase of 5 per cent over the house rate of 35 per cent ad valorem on harness, tho senate marched steadily along throughout the nine hours of its sitting, indulging in little speech-making, and acting upon many important provisions. Among the changes made were: An increase of the duty on scrap iron from 50 cents to $2.50 per ton, thus placing it on the same level as pig iron; an increase of one fourth of a cent per pound over the house rates on wire nails; an increase of from 4 to 6 cents por pound on monazito sand and thorite and other articles used in tho manufacture of gas mantols and tho substitution of specific for ad valorom rates on files, rasps, etc. Toward tho closo of tho day Senator Ponroso of tho flnanco committee presonted an amendment fixing a duty of one-half cent por gallon on crudo oil and after considerable debate it was defeated. During tho day tho linoleum and oil cloth sched ule was recast so as to moot apparently tho demands of tho insurgents and was adopted with tho understanding that if it should not bo sat isfactory upon inspection in tho record tho schodulo could bo reopened tomorrow. The principal dobato of tho day was on tho petroleum, linoloum and scrap iron provisions. Speaking of tho provision for a high rato on scrap iron, Mr. Crawford declared it was "pro 1" eno mI." Tho provision was also criticised by Senators Cummins and Boveridge.. It, however, found defenders in Senators Oliver, Dick and Aldrich. ir Zhcr T,re many efCortB t0 amonl the scrap mmrVQl0n,) bUt !t WRS ndlTtCd without . r S fS?nat0M Ponroao "Poke at length in im? X 8 0l amondmont, declaring it met with the approval of tho independent producers and refiners. Tho oil fields of Mexico figured extensively in this discussion. Senator Gore declared they were a myth. "MR. BRYAN AND TUB SENATORS" Indianapolis, Ind., Juno 10. Editor The Commoner: I am sending you a clipping from tho Indianapolis News, of Juno 9, 1909, which is Indorsed by tiro democrats of Indiana. It is good, and I appreciate what you said about the democratic United States senators, running aftor strange gods, and abandoning our na tional platform for a "mess of pottage" in their homo states. I believe in a tariff for "revenue only and believe tho time has now como for tho democratic party to make that tho para mount issue. And our party should send men to tho United States senate and to congress who will stand by and for the poople, in favor of truo tariff reform and on a basis for revenue sufficient to run our government only. And as this editorial fully indorses your stand, I want you to road it. Wo democrats indorse you, be cause we know you aro absolutely right, and it is refreshing to havo a republican paper also endorso you. WINFIELD S. JOHNSON.. '. MR BRYAN AND THE SENATORS The democratic senators whom Mr. Bryan has very properly been criticising seem to havo for gotten that Mr. Bryan is simply a' private citizen and an editor, with the same right to criticise them that is possessed by other private citi zens and editors. Therefore, their suggestion that he is trying to "dictate," to impose his will oh the party, is unreasonable. If Mr. Bryan had not condemned thom for their vote for taxed lumber he would havo failed in his duty as a citizen, an editor and a democrat. Here is what the editor of Tho Commoner said: "Tho democrats who voted against free lum ber have: Voted to repudiate the national plat fprm of the democratic party; voted to encour age the destruction of our forests; voted to raise the price of the chief necessities of life; voted to tax a material that entdrs Into a mul titude of industries and thus to place an un necessary burden upon these industries; voted to tax tho people of the whole country for tho benefit of a comparatively few owners of timber lands, and voted to tax a majority of their con stituents for the benefit of a minority of tho'se constituents." These things are precisely what these demo cratic senators have -done. Mr. Bryan has simply put their record clearly before the coun try. He has not sought to dictate.. He has not sought to impose his will, but the will of the party on these men. We do not wonder that they resent the remarks of the late candidate, for their application ig painfully direct. So we have Simmons of North Carolina, who voted for a $2 tax on lumber, saying that though he had followed Bryan for twelvo years, he does not see "what right he has to dictate to us in the senate, who are attempting to put the party before the" people in a manner which will en able it to recover from the effects of his leader ship." And Simmons is going to do this by "considering the interest and the will of the people of my state, just as Mr. Bryan did." "I have," he says, "to answer only to the peo ple of North Caroling, and care nothing as to what Bryan thinks or writes." In other words, Simmons is going to commend the democratic party to the people, according to his own state- , I n i -