wSSTifJwS
?A
The Commoner
VQL. 22, NO. 9
"Schedule K's" Little
Brother
v.
IT'S PRETTY IIARD TO GET A GOOD WATCH
DOG THAT WON'T CHASE THE CAT
. (From the Literary Digest.)
"That name defeated Taft," and that was rea
son enough, one Democratic editor feels assured,
for the Republicans to call the wool schedule in
the now tariff bill "Schedule 11" instead of
"Schedule K." But though the wool schedule
was thus carefully disguised, everybody seemed
to recognize it when it came up for considera
tion in the Senate, Thoro was an explosion on
the floor, there wore explosive editorials in
doizons of newspapers, senators attacked each
other's motives and past records, and public at
tention was again forcibly directed to lhe tariff
debates which were being well-nigh forgotten
in a summer of strikes and exciting primary
campaigns. "A change of title can not change
the smell, and the stench of old Schedule K has
not been made any sweeter by calling it Sched
ule 11," the Now York World (Dom.) somewhat
acridly comments. No less irreverently the
Newark News (Ind.) observes that' "littlo more
luck is expected now to attach to'. that crap
shooter's numeral than in 1910 to the eleventh
letter of the alphabet." Somehow or other,
says the New York Times (Denl.D, the wool
schedule always seems to be "theafatal part of
the heaven-abrading tariff." It is 'true that the
McCumber measure has now "patsod through
its hardest battle, and the wool "schedule as
originally reported has been accepted by the
Senate." Yet, continues the Mobile Register
(Dom.), "the victory has been a oostly one for
tho Republicans." For these reasons:
"It has caused tho defection from the tariff
ranks of some leading Republican partizans. It
has opened the eyes of the voters to the actual
effect of the tariff upon their own. living ex
penses. It has brought popular distrust and dis
approval of Republican congressional candidates
on the very eve of the primaries. It has caused
already the defeat of several tariff supporters.
What further warning do the Republicans need
that theirs is an unpopular measure, not because
of prejudice, but because of its lack of merit?"
Reduced to its simplest terms, explains tho
Detroit Free Press (Ind.), "tho tariff is 33 cents
a pourfd upon scoured wool, and oquivalent duty
on wool whch is not clean, and compensating
duties of the required amount upon manufact
urers of wool." As this paper continues:
"The duty is high, and since there is no hope
and no pretense that tho United States will raise
enough wool for itsown use, and finally bring
prices down by competition, it is certain that
the tariff will increase the price of wool cloth
ing. No dispute arises over that point. Tho
theory of the majority in passing the schedule
is thafthoso regions which do not benefit direct
ly by the wool tariff will be benefited in the
other schedules, and that the people supporting
thd tariff theory will support the tariff as a
whole even when it operates against the most
of them in some particulars."
v If the 16-cent duty in the Payne-Aldrich wool
schedule split the Republican party wide open
in 1910-12, what, asks the Nashville Banner
(Dom.), "must be the effect of the 33-cent rate
of the Fordney-McCumber measure?" It is
difficult for anybody but an expert to make any
exact comparison of the two sets of duties, but,
the Now York Journal of Commerce (Ind.)
thinks, "it may safely be assumed that the du
ties thus laid upon wool and its manufacturers
are certainly o less than those of Schedule K."
. That is
"Manufacturers may not be so highly 'pro
tected,' but wool-growers are far more favored.
The burden upon the consumer is no whit less
and is probably much greater than that which,
in the years following the 1909 tariff, exacted
such a heavy toll upon the fortunes of tho Re-
publican party."
But no independent or Democratic journal
has attacked the new wool schedules more ve
hemently than the Now York Herald
(Ind.-Rep.). In fact, its vehemence, has
called down upon its owner's head
wrathful denunciation from Republican sena
tors'. The shocking thing about the wool du
ties, according to the Herald, "is not merely
that they are extravagantly, inordinately, in
comparably excessive,"- but that they "were
made and are being driven through tho Senate
under whip and spur by United States senators
who are financially interested, directly and
heavily, in the growing of sheep and tho pro
duction of wool." The Republican Now York
mMZ- m
-w jl vxv tir h r ? zb
mm.
ORP.
"-aasfei
C3!
Orr in the Chicago Tribune.
, .1.! .
Tribune admits that "the wool senators have
been rather indecently conspicuous in behalf of
Schedule K."
If such criticism comes from papers inclined
to be friendly to Republican policies, it is not
surprizing to find tho "wool senators" denounced
for "pocketbook legislation" by such newspap
ers as tho New York World (Dem.), Rochester
Herald (Ind.), Newark News (Ind.), Phila
delphia Record (Dem.), Norfolk Ledger-Dispatch
(Dem.), Louisville Courier-Journal (Dem.),
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Ind.), while the New
York Evening Post (Ind.) has this to say of the
"schedule of iniquities:"
"Every American must buy wool. The nation
can not avoid purchasing 10,000,000 pounds of
it abroad each year. Schedule 11 is an effort
to tax every one who walks on a carpet, sleeps
under a blanket, or dons a coat an outrageously
excessive sum for tho benefit of an industry
which can not and ought not to be greatly ex
panded." , j
In an article in the New York Times, Senator
David I. Walsh (Dem. Mass.) uses Tariff Com
mission figures to arrive at the estimate that tho
McCumber wool tariff would force the consuming
public to pay at least $200,000,000 in increased
pricos for the wool in their garments.
And when it comes to tho effect of the entire
new tariff law upon the voting public, there are
editors who remind us that the voting public
now contains several million women, who will
have their first chance to express an opinion on
a Republican tariff bill at the polls. And these
women, as the Newark News remarks, are not
so bound up in party affiliations as are the older
voters. So "let them but be convinced that new
tariff duties other than those on wool seriously
menace family budgets, cutting down the buy
ing power of the dollar with reference to woolen
and cotton goods, silk, sugar, and other com
modities, and other things being equal, the seeds
may be sown of apostasy from the party that
enforced the higher charges."
Yet it is by no means true that even "Sched
ule 11" is quite without friends. In -California,
the Oakland Tribune (Rep.), speakings for
the wool industry of California says that
"if there is to be a great home pro
duction of wool, the 33-rcent ratojnust obtain
A settled policy distributed over aSiumber of
years would make America independent' of for
eign supplies, and would be reflected in returns
to sheepmen and laborers." While some of the
rates in tho McCumber schedule may be too
high, the Albany Knickerbocker Press (Rep )
declares that a high rate on wool imports "is
essential because the United States at present
does not produce one-third of the wool which
its common necessities require, and because
whenever wo have an unduly low tariff rate on
wool the American wool industry is prostrated."
The wool-marketing department of the Ameri
can Farm Bureau Federation has issued a state
ment denying tho widely published assertions
that a tariff on raw wool will increase the cost
of cloth ng. It asserts that the reduction in the
wholesalo price of clothes since 1913, in spito
of the fact that an emergency tariff on hitrh
wool went into effect last year, "shows con
clusively that there is little or no relation be
tween tho tariff on raw wool and the price of
finished product to the consumer." It also fic
ures out that the 33 cents per clean pound of the
new bill "is exactly equivalent to the 11 cents
per groaso pound of the old Payno-Aldrich bill "
oo, it is; asked, where is tho great increase that
the critics of the tariff have been talking about?
The Washington Post takes up , tho cudgels
for the so-called "wool" senators." The attack
on them by Democratic senators and newspapers
is declared to be "a case of mud for mud's sake."
WOOL SCHEDULE "MOST VICIOUS" IN
TARIFF BILL
(By a Saff Correspondent in Chicago Tribune)
Washington, D. C, July 28. Acceptance of
amendments designed to eliminate "hidden pro
tection" in compensatory duties on woven fabrics
of wool was forced by Senator Lenroot (Wis.),
Republican, in the Senate today. Amendments
by Senator Lenroot nd "by Senator Walsh
(Mass.) leading the Jight for the minority, to
reduce duties, however, wore rejected.
One of the features of the day's debate was an
'attack upon the tariff biU by Senator Nelson
(Minn,), Republican, who described the wool
schedule as the "most vicious" in tho measure.
The Lenroot amendments, which wore ac
cepted by Senator Smoot (Utah), who is in
charge of tho woolen schedule, provided that tho
compensatory duty of, 49 cents per pound on
fabrics valued at more than 80 cents per pound
shall apply only "upon the wool content there
of." Senator Lenroot charged that without this
clause the offect was to give the manufacturer
of cloth, which is not all wool, a concealed pro
tection. Approval of his amondment, he said,
will mean a reduction amounting' to about 20
. per cent in the duty on certain kinds of woolen
fabrics.
Senator Smoot, howTever, refused to accept
the Lenroot amendment in the case of fabrics
valued at not more than 80 cents per pound. An
amendment applying to the cheaper fabrics,
which presumably would be more likely to con
tain substitutes for wool, was defeated by a vote
of 25 to 33.
Following the defeat of the amendment apply
to the cheaper fabrics, Senator Lenroot offered
tho same amendment to the higher brackets in
the same paragraph and then launched into a
denunciation of those Republicans who would
approve "hidden protection" of this nature. Af
ter his speech the amendment was accepted
without a roll call.
Senator Nelson was prompted to make an at
tack upon the bill during the discussion of tho
duties on. woolen cloth, which he pointed out,
when the c&mpqnsatory and protective duties are
added together, would range from 100 to 131
per cent ad valorem.
"It seems to me there should bo a more mod
erate duty on wool," -said Senator Nelson. "The
duties on some of the agricultural products are
too high. I suppose it is to make a big showing
to the farmers and make them believe that they
will get all that excessive duty in one form or
another, and to make it easier for the farmer
to swallow the high duties on manufactured
goods and on wool."
LLOYD GEORGE SAYS NEXT AVAR WORSE
YET
A London dispatch, dated July 28, says:
"More terrible machines than in the late war
are being constructed," said Prime Minister
Lloyd George at a lunche.on given .by 300 promi
nent free churchmen today.
"What for?" he asked, and continued, "to at
tack cities and maim, destroy and burn helpless
women and children. Keep your eyes on what
is happening. If the churches of Europe and
America allow that to fructify, they had better
close their doors.
"We reduced our armaments and if other nations-follow
the example, there will be no seri
ous menace to peace."
Mr. Lloyd George said that the next war, if it
came, would be a war on civilization. Speaking
of the suddenness in which wars came he said:
"The war germ, like another germ you do
not know that you have it until it has got you.
It is of no use arguing with an epileptic when
the fit is on him. There is that atmosphere in
the world now and the explosive material is
scattered over tho face of Europe.
"When a match is dropped, it is too late to
wave tho covenant of the league of nations, it
is the now spirit that Is wanted."
Tho prime minister said ho attached UWJ
-hopes to the league of nations. He said thai
civilization would he safe if the league suc
ceeded but if it failed, civilization was doomed-
Hides and, leather and boots and shoes wore
placed on the free list as tho tariff bill fina uy
passed. the Senate. Considering the fact that J tuo
pricey of footwear are yot two or throe unit
what they once wore, maybe tho tariff-mAKeib
concluded that it had fpund ono infant Inciusirj
that is able to stand alone. ' ,
, -vu. tM&
, 4 AWy, - jjr ArlJjnAiilAK
