National Republican., 1888-06-01

Mr. Adams attacked the committee for
placing brick on the free list, and pointed
out the probable effect of Canadian compe-
tition on Chicago brickmakers. Without
the change Of date proposed by him the in
dustry would be seriously nterfercd with In
the middle Of the season.
Mr.. Adams's time having again expired,
Mr.. Kelley was recognized to offer a for
NAL amendment, and sought to yield his
time to Mr.. Adams, but objection was made
ON the Democratic side, although Mr.. Mills
endeavored to have IL withdrawn. SO Mr..
Kelley proceeded to speak for the southern
lumber interests, as, he said, no one on the
Democratic side cared to do It. lie pleaded
with the House not to impoycrish the poor
| people Of Tennessee and South Carolina
| and decrease the value of their splendid
timber lands by making lumber free.
Mr.. Weaver, OF Iowa.. protested against
| any action that would fasten the lumber
trust upon the farmer and rob the con-
sumer
Mr.. Reed, of Maine, said that the gentle
man from prairie state Mr.. Weaver had
| gotten himself into state OF mind over the
trusts. The figures would show that there
was no possibility of decreasing the cost of
| Canada lumber by making It free. The
tariff would go into the pockets Of the
| Canadian lumberman. The only effect of
| the reduction would be to iniure the Amen-
| asked why paned lumber should he pro.
| tected and not sawed lumber.
Mr.. Weaver declared that the lumber
| trust was the most unconscionable trust
| ever In existence; that IL absolutely limited
| the production and controlled the price Of
| lumber-a criminal proceeding Aud It was
for this trust that the appeal was made by
| the other side.
Mr.. Morrow, of California, said that even
| If there were lumber trust-which he did
not admit-the effect OF this legislation
would be to transfer It across the border
| into Canada, where II could not be reached
| by our laws. He urged IN behalf of the
| vast carrying trade engaged in the lumber
| traffic that the date of the operation of the
| free list be made Jan. 2nncXt.
Mr.. Wilson, Of Minnesota, said the lum-
| Der tariff was legalized robbery.
Mr.. Mills, of Texas, spoke of the petitions
which had been received asking the removal
OF the duty on lumber.
| Mr.. Burrows, OF Michigan, asserted that
only one petition to that effect had been re-
| Ceived.
Mr.. Parker, of New York. offered an
| amendment proposing to substitute Nov.
| 30, 1889, for the date given In the section,
| and predicted destruction for the lumber
| industry If the lumber schedule in the Mills
| bill was not amended
A vote was taken on Mr.. Parker's amend
ment, resulting in its reiection by vote of
| yeas 50, NAYS 1874.
The Democrats applauded the announce
| ment of the vote.
| The disposition of Mr. Parker's motion
| afrording opportunity for further amend
| ments Mr.. Boutelle proposed to make the
| date In Mr. Adams's amendment 1890 in
stead of 1889. lie said that the result of
the lumber tariff was shown in the fact that
| lumbermen on this side of the line received
laNN A.
were paid on the Canadian side.
Mr.. Lind, of Minnesota, made some re-
marks on the lumber question that elected
| applause from the Democratic side.
Mr.. Boutelle maintained that the modern
| lumberman was the strongest conservator
| of the forests; that there was more timber
in Maine to-day than there was twenty years
| ago.
| Mr.. Boutelle's amendment was rejected
| Mr.. Brecknridge, Of Kentucky, had read
| an extract from speech delivered by Mr.
Blaine In 1865, in which he said that it
| never had been the policy of the American
government to tax breadstuffs or lumber,
and representing the need of the working
man for. lumber, This was received with
| applause ON the Democratic side
Mr.. Mckinley, of Ohio, asked If Mr..
Blaine's remarks had not been directed to
internal taxation, and not to imposts
Mr.. Breckenridge SAID lie did not know
which, but the speech was directed against
| tax on lumber.
Mr.. Mckinley replied that it was directed
| against tax on American lumber, but not
| against a tax on foreign lumber. LRepub-
licnn applause
Mr.. Milliken, of Maine, said that sugar
| and rice paid double revenue duty, while
| lumber did not pay one-half of Il revenue
| duty; yet no one proposed to cut the first
| two down.
Mr.. Cultivate, of Ohio, presented statis-
| tics to show that the lumber cutter of Maine
| got $40 per annum, while the capitalist got
| $2s5 upon every 81 900 invested in lumber.
Mr.. Reed, of Maine, said that Mr.. Outh-
the logic of his own good stx5e. Any mans
| good sense-if he applied it-must tell him
that such profits were preposterous; yet the
| Democrats had no better sense than to ap-
| plaud such statements.
| Mr.. Dingley, of Maine, asked how the
| other side justified themselves for maintain
| ing duty OF % per cent on coal-a crude
| material-and on raw sugar, while trying to
remove the lowest duty In the whole list
that on manufactured lumber. Nothing
| protected the forests as much as the duty on
lumber, for II encouraged the farmer to care
for his wood lands.
| Mr.. Weaver declared that the bill was
| drawn In broad catholic, spirit.
|
bill had been drawn on sectional lines, and
that 1t was infinitely worse than the Morri
son bill in that respect.
Mr.. McMillin denied the charge, and
asked whether Maine lumbermen did not
import Canadian labor to cut timber.
Mr.. Milliken answerno; they do not.
| Mr.. McNIillin: You say what is not cor
rect: you are misinformed
Mr.. Boutellc: Why does the Canadian
laborer come over here; what influences
| him
Mr.. McMilln. Climatic influences. [De-
risiye laughter on the Republican side
Mr.. Boutelle wanted to inform the gentle
man (hlr. McMillin) that If the Canadian
did come over the line 1t was because he got
better wages here.
Mr.. Anderson, OF Iowa. Why, then,
don't Maine depopulate Canada
Mr.. Boutelle. She is doing so MS fast as
the law allows.
| Messrs. Gear of Iowa, White OF Indiana,
Struble of Iowa, and Gallinger of New
Hampshire spoke In opposition to the lum-
ber schedule, the latter gentleman suggest
ing that the southern lumbermen were very
| differently placed from the people OF New
England backed up against foreign coun-
try, .
Mr.. Dockery, Of Missouri, and Mr..
Guenther, of Wisconsin, had a little tilt
on the destruction of forests, and then
| Mr.. Mckinley, of Ohio, recurred to the
subject of Mr.. Blaine's speech, which had
been cited earlier in the day, lie said he
had looked up the debates and could state
positively that Mr.. Blaine's remarkshad ref
erence only to an internal tax.
Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, argued
that the same principle held good in case Of
any tax upon production.
Mr., Reed, Of Maine, said that the gentle
man from Kentucky had afforded the Dem
| ,,y, TO 4
they had always grudglngly done-give Mr..
Blaine generous need of applause Clearly
II was by inadvertencc, or accident, that the
gentleman had used a point made by Mr..