Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-06-01
House..


it came from the Senate.
The House then proceeded to consider the
report of the committee of the whole on the
legislative appropriation bill. increasing the
clerical force of the civil service commits
sion, which was adopted.
The establishment of the St. Louis ASSAY
Office was included in another amendment
and the bill was recommitted to the appro-
priation committee. The commissioners
were called upon for reports and then the
House went into the committee of the whole
for the consideration of the tariff bill.
Chairman Springer announced that the bill
was to be considered for amendments under
the five minute rule.
MIR. Adams of Illinois, offered an amend
ment to make the bill take effect Jan. 2,
next, instead of July l. Mr.. Adams said
that the House should have regard for the
immense vested interests of the country, and
afford them an opportunity to prepare for the
changes proposed He meant that the amend
ment should apply only to the first section or
to the free list.
Mr.. Breckenridge of Arkansas, maintained
that ample notice had been served on all per-
sons interested and the greatest consideration
has been shown to those interests affected.
Mr.. Adams attacked the committee for
placing brick on the free list, and pointed out
the probable effect of Canadian competition
on Chicago brick makers. Without the
change of date proposed by him the industry
would be seriously interfered with in the
middle season.
Mr.. Kelly spoke for the southern lumber
interests as he said no one on the democratic
side cared to do it. He pleaded with the
House not to impoverish the poor people of
Tennessee and South Carolina, and decrease
| a., s tlA.r la, Ix
making lumber free.
Mr.. Weaver of Ia, protested against any
action that would fasten the lumber trust
upon the farmer and rob the consumer.
Mr.. Reed of Maine, said that the gentle
man from the prairie State, Weaver, had got
ten himself into state of mind over trusts
The figures would show that there was no
possibility of decreasing the cost of Canadi-
an lumber by making it free. The tariff
would go into the pockets of the Canadian
lumbermen. The only effect of the reduc-
ton would be to injure the American indus
try without lowering prices. He asked why
planed lumber should be protected and not
sawed lumber.
| Mr. Weaver of Iowa, declared that the
lumber trust was the most uncOnscionable
trust ever in existence that it absolutely
limited production, and controlled the price
of lumber; that it was criminal proceeding
to legislate for this trust; that the appeal
was made by the other side.
Mr. Morrow of California, said that even
if there was lumber trust, which he didn't
admit. the effect of this legislation would be
to transfer it across the line into Canada,
where it couldn't be reached by our laws.
He urged in behalf of the vast carrying trade
engaged in the lumber traffic, that the date
of operation of the free list be made Jan. 2
next
| Mr.. Wilson of Minnesota said that if the
statement was true, that by placing lumber
| on the free list it would not reduce the price,
he failed to see how the carrying trade would
be affected. He had seen more millionaires
spring up in the lumber trade than anywhere
else, while the wages of labor had not been
advanced. The lumber tariff was legalized
robbery.
Mr. Parker of New York, offered an
amendment, proposing substitute, Nov 80,
1889, for the date given in the section, and
addressing himself to the lumber clauses
said that their first effect would be to reduce
the price of lumber until our producers were
ruined and the industry destroyed, when the
prices would go up again.
Mills then read a newspaper statement of
an interview with a Chicago lumberman to
/
but not the aborer; his wages were regulated
by the laws of supply and demand.
Parker's amendment was rejected by vote
Of SO to 1874.
Boutelle proposed to make the date in
Adams amendment 1890 instead of 1889.
He said the result of lumber tariff was shown
in the fact that the lumbermen on this side
of the line received from 25 to 40 per cent
better wages than on the Canadian side
Lind of Minnesota, didn't believe that the
removal of the tariff would cheaper lumber
or effect the trusts but urged that the tariff
caused the cutting of timber to be confined
to American soil. Was that wise? Any law
that tended to hasten the destruction of our
forests was not wise.
Boutelle maintained that the modern lum-
herman was the strongest conservator of
forests, and that there was more lumber in
Maine today than twenty years ago. His
amendment was rejected.
Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky had read an
extract from a speech delivered by Blaine in
1865. in which he said that it never had been
the policy of the American government to
tax the breadstuffs or lumber, representing
the need of workingmen for lumber This
was received with applause on the democrat
ic side.
Mr.. Mckinley asked if Blaine's remarks
had not been directed to internal taxation and
not to imposts.
Mr.. Breckenridge said he did not know
which. but the speech was directed against
the tax on lumber. Mr.. Mckinley replied
that it was directed against the tax on Amer
lean lumber. and not on foreign lumber.
Mr.. Milliken of Maine said that sugar and
rice paid double revenue duty, but no one
proposed to cut the first two down.
MIR. Cultivate of Ohio presented statistics
to show that the lumber cutter of Maine got
sl6O and capital received S2S5 on every
$1,000 invested in lumber.
Mr.. Reed of Maine said the gentlemen had
forgotten to apply to the figures OF the logic
of his own good sense. Any mans sense
must tell him that such profits were prepos-
ferrous, yet the democrats had no better sense
than to applaud such statements.
Mr., Dingley of Maine, asked how the 9th
er side justified themselves for keeping
duty of rs per ct on coal-crude material
and raw sugar, while trying to remove thu
lowest duty in the whole list--that on manu-
, factured lumber. Nothing protected ou
forests As much as the duty on lumber for