Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1892-03-18
OTR LUMBER INTERESTS.

To TuE EnIToR or THE HERALD.
The capital invested in the lum.
Der business in Essex County IS
at about 81 100000
and the annual wages paid at !
about 100000. 1t is the largest
business interest i'll tbs county
and the largest single industry
in the United States. The recent
convention of lumbermcn at
Washington developed facts that
should be of interest to every cit
izen of the county, and the reso-
lutions drawn at that meeting
read by all.
The history of Essex County
furnishes one OF the strongest ar
guments why the duty on lumber
should rot be removed. In 1851,
when the United States entered
into reciprocal trade relations
with Canada, the lumber business
in Essex County was then, as
now, its largest industry. At
that time there were in the county
thirteen mills engaged i'll the
manufacture Of lumber In the
ensuing three years twelve OF
these mills were sold at shcriti's
sale. At this time QS5f-1) my
father and grandfather were
manufacturing lumber on small
stream tributary to the kenncbcC
river in the State of Maine. As
with thousands of other lumber
men they were driven out of bus
mess and went to Canada for en-
ployment, because days wages
paid better there than manutac-
turing i'll the States.
Shall we invite 4 return to these
conditions?
1t is SAID we are depicting our
forests.
We cannot keep them.
This statement is as exact as
the theory of free trade The adj
vanccmcnt Of civilization and in
crease of population must newt
ably destroy them. The geo
graphical position of the United
States makes protection an al
most imperative national policy.
Sound business policy does not in
vite competition. We have the
greatest diversity of industries,
and are the largest producing ma
ton of the world. Therefore our
logical position would seem to be
on the side of protection.
| have given you very briefly a
few of the reasons why lumber
men object to the removal of the
duty on their product. In anoth-
er issue | hope to be able to sub
nit other arguments to show
why they should not be asked to
sell their product at free trade
prices and pay protection prices
for all they consume.
In a recent issue of your paper
YOU asked me to explain how !
could be a Democrat and at the
same time oppose the course o.
the present Congress and protest
against the removal Of the duty
on lumber. Should my party
prevent or restrain me from ar
effort to obtain an equitable adj
justment of the tariff and protest
against its bearing so unequally
as to destroy particular indus
try? This is not inconsistent
with true democracy. Politicians
and newspapers have tried tc
make party issue out of an in
cidental question of national pc
icy. SO far as my democracy il
concerned | am quite willing i
should be tested with that of tn
late Hon. S. J. Randall, or tn
Hon. Amos Cummings and Chas
A. Dana. H. E. FITZGERALD.
The following are the reSolu
tions referred to by the abov
e correspondent.-ED.
I To the Honorable House Of Representative
ofthe United States:
The lumber manufacturers of the Unite
+ States assembled In Washington, in pursr
I nnce of the following call:
To the lumber Manufacturers and Whoicsa
/ Dealers ofthe United States, Greeting
In 1891 S13.5OO,OOO value OF Canada
, forest products were imported into the Unite