The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-01-06
LU MBER MEN PROTEST
A Revenue Tariff With Incidental
Protection Asked for.

Savannah's Lumbermon Petition Con-
gress Against the Entire Removal of
the Duty on Lumber-The Mckinley
Bill Cut the Duty 90 Per Cent. and
the Wilson Bill Removes it Entirely.
The Georgia lumbermen are preparing
to resist the removal of the duty upon
lumber of s1.OO per thousand, proposed by
the Wilson bill. .
The Mckinley bill, while increasing the
duty upon almost everything which
could come into competition with Ameri-
can products, reduced the duty on lumber
from $500 per thousand 70 S1.00
per thousand. The Wilson bill
proposes to remove it altogether. This
directly affects the large lumber industry
of this state, which has just begun to
find market in the northwest. With
the tariff removed the northwest, and
great part of the entire north, will draw
it's lumber supply from the forests of
Canada and British America.
The lumber industry is just emerging
from most depressing period, lasting
for nearly three years and to have their
prospects blasted by the proposed aboli-
ton of the lumber duty is by no means
relished by the lumbermen.
AN ADDRESS TO CONGRESS.
The following protest to con gress
against the removal of the duty was
signed by all the large lumber firms of
the city yesterday.
To the Senate and House OF Representatives
Of the United States The undersigned
manufacturers Of lumber residing as indi-
Gated below, respectfully submit to your hon
orable body brief statement of the reasons
for our opposition 10 the proposed lumber
schedules contained in the bill prepared by
the ways and means committee Of the House
OF Representatives, and recently made pub
lie.
/. The lumber manufacturing industry is
one of the largest, If not the large st industry
in the United States giving employment and
support to nearly three millions of people.
During the recent financial stringency the
business has been very much depressed and
the failures have been large and numerous.
The present condition of the lumber business
is such that 1t cannot endure any further at
tacks upon its prosperity without serious con-
sequences.
3. The bulk of the products of our mills are
essentially finished manufactures and not
raw material, the log from which the lumber
Is manufactured is she raw material. We are,
therefore. not seeking to retain or to have i'm
posed tax upon raw material to be used in
manufacture in the United States Logs have
L6Su LOT years duInltLeQ Tree OF duty, as We'll
as hemlock and oak bark A very large per-
centage OF the lumber manufactured at the saw
mills IN the country is prepared ready for the
buildings in which 1t is to be finally used,
without any other or further mauufac-
turing process being applied to it. Our
lumber is, therefore, as we have stated above,
essentially manufactured article into the
cost of which the element OF labor enters to
very great extent and it is, therefore, enti-
tied to its fair share of incidental protection
which necessarily comes from tariff for rev
enue only.
3. Without having exact figures at hand
and from hasty examination of the proposed
bill, we judge the average duty imposed upon
articles taxed to be not less than % per cent.
al yaiorem. We beg leave to submit that an
industry so extensive as ours is en-
Ntled at least to the average rate of
protection which comes from a tariff for
revenue only. We find in the proposed bill
that while iron ore is admitted free, tax of
2213 per cent. ad valorem is imposed on pig
iron. We beg leave to suggest that there is
no substantial reason why our industry should
not receive at least the same protection that
the iron industry receives in consideration of
the fact that its crudest products are carried
to more advanced stage of manufacture
than pig iron.
4. Prior to the enactment of what is com
monty known as the Mckinley bill the tax
upon lumber was 81 per 1000 feet. Statistics of
the treasury department show thatfor the year
ending June go 1891 there was imported into
the United States lumber and forest products
to the value of S19, 1856 353; for the year ending
June So 1892. Sl9,S44 ,709 for the year ending
June 30, 1898, 1913 152,7g2. The Mckinley bill re-
duced the tax upon lumber from 81 to 81 per
1000 feet. The result is indicated in the
figures above, showing that by reason of this
reduction there was imported into this coun-
try lumber to the value of So, 30s, 013 in excess
of the previous year, and that the Amer
lean producers were deprived OF a market
for their product to this extent. There are
many other reasons which can be assigned
pertinent to the question. such as decreased
cost of production in British territory, lower
price OF labor, means of transportation con-
structed at public expense and many others
which we wish to urge. We beg leave therefore
to respectfully protest against the adoption of
the lumber schedules as proposed in the
bill now before the House of Representatives
and TO pray your honorable bodies to place
the numerous business interests which we
represent upon an equal footing with those Of
other manufacturers in the country, and to
provide for us fair and reasonable protection
to the products Of our mills by tax upon
foreign lumber in any tariff bill which may
finally be adopted as the law of the land.
A delegation of the lumbermen will
probably go 10 Washington shortly to
urge their views upon congress.