The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-27


present at the conference to hear
suggestions. He stated there were
three subjects to be considered-ad>
vocacy of the duty imposed in 1890;
results of the workings of the present
tariff law and the changes contem-
plated or desired
President Laird thought 1t proper
that the gathering be given a report CT
natl, and asked S. T. Mcknight to fa-
vor them with such. The latter out
lined the results accomplished, and told
Of the appointment Of committee to
wait upon the tariff committee Dec. 81.
Congressman Tawney suggested that
the adequacy of the bill of 1890 be con-
sidered. He stated that a disposition
was manifest in certain quarters for a
higher tariff law than at present, and
sought to impress the value and neces-
sity for any information along that
lire. Many Republicans realized the
necessity of putting lumber back on the
dutiable list. Upon this point he was
corroborated by Mr.. Mcknight, who
announced the expression Of the Gin
cinnai conference as favoring 81 per
thousand. There was but one dissent
ing voice, that being Mr. Gardner, of
Clinton, To-, who favored the rate Of
81 had in the Mckinley bill.
Frederick WeyerhauSer considered the
act of 1883, in which 81 per thousand
was the rate, the need of the present.
He estimated the cost Of producing
lumber in Canada as fully 80 per cent
cheaper than in the state, owing to the
cheaper wages and more reasonable
charge for stumpage. B. f. Nelson en-
larged upon the report Of the Cincin.
natl conference given by Mr.. Nc
Knight. Answering Mr.. Tawney, he
stated that the difference between the
acts Of 1896 and 1883 was in the class of
lumber specified, and that the proposed
81 duty applied to pine. -
John De Laittre expressed the sopin-
ion that the congressman should be
we'll fortified with information when it
was proposed to make an increase in
the duty on lumber over the Mckinley
bill. He dwelt upon the seriousness
of Canadian competition and asserted
that the government Of the neighboring
country helped out the lumber oper-
otors. He favored a duty of 81 per
1000 on the manufactured article.
Congressman Tawney mentioned the
fact that the duty imposed in 1890 was
but one-half that of 1888, and at that
time it was a question If the industry
could Withstand the reduction. If it
is found, he said, that the rate was
satisfactory, that will be a justification
for restoring the duty of 1888.
George S. Shaw corroborated the
statement of preceding speakers. He
stated that spruce was shipped into
the New England states where it was
being used for the manufacture of
boxes, for which native pine was for
merly used. Up to the time the duty
was removed from lumber there were
few mills in Canada and they were
scattering. At the present time an inn
petus was being enjoyed and new ma
chinery being constantly imported for
new mills.
Congressman Tawney-At what
points does Canadian lumber come
most in competition with the native
production?
Mr. Shaw-One case in point is the
erection of bridge at Duluth recently
Both ends were in lumber yards and
yet all the lumber was imported from
Canada. In realizing $40 for lumber, 81
was paid out for labor. His firm put
out 62 600, 900 feet in 1892 but last year
il had fallen to %, 1000, 900 feet
R. L. Mccormick told of the efforts of
his firm to do business In the East
Under the old tariff of 1883 quite a
large trade was enjoyed. At the pres
ent time only lumber of a superior
quality could be shipped without loss
t. B. Walker followed in an exhaustive
ICNlCW vi Tic TIE 6AleHl VI the lnlQOT-
tations from Canada. If the increase
of lumber continued under the new du-
ties, he said, it meant an increased rev.
enue and increased prosperity He
pointed out the interdependence Of the
numbering and farming interests and
contended that the people Of the United
States would enjoy greater prosperity
If there was q duty on all articles
Congressman F'letcher-In other words
you are prOtectionist
Congressman Tawney-Was It not a
fact that the lumbermen had an i'm
preston that the industry was able to
Withstand competition in reduced rates
and subsequent developments proved
that it could not?
Mr.. Walker-I think that is So Lum-
Der is not raw material except on the
stump. In Canada the operators do
not pay over one-third or one-quarter
as much as is paid here.
Congressman elect Morris intimated
that the present repletion of the lum-
Der markets resulted in less steady en-