The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-06-08
FOR DUTY ON LUMBER
The Day in The Senate Spent in Dis
cussiOn on th, Matter.
FREE SILVER IS INJECTED
White Pine Goes In On the 81
Rate. But Vest combatted the
Proposition-AF Few Hours
of Warm Talk.

amendments to the tariff bill. One OF
them proposes 10 strike out the duty
un tea and substitute a duty OF 10 per
cent ad ValOrem on the articles proposed
by the hill 10 be- placed on the free list.
these duties tn continue until July. 1891.
after which the articles shall be exempt
from duty. Another amendment pro-
posed a provision To the paragraph FIX
ing the duty on iron ore sO that the ore
from foreign mines owned by American
citizens and imported for their own Use
and not for sale shall he exempt from
duty. Discussion OF the bill was re-
sumed soon after the session opened
and the discussion proceeded ON the
paragraph placing "A duty OF s. per 900
feet on lumber. Allen moved to subsli-
tute the provisions of the Wilson bill.
which placed lumber on the free list.
The senator spoke In particular against
restoring white pine to the dutiable list.
urging that the rates were designed to
be- prohibltory against Canadian pine.
There was nothing, he said, in the
"claptrap argument OF American high
wages" as the wages OF lumbermen In
Canada were on the whole higher than
those In the United States. Berry spoke
against restoring the duty on white
pine. He expressed astonishment that
any democratic senator would support
this restoration Of duty ON lumber.
Bacon, who IL supporting the lumber
duty. reminded Berry that his tBacon's)
support was due to the fact that the
duty was for revenue rather than for
protective rates.
Berry responded with a vehement ar
raignment of the bill When he saw
that the bill gave a large increase ot
duty to the sugar trust and To every
other combination OF capital. this salts
lied him that the measure was framed
distinctly ON lines Of protection and not
Of revenue.
Quite lively turn was given to the
senate tariff bill this afternoon. Bacon
had spoken In favor of a duty on lum-
Der, as according To democratic tenets,
and Cafery had opposed IL as undemo-
cratic. Hoar thereupon referred to the
peculiarities OF the way some democrats
acted on the tariff Canerys idea Of
the tarin, he said. was a duty on sugar
sugar and ON nothing else. He added
that caifery was 81 anxious for pro-
tective duty on sugar when the Wilson
hill was being considered that when 4
vote was taken he first cast his vote
against the house bill as a protest. and
had changed 10 yea. IIoar said BACON
wanted protection and revenue to ~
hand In hand when II came to duty On
lumber. Hoar said he would support
the tariff bill II 1t contained duty on
hides. which his colleagues thought
proper. lie said he thought duty OF a
cent per pound ON hides was not pro-
lection. and from that point OF view
was folly. Stewart insisted that while
there was "A duty on the products of
leather. there should be protection on
hides for the benefit of farmers who
were subject to competition from South
America.
Caffery defended his vote on the VIII
son bill. saying that IL was a protest
against the action Of his own side in
changing the rate when the bounty
should be repealed. He said that while
he might have deceived himself on the
tarin. he did not like To have Hoar
deceive others. Hoar confessed that
a duty on hides was absurd. but only
because II was not high enough 10 do
any good. Allen said Hoar's statement
that the proposed duty on hides was
only ! cent was not correct. lie then
continued the debate on the lumber
schedule.
Cafrery opposed the duty on white
pine and incidentally criticised the po-
sition of Bacon. who. he said, favored
protective duty. This the senator de-
hled. Canery announced his opposition
TO all protective duties but favored the
imposition of duty for purely revenue
| purposes. He said the supply of pine
In this country was inexhaustlble and
repudiated the representatives Jf
lumber interests Of his state who went
before the ways and means COMMITTEES
and asked duty of 81" He could not.
he said. find a single basis for this duty
on lumber 50 far as Southern timber
/ N
The platform | stand on" inter-
posed Bacon. the orthodoxy OF which
the senator from Louisiana may not
subscribe TO tMr. Caffery supported
the indianapolis gold ticket) warrants
my position. The Chicago platform
said: We favor tariff for revenue.
with duties so adjusted as to operate
equally throughout the country and not
to discriminate as to class or section.
ls IN that plank In the platform upon
which I stand" said Bacon.
caffery said there might he a discrep-
ancy between the Chicago and Indian
apolis platforms. but the democracy
was opposed To tarir on raw materi-
ais because such tariff necessarily
required compensatory duties on manu-
! factured articles. IF one wrong Is
conceded" he asked. shall we multi
ply it, Can the error be so corrected ,
That may be the logic Of your democ-
racy. 1t is not OF mine
My position" said Bacon. lis that
II duties are 10 be levied on manufac-
tured articles for revenue purposes
they should be levied also on raw ma
terials-that no favors should be-
| shown"
The senator improved the opportun-
ity afforded To humorously goad Sena-
tors Bacon and Caffery by intimating
that their revenue ideas became decid-
edly protective when home interests
were affected-sugar for Louisiana and
lumber for Georgia. Cafery. with some
display of temper. announced that there
was not an iota OF protection In his
makeup. Il favor a duty on sugar,
said he. emphatically, because the
duty goes into the treasury OF the
United States. You favor protection
on articles which enable the manufac-
turers Of those articles To put the
equivalent OF the duty in their own
pockets"
Hoar made some rather sarcastic ref
erences to Caffery's Inconsistency de-
scribing him as a free silver trader. who
cried always sugar. sugar. sugar
l. h.