The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-06-10

washington, June III lH' H'h"'' "
day, Mr. Quay of Pennsylvania present
ed several propositions to strike out me
duty on tea and substitute duty OF ~
pcr cent ad yalorcm on all articles pro-
nosed by the bill to be placed on the tree
list. these duties to continue Till July !,
1901 after which the articles shall be
cyempt from duty. An amendment pro-
poses u prOvso TO the paragraph liking
n duty on iron ore so that all iron ore
from foreign mines owned by American
citizens and imported for their own use
and not for sale, shall be exempt from
duty.
The consideration of the tariff bill was
resumed soon after the session opened
and the discussion proceeded on the para
graph placing Il duty Of 81 per 1000 feet
on lumber.
Mr.. Allen (pop) of Nebraska moved
to substitute the provisions of the Wilson
bill. which placed lumber on the free list.
The senator spoke in particular against
restoring white pine to the dutinbe list,
urging that the rates were designed to be
prohibitOry against Canadian pine.
There was nothing he said, in the clap
trap argument of American high wages
as the wages of the lumber men in Cana
da were on the whole higher than in the
United States This was simply an at
tempt to back the lumber syndicate in
the advance which il had made less than
year ago, and in the eyes of every hon
est man was nothing short of absolute
larceny-legaized larceny.
Mr.. Berry of Arkansas spoke against
restoring the duty ON white pine. He had
been appealed to by the lumber interests
of his own state to support the duty but
he could not do il when il laid such heavy
tribute on the agricultural people of the
western states. Mr. Berry expressed his
establishment that any democratic scna-
tor would support this proposition of duty
on lumber.
Mr.. Bacon of Georgia, who is support
ing the lumber duty, reminded Mr.. Berry
that his (Bacon's) support was due to
the fact that the duty was II revenue
rather than Il protective duty.
Mr.. Berry responded with II vehement
arrangement of the bill, framed, he said,
in the interest of every trust and combi-
nation in the country. When he saw in
the bill that it gave large increases of
duty to the sugar trust and to every com
bination of capital this satisfied him that
the measure was framed distinctly ON
the lines of protection and not of rcye-
nue..
Mr.. Gallery of Louisiana opposed the
duty on white pine and incidentally criti-
ciSed the position of Mr.. Bacon of
Georgia, who, he said. favored prOtcc
tive duty. This the senate from Georgia
denied.
Mr.. Cnffcry announced his opposition
e. all the protective duties, hut favored
the imposition of duty for purely rcvc-
nue. purposes. He said the supply of pine
in this country was incNhauStihlc and re-
pudiatod the "reputcd'' representatives of
lumber interests of his state vino went
before the ways and means committee
and asked duty of 50. He could not.
he said, find II single basis for this duty
ON lumber so far as the southern timber
interests We're concerned
THE platform ! stand on" intcrpoSed
Mr.. Bacon, the orthodoxy of which the
senator from Louisiana may not sub |
scribe to MIR. Gallery supported the In
dlapolis ticket warrants my position |
The Chicago platform said: We favor
tariff for revenue with duties so adjust |
ed us to operate equally throughout the |
country and not discriminate as to class |
or section. II is that plank in the plat
form upon which | stand"
Mr.. Caifery said there might he n dis |
crepancy between the Chicago and In |
diapolis platform. but the essence of
democracy was opposed to II tariff on raw
materials, because such Il tariff necessa-
rily required commensatory duty ON
manufactured articles.
IF one wrong was conceded" he asked |
shall we multiply it? Can error be so
corrected? That may be the logic of your
democracy: ii is not mine
My position" said Mr. Bacon, lis that
if duties are TO be levied on manufac.