The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-04-26
Special to The Herald.l

me his ideas in the following language:
The pingley bill, generally. l think
is 2 proposition which favors the east
ern manufacturers at the expense OF
the producer of raw materials. When
applied 10 manufactured products. il
is higher than the Mckinley law,
against which many Republicans ear
nestly protested at the time of its pas
sage. The principal portions of the bill
to which 1 take exceptions are the wool,
lead and hide schedules.
The wool schedule is a practical re-
enactment of the Mckinley law. Upon
that article ii is pretended that some
changes have been made in the inter
est of the wool grower; careful inves-
tigation of the schedule. however. fails
| to reveal any substantial concession
made. IT is full of antiquities and
affords many loop holes. though the
real protective intent of the law as ap-
! Piled to the wool-gr0wer may be in
deed in the interest of the wool man
ufacturer. 1t repeats, word for word
| the clauses of the Mckinley law relat- :
! ing to third class woods and provides
precisely the same ad valorem rates
\ of duty. This is THE most obnoxious
| paragraph of the wool schedule: for
while the first and second class sched-
ules with their respective specific
rates of II and ~ cents per pound is
made to bolt and bar the front door,
the low ad valorem rates for the third
class leave the back door wide open
for fraudulent INTERPRETATIONS and the
1 importatiOns of enormous quantities of
wool which properly belong in the first
and second class. and which should
pay the specific rates of duty provided
for those classes.
/ sT>t.
posed by the DingiSy bill upon lead
contained in ores is inadequate to
fairly protect the American lead miner.
In my Judgment it ought to be raised
to IL cents with a differential of cent
upon pig lead. II will be Temem bered
that the Wilson law relating to his
subject provided a duty of q of a cent
per pound on lead contained in silver
lead ores. with this proviso. however
that where the lead value of the ore
exceeded the value of the other metal
contained, the duty was levied on the
gross weight of the ore; and where the
value of the other metals contained
exceeded the value of the lead con-
tanned, then the duty was levied only
on the lead in SUCH ores. The result of
this provision was that all lead ores
especially under the Wilson law, were
more valuable for other metals than
for the lead contents 1t is said that in
Mexico and in British Columbia there
are enormous quantities of lead ore
containing little or no value in other
metals but which contains a very high
percentage of lead, much higher in
fact than the average lead ores of the
United States. The Dingley bill i'm
poses a straight duty of / cent per
pound upon lead contained in lead ores
and makes no other reference whatever
to other metals which such ore might
contain. 1t is reasonable, therefore. to
assume that under the Dingley pro-
vision there will be an immense in
crease in the shirment of foreign lead
ores containing a very high percentage
of lead, which will. of course come into
direct competition with the American
product. / am of the opinion that in
operation cent and a half duty on
the lead contained in the lead ores will
be less of an obstruction to the inn
portation Of such ores than was the
Wilson law.
As to hides l am clearly of the opin-
ion that they ought to be subjected to
a duty of some sort. to a revenue duty
If nothing else. Last year there were !
$50, 900 worth Of hides imported II is |
alleged by the boot and shoe makers
of Massachusetts that these imported 1
hides do not come into competition with |
domestic hides: this statement, how /
CNCi. " III llOl 'tdI crosse examination.
Another reason advanced by them |
against the imposition of a duty is
that the beef trusts would be the sole !
beneficiaries. and that the cattle raisers :
Including the thousands of small farm
erS who only sell from one to ten head I
Of cattle) would not receive an addi-
ional cent upon their sales. They also
urge that the imposition of a duty
say a cent and a half-upon all grown
hides would ruin their export business.
which now amounts to $4,000 900 per
annum; and that the additional cost
to the small farmer for the shoes wcrn
by himself and family would exceed
N amount the increased sum which he
might receive on the sale of his hides.
some one has made an estimate that
he duty of a cent and a half on hides
would probably enhance the cost Of an I.
ordinary pair of shoes from to
;ents. which. if true, destroys one of
he arguments of the shoe manufac-
urer. fg9
The argument of protectionists is
hat protection is intended for the pur-
'ose OF stimulating and eneourag ing
lome productions and home industries. +
md of furnishing employment for
American labor; and it is said that
rom SO to 9S per cent of all the business
md commerce of the United States is
lome business and commerce. The
rgument of the shoe manufacturer.
therefore,. as to their foreign trade
ught not to carry weight with pro-
ectionists. 1t is the home market that
protection seeks to foster and encour- !
ge. and the home producer. Il rs no.
iceable. however. that where the tariff,
ither by imposing a duty or by falling
o impose il. effects the manufacturing ,
interests of New England. they are al
Tays alert and ready to defend those
interests whether it be for a high pro- l
ective tariff on wool manufactures or {
n favor OF free hides for their boot [
nd shoe manufactures. I
Will you give your support to the 8
,ingley bill as il will come from the q
'ays and means committee?'' !
Il do not think the silver Republic [
ms can afford to obstruct the passage I
any tariff bin that the Republicans t
-ould pass, for the reason that. if they I