The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-06-08
The Proceedings.

j
today Mr.. Quay of Pennsylvania pre-
sented several proposed amendments to
the tariff bill. One of them proposes
TO strike out the duty on tea and sub
stitute a duty of 10 per cent advalorem
be placed on the free list, these duties
to continue until July 1, 1901, after
which the articles shall be exempt
from duty. Another amendment pro-
poses proviso to the paragraph fixing
a 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 d duty of 50
per 1000 feet on lumber.
Mr.. Allen pop, Neb.) moved to sub
stitute the provisions of the Wilson
bill. which placed lumber on the free
list. The senator spoke in particular
outlable list. urging that the rates were
designed to be prohibitory against
Canadian pine.
SIMPLY CLAP-TRAP.
There was nothing. he said. in the
wages as the wages of the lumber
men in Canada were on the whole high
er than in the United States This
was simply an attempt to pay back to
the lumber syndicate the advance
which it had possibly made less than
year ago. and IN the eyes of every
honest man was nothing short of alb
solute larceny-legalized larceny
Mr.. Berry, (Arkansas) spoke against
restoring the dntV on white nina Ha
had been appealed to by the lumber
interests of his own state to support
the duty, but he could not do il when
it laid such heavy tribute on the agri-
cultural people of the western states
Mr.. Berry expressed his establishment
that any democratic senator would sup
port this restoration of duty on labor
Mr.. Bacon, (Georgia) who is sup
porting the lumber duty, reminded Mr.
Berry that his (Bacon's) support was
due to the fact that the duty was a
revenue rather than a protective rate.
Mr.. Berry responded with a vehement
arraignment of the bill, framed he
said, in the interest of every trust and
combination in the country. When he
saw that the bill gave the large in
crease of duty to the sugar trust and
this satisfied him that the measure
was framed distinctly on the lines of
protection and not of revenue.
Mr.. Caffery, DAD opposed the duty
on white pine and incidentally crit
icised the position of Mr.. Bacon. (Ga.)
who, he said, favored a protective
duty. This the senator from Georgia
denied.
Mr. Caffery 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 inexhaustible and
repudiated the "reDuted" represent
atives of lumber interests of his state
who went before the ways and means
committee and asked a duty of 81. He
could not, he said, find a single basis
for this duty on lumber so far as the
southern timber interests were con-
cerned.
WHERE HE IS AT.
The platform I stand on" inter-
posed Mr.. Bacon, the orthodoxy of
which the senator from Louisiana may
not subscribe TO (Mr. Caffery supported
the indianapolis gold ticket)) warrants
my position. The Chicago platform
said We favor a tariff for revenue with
duties so adjusted as to operate equally
throughout the country and not dis
crininate as to class or section 1t is
that plank in the platform upon which
/ stand" said Mr.. Bacon.
Mr.. Caffery said there might be a
discrepancy between the Chicago and
Indiana poigs platforms. but the
Democracy was opposed to the tariff on
raw materials because such tariff ne
.cessarily required compensatory duties
on manufactured articles.
IF one wrong is conceded he asked,
shall we multiply it? Can error be SO
corrected? That may be the logic Of
vofrr Democracy II is not of mine -
My position" said Mr.. Bacon, SIS
that if duties are to be levied on manu-
featured articles for revenue purposes
they should be levied also on raw
materials-that no favors should be
shown"