The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-14

Mr.. Tawney has the indirection Of his
youth and his enthusiasm. With later
years and the experience they bring
to ripen judgment, he will MAINTAIN a
discreet silence and not invite discus
sions with men who know more abe ut
the topic than he ever dreamed Of. He
will reserve his assertions and vagaries
ITO be expended on country audiences,
where the words will dissolve in the
intangible air, instead of putting them
into cold and imperishable type, where
they make a target for facts intelli
gently shot. He recently, as may be
recalled, employed his vacation during
the session of bi-weekly adjournments
of the house in coming to Minnesota
to enlighten the public on the Beauties
the beneficence of that elixir Of indus
try, the Dingley bill. He put his views
IN type, and by that act invited COM
ment and criticism He got both.
Among those who found more glitter
than substance in Mr.. Tawney's views
was Mr.. Youmans, of Winona, whose
comments we recently noted. To this
Mr.. Tawney was rash enough to reply,
In the course of which he made the re-
markable assertion that the proposed
tax of 81 a thousand on lumber would
not increase the cost of that somewhat
essential article, and, in support of it,
made the statement that lumber in
creased in price after the Mckinley act
reduced the tax to 81. To this Mr.
Youmans makes an answer that, con-
sidering the Importance of the subject
to every one who makes use of lum-
Der, the seriousness of Mr.. Tawney's
statement, and the weight that comes
from the writer's prominence in the
lumber industry, is a valuable contri-
button to the discussion.
Says MI. Youmans:
The question as to how much the enact
ment of this law will increase the price Of
lumber is not germane to this discussion. In
considering the policy, the question is, What
is the intent of the lumber manufacturers and
pine land owners who are urging this legisa-
ton, and the members of congress who are
enacting it? This is not disguised by either
~
advance the price 81 a thousand is a mere
bubble He has taken good care not to re-
pudiate the charge that the whole purpose,
end and aim of the legislation is to increase
the price Of lumber to the consumer by as
much as legislation can be utilized to secure
that result. There are many factors that
modify the price of commodities, These
sometimes operate to counterfeit the effect
of pernictous legislation and sometimes to
augment it. The object Of protective duty
on lumber or any other product is to re-
faT h1St hn iT,G,t %tO+f
eign competition has on the price. When that
object is accomplished, it frequently occurs
that through combination domestic compete
ton is also removed or lessened and the re-
suit is that the price is enhanced much be-
yond the rate of duty imposed. But when a
duty is levied on wheat, cabbages eggs,
1t does not affect the price, and there is no
expectation or intention of producing that re-
suit. The purpose is to dupe the farmer and
make him believe that it would be very I'M
generous in him not to submit quietly to the
tax the lumberman is authorized to eXtort
from him when he too is made a beneficiary
of the system.
Evidently for the purpose of lending plaus-
Utility to his intimation that the Dingley hill
will not increase the price of lumber by the
amount of the duty, Mr.. Tawney cites the
effect of the Mckinley bill in taking off the
duty to the amount of 81 per thousand. He
says:
THE lumbermen of the Northwest in
creased the price of lumber to just the extent
of the reduction in the rate of duty, viz,
mand resulting from prosperous times, they
continued to increase the price until 1S93."
1t was an objectionable omission that he
did not attribute the prosperous times to the
Mckinley law. This statement is in entire
accordance with the constant baseless utter
ances of the protectionists to bolster I'D an
indefensible cause. 1 have no doubt Mr..
Tawney has been informed that such is the
case and probably the evidence was given
before the ways and means committee. How
ever, the statement is not true. | have the
record. Not only did the price of lumber
not increase in this market in 1890, ''by ST
a thousand" but it declined, and was lower
IN 1880, than In 1883; lower in 1891 than in
1890, and SO far as the price increasing
81 in 1890 and continuing to increase until
1888" it has never increased 81 a thousand
from 1890 to this time But the assertion,
even Il 1t were true, is not pertinent. l sim
ply cite it to show the reckless statements
continually resorted to by protectionists in de-
1ense OF their policy. Does Mr.. Tawney
think he can make anybody believe that the
powerful lobby that has been thronging the
halls OF legislation in Washington, since con-
gross convened in December from Minnesota.
from wisconsin, from Michigan, from Maine,
from the Pacific coast and from the large
lumber districts of the South, logging the
footsteps of members CT congress- implorine
them to restore the duty upon lumber-does
he believe they think the effect CT that duty
! will be TO reduce the price of lumber to the
consumer or that it will not result in a
large increase, probably to the full amount of
the duty? What other significance have the
large money assessments that have been
made ard are being made upon the lum-