The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1898-12-24

selves derive but little benefit from the
tax on lumber. though they worked
pretty hard to get 1t on. They denied
that the 81 duty goes into the pockets
of those who own the pine lands or saw
the lumber. Gas matter of fact" said
one of them, "nearly every cent Of that
81 goes into the pockets of the laborers."
Another of them said that 'nine-tenths
of the selling price of lumber represents
the cost Of the labor" He admitted,
however, that part of the money goes
into the pocket of the lumberman, as it
ought to. but the greater part represents
higher wages paid to labor"
The other big lumbermen, with one
exception, spoke in the same strain. The
solitary exception is Mr. Joel B. Bassett,
Democrat, who unhesitatingly said
that the tariff on lumber helps the few
at the expense of many consumers. In
his interesting way Mr.. Bassett said:
The pine timber now standing in this
state is largely owned by not more than
ten persons or companies controlling
large capital. They have managed, by
fair means or otherwise, to get posses
sion of at least three-fourths of all the
pine lands and timber in Minnesota with
the exception of that which is standing
on the Indian reservations, and 1 think
that probably they will soon obtain pos
session of the greater part of that.
The means used by the owners of this
timber to secure it is not necessary to
discuss here. The fact that they have
possession of it will be sufficient to en-
able the people to form an opinion as to
what is just and fair to the consumers of
lumber in the states of North and South
Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa, where
most of this lumber is consumed.
The question which occurs to me is,
shall the 100000 people of these states
be taxed 81 per thousand feet to enable
these ten persons to realize fortunes by
these questionable methods of securing
monopoly of the pine timber in this
and other states? Here are four great
Der, except what is under the control Of
these few men.
We make it our boast that this is
government by the people and should be
administered for the greatest good of the
greatest number. Will any one claim
that the five million people in these four
states desire to he taxed for the benefit
of these ten men or companies?
There can be no question in regard to
the effect of this duty on the price of
lumber in these four states. There can
be no doubt that ninety-nine of every
hundred consumers would be glad to buy
shall be served, the ninety-nine or the
one? These large owners of timber can
meke all the money they are entitled to
by fair competitor with our neighbors.
have bought government lands, opened
up farms and are producing the great
staple products which are making our
country rich, ask no protective duty to
A1cAp IACul III ulSucl lCeo.
Why should these few millionaires who
have bought pine lands ask the govern
ment to tax the great mass Of the people
for their benefit?
The claim that the lumber industry
gives employment to large numbers of
men should not be taken into account in
the settlement of the question of recip-
rocity. The pine lumber will be cut and
manufactured at some time, and the
government should not encourage it's de-
struction for the purpose of giving en-
ployment to comparatively small num-
Der of men to the injury of many.
We consider the foregoing words of Mr..
Bassett entitled to prominence in these
columns. Though engaged in the lum-
Der industry and receiving benefit from
the high tariff, he is willing to be con-
tent with legitimate profit from his in
vestment, like men in other lines of
business. He knows what he is talking
about, and what he says merits the seri-
GUS consideration of the consumers of
lumber everywhere