The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-02-16

Bill reported.
The house devoted all but half an
hour of its two and a half hours ses-
sion yesterday to the consideration in
committee of the whole of H. F. 40, by
Mr.. Laybourn Rep.) of st. Louis.
The bill provides that the state pay
for period of ten years bounty of
80 cents per ton on all pig iron manu-
featured in the state
Mr.. Laybourn offered an amendment
which in words prevented members of
any trust organized for the purpose of
affecting the price of pig iron from
securing any of the bounty.
Mr.. Riley Rep1. of Jackson. feared
the state would pay too much under
the bill, and wanted the annual sum
paid limited
Mr.. Laybourn explained that 5000, 600
tons of iron ore were shipped out of
Minnesota last year and Smelted at
Pittsburg, and the state and the West
paid the freight charges both ways.
1t would take two or three years before
furnaces would be in operation, and in
his opinion he bounty was too low 1t
was only one-quarter as large as the
sugar bounty. and in Canada the
bounty was 81 per ton. Michigan was
anxious to have a similar law put in
force. It was hoped three furnaces
would be established, and it was not
the desire, as shown by his amendment,
that the. trust should be benefited.
About Sc per ton Of the price of pig
iron was paid for labor. The cost of
fitting up a furnace would be from
100000 to $3.50, 900 before any benefit
could be secured under the bill. There
was no reason why the state would
not be benefited by the passage of the
bill, both directly and indirectly.
Vo1n aeV i
the bill. Objection had been made on
the ground that it was a local benefit
only to Duluth. This was not cor
rect. He had voted for the sugar
bounty and the drainage bill for the
reason that what benefited one part of
the state helped all. Duluth was not
ar agricultural part of the state. The
iron industry was important, and in
FAINT industries should be encouraged.
Ore was now shipped to South Chicago.
and the manufacturers there were
reaping the advantage. The provisions
of the bill would not swamp the state
treasury.
Mr.. Mallory Rep.), of St Louis, ar
gUed that it was not a local question
but one that benefited the entire state
Mr.. jacobson (Rep), of Lac qui
Parle. assured the St Louis delega-
ton and the other friends of the bill
there was no prejudice against the DILL
on account of locality. The benefit to
Duluth would be a benefit to the en-
tire state. He was willing to give
bounty for the manufacturing of pig
iron, but wanted a check put on the
monopoly now in control of the indus
try. The amount to be paid should he
limited in the bill to something definite.
A maximum amount should be insert
ed and not leave the members in doubt
as to whether it would cost the state
$25,OOO or $3.50 600 a year. The Duluth
delegation had always opposed any
measure increasing or decreasing the
rates on ore shipments. The bill should
provide for reasonable transporta-
ton rate from the mines to Duluth.
Mr.. Dwinnel (Rep.), of Hennepfn,
contended that the manufacture of pig
iron would not benefit the state A 200
ton furnace. he had been Informed.
EMPLOYED only thirty-five men.
In line with his talk he offered an
amendment providing that the county
should be paid only for four years and
after that time no bounty should be
paid except on pig iron used in the
manufacture of merchantable products
and then the bounty should be 81 per
ton.
Mr.. Roberts (Rep.), of Hennepin, Of
fered an amendment. making the
amount to be paid for bounty in any
one year not to exceed O,000
MI Laybourn requested that the bill
be not amended to death and forthwith
sent UP another one limiting the boun-
ty to be paid in any one year to $75, 600
Mr.. Mallory desired all the amend
ments carefully considered. The mar
ket was not monopoliZed by Eastern
firms and would have to be built I'D
the same as the furnaces. It was with
in the power Of the state to repeal the
law whenever 1t became burdensome.
Mr.. Hennessy Oem), of Ramsey.
was of the opinion that the amendment
offered by the member from St Louis
was simply sop to those who opposed
the bill If the payment of a bounty
on l5o,0O0 tons was desirable why not
let the bounty cover all the pig iron
manufactured?
Mr.. Dwinnell withdrew his amend
ment and Mr.. Roberts insisted on his
being acted upon
Mr.. Riley (Rep.). of Jackson. did not
like the plan of f'going it blind" He
advised the house to go slow in voting
away such large chunks of the peo-
pies money"
The provision that the trusts should
not be benefited by the bill was use
less. Rockefeller or Carnegie now
owned the iron ore lands and it was
not necessary to say they should not
enter into a monopoly as no legislation
would shut them out
The benefit to the state in the manu-
facture of pig iron. as far as labor was
concerned. was small.
At i2:30 progress was reported.