The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-16
JUDGE POWERS

The reply of Judge Powers was as
follows:
Salt Lake City. Jan 10, 1892
My Dear Sir-I owe an apology for fall
ing 10 promptly answer your favor Of Jan.
Standing as I do squarely upon the Chi
cago platform, and believing that a tariff
should be SO adjusted as not TO discrim-
mate between class or section, l answer
| in most positive terms. First, that if /
am elected United States senator l will
give my vote and influence to prevent the
repeal of the present duties on lead.
force a strict payment of the duty as fixed
by law on all lead imported into the
United States.
Third When the intent of the law is
eyaded by some technical construction or
departmental ruling, | win use my every
EFFORT and exert my influence TO correct
the condition existing, by securing favor
Assuring you that if elected I shall work
for the material interests of Utah, and
shall fight any and all legislation discrlm-
mating against her producers, / am your
obed1ent servant.
FROM SENATOR CANNON.
Senator Cannon answered thus:
My Dear Mr.. housekeeping to your
interesting letter of the Jth instant. and
to the categorical questions propounded
therein; If elected TO the senate 1 will:
tirst-CSive my vote and influence to Sc
lead in the Dingiey tariff act, and the
substitution therefor Of duties not only
adequate in amount, but sufficiently me-
thodical and just in imposition, as TO af-
ford genuine protection to the lead pro-
ducerS of the United States.
Second-I will do all in my power to
enforce a strict payment of the duty upon
lead. as fixed by law, imported into the
United States.
Third-When the intent of the law is
evaded by some technical construction or
now eyaded to the serious injury OF the
lead-producing INTEREST," l viii use my
effort and influence to correct such con-
dition.
having my statistics at immediate hand:
but my recollection is that under the alb
surd and unjust bonding provision of the
present Dingley bill practically no duty
is collected on lead imported into the
United States. If my recollection serves
me right. we imported during the first
eleven months under the Dingley bill,
100000 pounds of lead, all of which was
held in suspension in this country dur
ing the pleasure of the importers, and
2,30O,0OO pounds were exported during
these eleven months at the same pleasure.
Under the existing law the importer of
lead can bring in any quantity of lead
in bond. transfer such lead from sme.ter
to refinery, from refinery to mandatory,
and finally send the same out of the coun-
try; and all the clerical guardianship of
such imported and bonded lead are at the
expense of the United States. for the i'm
porter does not pay cent of duty so
long as he can show that he has set apart
for transfer in bond and final export an
amount of lead equivalent to the quantity
of Importation.
The presence in the country of so large
a mass of lead held in suspension. and
possible to be Tossed upon our market
by the mere payment of the duty, of it
self must have depressing effect upon
the lead market, even if there were no
frauds perpetrated directly in the evasion
of the duty
1 think that the lead schedule of the
Dingiey bill was in some respects pre-
ferable to that of the Wilson bill, but 1
shall hope at an early date to see just
schedule enacted for the benefit of this
chief industry of Utah. namely, mining.