The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-10-12

ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT
THE DUTY OF THE M'KfNIEY TAN.
LIE WAS ONLY -ONE-HAF OF THAT
IMPOSED BY THE MORRILL, TARIFF
OF 1888. IF 1T WAS FOUND THAT
THE 81 TARIFF WAS NOT Salts
FACTORY, IT WOULD BE JUsTIFI-
CATION FOR THE RESTORATION OF
THE DUTY OF 1883"
Later on Mr.. Tawney wanted to know
II II was not fact that the lunbermen
had an idea that they could stand the
reduction of 1856. and afterwards found
usat they could not: and also if the price
or lumber did not advance again In
1872, after lie reduction In duty.
GENERAL DISCUSSION.
These questions were asked after an
exhaustive review of the tariff subject
by L. B. Walker He claimed that
when, lumber and other industries are
protected it gives the unprotected indus
tries, and especially the farmers. an in
crease In the value of all their products.
tnat more than compersates them for
what little additional price they have
to pay for their lumber" To Congress-
man Tawney's question Mr.. Walker 'sad-
mltted THAI the did advance at that time.
about $l.50 a thousand, which showed
that the reduction in duty sometimes
meant higher price for the consumer
to pay"
During the. course of the conference
CONGRESSMAN Fletcher stated that he
wanted matters thoroughly discussed.
A letter from Charles w. Wells was
afterwards read urging the necessitv Of
a full report from the members of the
tariff committee.
Frederick Weyerhauser was of the opln-
lon that the act of 1885, which provided
Tor a ~ duty on lumber, was what was
needed.
B. F. Nelson stated that lumbermen of
the South were more enthusiastic than
lumbermen of the North on the subject
OF tariff and agreed with Mr. Weyer-
hauser. ,H
Mr.. Mcknight mentioned that the Cana
dian government improved the streams.
which made the hauling of logs easier
and cheaper. In Canada wages ranged
from So to- $18 per month, while here IN
Dor was $14 to s24
Thomas III. Shevlin thought that It
should not be lost sight of that tha
Canadian lunbermen We're in better shape
there to flood this country with lumber
than ever before.
Congressman-elect Page Norris was In
: irodueed and made short address, prom
ising his support s
Etle GLOWING were present at the con-
ference besides those mentioned: w, H.
Laird, Wfnona; IT, Mcknight. MinneaD-
oils; H. G. Akeley, Minneapolis: John De-
Baittre, Minneapolis Howard DeLaittres
Minneapolis; c. A Bovey, Minneapolis:
w. H H. Day, Minneapolis; ]. w. Dav.
Minneapolis; Gilbert Walker, Minneap-
Oils; D. F. Brooks, Minneapolis; T. III.
Shevlin, Minneapolis; r. L. Mccormick.
Hayward Wis; L. c. Coleman. La
Crosse, Wis; Eugene Shaw, Eau Claire.
Wis; George H Atwood Saltwater:
George S. Shaw, Cloquet; Rudolph Wey
erhauser, Rock Island, H.; William Ir-
vine, Chippewa Falls, Wis; c. E. 4,ichard-
son, Duluth.
SOME MORE FACTS.
The Mississippi Valley Lunlrbe man,
Feb. 10, says:
The ways and ,eans committee of
the house of representa- tives has partially
prepared Schedule D, covering wood and
manufacturing thereof, and it has been
turned over to Representative Tawney
for revision
July 8, two weeks before the revision
Of the Dingley BILL the same journal
said, page u: 'By natural action Repre-
sentative Tawney of Minnesota, is rec
ognized both in the house and senate
as the acknowledged representative Of
the lumber interests, and he is working
hard for the interests Of the lumbermen
Upon Mr.. Tawneys advice the lumber
men in Washington will be largely guided
from now on as they have been in the
past"