The Oskaloosa herald., 1906-05-03
That Awful IS Lioura.w

| Z Il
The governor. after a good deal OF
! Senate Committee on Interstate Com
merce. ON the 11th OF May. 1905. He
had an awful time there. There does
not so very much appear on the
record. have carefully read it. But
the secret of the governors agitation
was that there was sitting against the
wall railway attorney, and he had
/ never seen anything Of that kind be-
fore and he was awfully shocked.
The governor didn't 60 down there
to represent Iowa. He represented
! Iowa after he came back. Very like
" the party in whose interest he went
| to Washington was deserving of his
time-The Iowa State Manufacturers
Association. The thought was that
Madison, Rockford, Freeport, Chicago
and st. Louis and some other of these
competing points had practically the
same rate that they had over
in Iowa and they wanted those
points to pay more Of the distance
tariff. in other words. And the COVER
nor was urging the propriety Of that
way of handling the railroad rate
/ AoCobNOh. ACN " NhetS NANSA
cross-examination 1t was ratneI
cruel for some Of the questions were
brutally direct. He undertook to meet
one of them down at Mt. Ayr. The
examiner said to him: Don't your
Iowa farmers and producers get their
surplus grain and live stock to mar
ket under this low rate under the
long haul?" Mr.. Cummins said:
NO, they do not. l suppose you
mean to imply excessive or unrea-
sonable rate?" Chairman: Il mean
just as the business is conducted To-
day." Mr.. Cummins: mo sir,
think our people get into the eastern
markets with butter and eggs upon
rate to which they are not entitled
by any fair adjustment" But now,
who is saving the farmer? That mat
ter had been suggested down at Mt.
Ayr as / am advised. And he said:
Il never advised the increase of rates
on hstter and eggs, etc." If it were
not absorbing so much time l woulo
of farmers in Ringgold County. But
along that line 1 shall return to the
Washington experience. l want to
cite to you to what what was said
down in Madison County on April 7th.
Canadian Reciprocity.
This related to Canadian reciproci-
ty. Il suppose those who have read
this"-.something from the news
papers and other think
that am in favor of removing the
duty on Canadian agricultural pro-
ducts. Never have / suggested any
such thing anywhere to anybody OF
under any circumstances" And more
of that kind. / don't see how the
governor could do that very well.
Do you recognize this? His Inaugu-
raj Address delivered January Ia,
1904. Why surely. He was thinking
that II the New England manufac-
turers could have free access to Cana
da that this would greatly increase
the demand for agricultural products
in New England and so he says: ut
has been said that in order to obtain
these advantages It viii be necessary
for US to let into our markets Ca
madam agricultural products or some
of them. I believe this to be partially
true but let me ask the farmers OF
Iowa whether they think they would
lose in the exchange? Which would
you rather do, lose the market which
would be created by our vast imports
into Canada, or meet Canada in
competition in the things which you
could do. l assert confidently that
in the sharp struggle of Iowa, Wis
consin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Ne
braska Kansas and Missouri you
would never be able to discern the
influence of Canada in corn, oats, bar
ley, hay, cattle, horses, butter and
eggs" Never anywhere, to anybody,
under any circumstances, or at any
place did I say anything Of this kind!
cummins Against Roosevelt.
This must be one of Mr.. Murphy's
blunders-he is the state printer. But
our governor tells US he went to Wash
ington for the purpose of holding up
the hands of the president. l say, no,
he did not. l say that the governor
to-day is not in sympathy with the
bill which they are struggling with in
the Senate Of the United States. Gov.
LaFollette of Wisconsin has just fin
ished a, three or four days speech.
Mr.. Cunlmins agrees with Mr.. LaFol-
lette and sometimes think that no
matter what LaFollette does Gov.
Cummins agrees with him, or tries
to do the same thing. Now what is
the difference? Here is an extract
from Gov. LaFollette's speech and
one difficulty with the bill is it does
not provide for an absolute rate. 1t
is a minimum rate and the president
of the United States is not committed
to any such policy. Under the cross.
examination Of the governor. and not
by corporation tool, though he says
every question asked him was
hostile, but in response to the ques-
tions asked him by Senator Shelby
NJ. Cullom of Illinois he thought the
maximum rate standing alone would
do no good. You can easily get the
report and read the testimony for
yourself.
There had recently been a meet
ing at Washington Of a railway
association. At banquet Secre-
tary Taft appeared for the ad-
ministration and addressed himself on
the question to the railroad men ad-
yising them that the change of this
Act of 1887 was coming and they would
better ask authority, where complaint
- a.