Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1909-04-23
Nelson Of Minnesota and DOIIver Of
Iowa Sharply AntagonIze
Finance Committee.
SCHEDULES HIGH ANO DECEPTIVE
Cotton, Glass and WOODEN Schedules
Too Hish-Free Hides Injustice to
Farmers Of country-Certain Sec.
tions Contain Well Concealed Pro.
visions.

WASHINGTON. - c., April o.
Two Republican Senator'S, Nelson. OF
Minnesota, and Dolliver. OF Iowa. 10
day sharply antagoniZed the senate
committee On finance in the consider
alton of the tariff bill.
Mr.. Nelson denounced the measure.
declaring that the cotton. < Lass ana
wooden schedules were too high.
There are no other schedules as
high as these" said Mr.. Nelson, he
declared that placing duties on wool
en- ma nufacturcd goods 10 per cent
higher than the duty on raw wool
was unjust.
OIso Contained "Jokers."
Mr.. Delivers criticism was also
severe, and he precipitated lively
debate. He declared that not only
were the duties imposed by the
Payne Aldrich hill too high. but that
thew we're so worded as to result IN
large increase of rates without def
mite indication of such increase in the
schedule. He said he proposed to
have a full explanation Of the sched-
uless and to give other senators an
opportunity to vote to lower some OF
the rates. >,
"The WOODEN schedules" he said,
Ought to be reduced. ! undertake
to say that for two years this sched-
ule has been a bad advertisement Tor
the Republican party
Mr.. Dolliyer asserted that by sys-
tenn of rating cotton goods higher on
account of the presence of a small
percentage of wool. there had been
protection which was not apparent to
every person who might read the
law.
Manufacturers Inserted Schedule.
Mr.. Deliver said that he had been
told that this system Of classifying
cotton goods had been put into the
Wilson bill by the cotton nlanufactur-
ers themselves. and that when the
Dingley law was framed in 1897 It was
perpetuated. as, he said, it was today
in the present bill.
Mr.. Aldrich asserted that no manu-
facturer had been before the commit
tee IN reference to this schedule, and
added that every change that had
been made had been urOn sugges-
ton Of the government expert. and
was not only defensible, hut would be
fully defended at the proper time.
Replvine to Senator Hale. who ask
ed whether he had not defended the
D;nglev law. Mr.. Dolliver replied that
he had done so in every State in the
Union, bat he added, MY audiences
are growing tired. The people are
tired Of having the duties raised from
a 100 to $50 per cent for the clothes
they wear upon their backs"
Democratic Doctrine.
"The senet tor is now INDUCING in
criticism that was heard from every
Democratic member of the House and
of the Senate while the Dingley bill
was under consideration said Mr..
Aidrich
MIR. Deliver retorted that his con-
viction that the protective tariff sys-
tenn could be perpetuated only by
making the drties more reasonable
had been one of long standing.
Mr.. Deliver next turned his aften-
ton to free hides. declaring that thu
effect OF putting hides on the free
list would be TO benefit the shoe man.
ufacturcr. while the farmer would SUI
fer
In reply Scuator Aldrich assumed
the responsibility lot inc duty on
hides as placed in the Dingley law
and asserted that he believed the
same rate. fifteen per cent, would he
offered nv the finance committee az a
substitute for the free hides provision
as tasscd by the House.
we'll KNOWN for Fidelity.
Mr.. GalIinger took exception to Mr.
Doi,uycr,s reflection on the discrimin-
ating attitude Of the New EnsIandcrS,
but Nr Deliver said that the Senator
from New Hampshire wss well known
for his fidelity to- the entire protective
tariff system. This provoked laugh
tor on the Democratic eide. which was
renewed when Mr.. Doilivcr. referring
20 Mr.. AIirich. said:
The Senator is not even suspected
of infdciity."