The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-11-20
Quotes McNeal's Argument.

Quotes McNeal's Argument.
This is what Mr.. McNeal said:
THE bill seems at first glance to
reduce the duty on lumber 1 4 per cent,
but the same deft hand that fixed the
other schedules SO that when you
thought you saw a reduction it really
wasn't there, fixed the wood schedule.
The Dingley bill placed a duty of 1
per cent per cubic foot on timber
hewn, sided or squared The Payne
bill reduced the duty to u cent per
| cubic foot, but changed the language
| SO as to read, timber hewn, sided or
| squared otherwise than by saving
DO you catch the point. gentle
| place of the hewer's AK in the lum-
Der industry and all the timbers prac-
| tically are sawed, so that there is real
| ly no reduction. Worse yet under the
skillful jugglery of the trainers of this
| law the squared t1mbers are now
classed as boards and the duty is real
ly increased so per cent over the rate
| in the Dingley law. Yet it is herald
ed over the country that the rate on
| lumber has been greatly reduced
| Mr.. Defebaugh's reply 1 now en-
close to you, with the above extract
from Mr.. McNeaFs speech. This is
| such plain statement of the absolute
facts in the matter, that I thought
possibly you would be willing to pub
lish it, so that as far as the lumber
| interests are concerned, they can be
set right before the public as it re-
lates to the tariff, and in justice to
those who are engaged in this great
industry. they should have a chance
4 to explain the conditions of the mat
| ter at this time. -f
! Thanking you in advance for any
courtesies you can extend in the prem
| iSeS, l am, Very truly yours,
| ROBERT PIERCE.
| This is the reply of the American
Lumberman to Mr.. Pierce's letter and
| the McNeal quotations:
AMERICAN LUMBERMAN
J. E. Defebaugh, Editor and Manager.
| The recognized exponent of the
American Lumber Industry-pub
lished weekly, 315 Dearborn street.
! Chicago.
Mr.. Robert Pierce, President Chicago
| Lumber company, Topeka. Kan.-
Dear Sir: I regret very much that
your letter of October l enclosing
newspaper clipping has not received
| an answer before this, but in some
| unaccountable manner it escaped my
! attention until this morning.
Limit of Absurdity.
The clipping you sent reaches the
limit of abSurdity. I am returning it
herewith in order that you may have
| it for your ready reference. In the
first place the Dingley bill placed
duty Of 1 cent cubic foot on tim
Der hewn, squared or sided, not less
| than 8 inches square," while the
Payne bill reduced the duty to u cent
a cubic foot and changed the wording
| to timber hewn, squared or sided,
| otherwise than by saving" simply
carrying out the original intent of the
Dingley bill. All kinds of timber that
was sawed was intended to be included
under the Dingley bill as sawed lum-
Der and, as matter of fact, the ap-
| praisers have and do SO interpret it.
| There is no reason, whatever why it
should be considered otherwise. Sawed
timber certainly should come under
| the same head or classification as
sawed lumber. We see no reason why
| it should not.
In any event, however, this particu-
lar item that has been selected as
greatly increasing the rate of duty on
lum Der imported from Canada is al
most too Insignificant for considera-
ton. In substantiation of this state
ment is given below the value of tim
Der hewn. squared or sided, not less
than inches square, that was i'm
ported to the United States from Can
ada during the years 1S9S-1907: and
the value of the rough lumber (the
duty on which was reduced rs cents
a thousand feet) imported to the
United States from Canada during the
same years, these figures being COM
piled by the United States govern
ment.