The Washington herald., 1909-04-29
NO LUMBER TRUST,
DECLARES SENATOR
Simmons, of North Carolina,
Argues for a Duty.
BURKErT CHIDEs DEMOCRATS
Wants TO Know How Those Members
of the Minority who Favor Lumber
Tariff Can Reconcile Their Stand
with Party PIatfOrm-BrOwn Would
Amend Constitution for Income Tax.

LUMBER SC4EQllc- VI ALlE -t-- Al jill FfCA 2
discussed in the Senate yesterday By
Senator simmons, Of North Carolina, who
opposed the one-half reduction from the
Dingley rates on lumber
Il IS not true, ne said, that the great
bulk Of stumpage OF the country IS con-
trolled by a few rich men, as has been
stated by advocates OF free lumber. The
price Of lumber. he said, is not too high.
but is cheaper now than il was eighteen
months ago
The sentiment in favor of placing
lumber on the free list" Senator Sim
mons continued. Is, I believe, due TO the
popular idea that the lumber production
is controlled by a trust. There IS no
truth in the charge that there is a Ium-
Der trust
IN thirty days after the panic Of 1907
the price Of lumber fell Of s. per cent
and has not recovered. This IS conclusive
proof that there is no lumber trust a
trust that cannot control prices any bet
ter than that is no trust at all.
Proposed reduction OF duty on lumber
viii not cheaper lumber. Senator Sim
mons declared. nor viii Il aid IN preserv-
ing the lumber supply.
Democrats for Lumber Duty.
a lively eoIloquy over the relative posi-
tons OF the Democratic and Republican
parties on the question OF tariff on
lumber occurred when Senator John
Walter Smith, OF Maryland. said he stood
with Senator Simmons IN urging q duty
on lumber. Mr.. Smith said he was in
favor OF a revenue duty on lumber. The
people OF his state, ne asserted, paid q
share Of the taxes. and we're entitled 70
a share in the incidental profession which
results from a revenue duty.
Senator Burkett wanted 10 know how
the Democratic Senators who are con
tending for a duty on lumber reconcile
their attitude with the Democratic plat
form which pledged the party 10 place
lumber on the free list. During the last
campaign in Nebraska. 1Ir. BJTkett con
tinued, al the Democratic orators laid
stress upon this plank in their platform,
and promised Il the Democratic party
were voted into power 90 remove the
duty on lumber
Senator Hepburn referred 20 the fact
that the Senator's upon the Democratic
side Of the chamber seemed 10 be al
variance with the attitude OF their party
on ;he lumber question Senator Rayner
took ssue with this statement. and sad
he objected 70 any member Of the Senate
saying that the Democratic Senator's as
a body favored or opposed any proposi-
ton whatever until all the Democrats
had had an opportunity % state their
view on the floor of the Senate
senator Rayner Ob5eets-
7 have been waiting FOR several days
20 make a speech OF this subject" Sen
ator Rayne- declared. and I might as
well say row that favor q constitu-
donal duty for revenue only
Senator smith replied. saying that Re
took the same stand
Il favor a revenue duty on lumber.
Senator smith asserted. not because Il
VIII protect the industry. but because IT
VII furnish revenue I also believe n q
constitutional revenue duty, although I
did not express my opinion in those ex-
act words"
Senator Payuter. OF Kentucky, yester-
cav cEeFFl an alftlllllLle4iL 10 A--r III ~
biH reducing the duty on typeseJting ma
chimes from - 10 10 per cent ad vaiorem-
Senator Norris Brown, OF Nebraska
addressed the Senate in favor of an
amendment 20 the constitution authoriz-
irg an income tax A former attorney
general cf his state and recognized as an
able lawyer. his speech was followed with
interest by his colleagues. The Senator 3
argument showed he would probably not
vote for the income tax, IN view Of TIE
supre,le Court decision. although be ad
mitted he was in favor OF It Il II could be
made constitutional
A poll Of the Senate made By a RePUb-
iicau Senator from the West has disclosed
a majority Of four il opposition 10 al
income tax. A majority OF the Senators
arc IN favor OF the tax. but some OF
them. Ike Senator Brown. Of Nebraska,
are unwilling 10 T3ss an income tax law
IN face Of the decision OF the sup enc
Court holding Il 20 be unconstitutional
They prefer first 20 amend the cols.isC-
ton This element, which holds the bal
ance Of iower IN the Senate on the q1es-
ton CT an income tax, is Of the OpiaIcn
that the court as constituted at present
would be opposed 10 the tax