The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-03-27

of lead-bearing ores and provides for
the payment of exactly the same duty
on lead bullion, lead dross, lead pigs
and bars. In other words the same
duty is sought to be imposed on the
crude ore as upon lead after it has
been transformed into bullion. The
present Dingley law separates these
products, imposir : a duty of i 1-2
cents pound on all kinds of lead
bearing ores and duty of 1-2 cents
a. pound on lead dross, lead bullion
or base bullion, lead in pigs and bars
Another portion of the bill which
is severely criticised by the steel
trade relates TO the duties on iron
ore and upon ferro-alloys. The duty
on iron ore, for instance, is 40 cents
ton under the present Dingley law.
The Payne bill shifts iron ore over to
the free list. On the other hand.
| high duties are imposed upon fuor-
spar and the ferro-alloys which are
used in the manufacture of high
grade steel. Steel manufacturers as
sert that the imposition of these du-
ties will increase the cost of making
| steel, while on the other hand iron
ores will, under the Payne bill, be ad-
mitted free of duty.
1t is learned that f1uorspar was
placed in the bill at the insistent re-
quest of Representative Chapman, Of
the Gath Congressional district of IL
linois. Fluorspar is a clay found in
Hardin and other counties in his dis
trict, and this is practically the only
| Republican congressional district in
which 1t is to be found. Chapman
wanted the duty raised to protect"
the fiuorspar plants in his district, but
even from a protective standpoint,
the steel man says there was no occa-
sion for raising the duty on that pro-
duct, because it is a raw product.
The lumber schedule will be at
| tackled severely in both houses when
the debate begins. The lumber lob
| by Is working hard to have the lum-
| Der rate raised, while strong efforts
| are being made by certain strong
western interests to have the duty re-
| duced even more than Is proposed in
the Payne bill. w. S. Dwinnell, of
Minneapolis, representing westerners
yyh mt tlnD
duced, has filed with Chairman Payne
| brief in support of their conten-
tions. In a statement issued today in
which he declares there is Joker
| in the lumber schedule, Mr.. Dwinnell
| says:
1.-The lumber schedule of the bill
is profound disappointment to the
lumber consumer. While the duty
| on rough lumber is reduced from So
to 81, the duty on finished lumber in
all forms is left so high as to remain
prohibitive.
Rough lumber, owing to transport
tation charges, cannot be imported
into the United States except where
water transportation is available
Consequently the reduction on rough
lumber Is of no benefit whatever to
the farmers and other consumers in
the great interior country.
Finished lumber can be imported
because of the saving in railway rates
as compared with rough lumber II
the tariff permits it, but as proposed
1t does not permit it. About 80 per
cent of the lumber shipped from a
mill by rail goes through the planning
mill before it is put on the cars.
About the same percentage Of the
lumber sold at a retail lumber yard
Is planed or finished in some meas
ure. That is to say. the ordinary con-
sumner Of lumber buys finished lum-
Der almost entirely. fAnd the lumber
schedule as drafted makes it impossi-
BILE for him to get this lumber from
abroad. Therefore, he will be- en-
tirely dependent on domestic supplies
as before.
This Is the kind Of revision that
may fool, but will not benefit. Ey-
cry congressman who wants to help
his constituents to get cheaper lum-
Der should insist on free lumber, both
rough and finished.
Failing in that, he should insist
that finished lumber, which Is what
his average constituent buys, shall
not be taxed more than rough lum-
ber. which Is what the average con-
stituent does not buy."-Baltimore
Sun.
MINISTER STAYS MINISTER.