Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1909-03-25

as stated to the ways and means COM
mittee, are unjustifable and outrage
Gus, and that the new changes would
show favoritism to an industry that
is already too we'll protected. The
New York Retail Dry Goods assocla-
ton is also preparing protest that
will cover the tariff changes on hos
iery as we'll as gloves.
The proposed new rates mean an
average increase of over 100 per cent.
on the gloves most generally used.
What this will mean to the average
American woman can easily be figured
out. Gloves are not luxury: they
are as much a necessity as hats, shoes
or dresses.
One OF the strongest arguments put
forth against the changes in the glove
tariff, is that the new schedule would,
instead of increasing the revenue of
the country, actually decrease it, as
It would put foreign gloves beyond
and there would consequently he a
big falling of, in importations.
The present rates for gloves not un-
der IA inches are as follows: Schmas-
schen. s1.75; lamb, $3.50: kid. SO, per
dozen pairs. The rates suggested are
increased by from 12s per cent. to 800
per cent. for schmasschen. 60 to zoo
per cent. for lamb and 33 to 1S4 per
cent. for kid This would mean that
all gloves In the above classes would
pay from 81 to $500 n dozen pairs.
which dealers consider absolutely
proh!bit,ve. For the Information OF
the Eagles women readers IT may he
said that this would mean tax on
the cheapest gloves imported. of from
SO cents q pair up to s1.12k pair.
This does not include the additional
duties for lined. embroidered. plque.
ixscam or slked gloves So much
for gloves.
Another objection raised agains:
the bill Is that sixty days is much too
short a time to allow foreign countries
, in which to reduce their tariff legis-
latior to avoid the imposition of the
ma ximum duties upon their exports.
One OF the sharpest criticisms of the
| ms xinum and minimum provision Is
| that IL allows the President no dis
| cretionary or bargaining power but
puts or the duties automatically. In
private conversation members of the
ground that Congress could not al
low any power to the Presden. In the
matte. of collecting duties" Mr..
Payn. Illuminated the committee opin .
ion very little more. saying only upon
thia critical point. 1T would be up to
any importer" who felt himselt ag-
grieved in case the maximum duties
were imposed. to bring an action IN
court. to determine whether the sec
rotary OF the treasury was acting
properly in assessing the higher du-
ties.
beyond the reciprocity ideas advocate ed
by such champions OF protection as
James G. Blaine and william McKin-
Icy. but II seems to us that there
should be a certain degree of flexibil-
ity which will enable Uncle Sam to
promptly get the benefit of open mar
| keta for his goods in connection with
| any reduction he may make in the
| duties on certain products
The difference betwee1 country
that grants free trade In certain ar
| ticies and one which makes products
free under reciprocity is that the lat
ter get some direct advantage in re-
turn for it's concessions while the
| former runs the risk Of being imposed
upon and receiving little benefit In re-
turn. II We mako hides free. for ex-
ample do we secure any concessions
| from countries producing hdes7 The
sams question car. be asked with ref
| erence to other articles made fires. a
maxim I'M and minimum tariff may
answer the purpose. but if it does,
Il must be framed with extraordinary
| -,-~ and not mad. too rigid.