Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1909-04-22

q
is not cheap labor, as 1t is inefficient
and demands minimum wage of SIPS
"a day.
AS a matter of fact, the average
lwage paid lumber labor in this country
is much less than in Canada. South,
ern yellow pine, the annual produc-
ton of which amounts to over $11 ,009,-
100000 feet, Or almost one-third the
total coniferous lumber product of the
| United States, is manufactured chiefly
by colored labor, which is paid an
average wage of $1.25 per day.
Is it therefore to be the policy oil
this congress to protect American
labor against as high or higher priced
labor of Canada, and all at the ex-
lpense of the consumer?
2. 1t costs as much to manufacture
lumber in Canada as in this country.
The Canadian saw mill being
equipped with American machinery,
subject to a Canadian duty OF % per
cent, costs more than the American
mill With Canada labor at least
Iequal, and Canadian saw mills greater
,turer to fear? Nothing.
| o. The only person, therefore, pro
itected is the American timber owner,
who has been enabled to avail himself
of the munificence of our people and
acquire vast holdings under the timber
and stone, the homestead and the lien
land laws, and by sharing in the fore st
Il no or1
railroads of our country. Is it to Da
the policy of this congress to protect
not only rapidly disappearing natural
product, but the owners thereof as
well, who exceed in wealth any other
class of our citizens?
T. The price of lumber TO the con
sumner will nevertheless be reduced
especially if the tariff on finished lum,
Der, which is what the ordinary con
sumner buys. is repeated. To treat
finished and rough lumber differently
is ridiculous; 80 per cent of the lumber
consumed is finished. Transportation
charges prevent importation of rough
lumber except by water. Nothing Is
gained for American labor or manu-
While the cost of manufacture ol
lumber in Canada is as great as in this
country nevertheless the price of lum
Der will be reduced to the consum2i
because of lower priced Canadial
stumpage. Unless Canadian lumber i:
sold at a less price than our own, !
will not be shipped into this country
iG Shi
will be sold lower.
If Canadian lumber is not going t.
be sold to the American consumer
why is the American lu.nberman -
lexercised over any prospective chanS'
in the duty? This congress must there
fore choose between the lumber con
lsumer and the American timber owner
Which will it be?
. D. Free lumber will conserve on
forests.
For every tree cut down in Canadian
i, forests and shipped to this country il
the shape of lumber. tree is save
here. This talk about low grade lum
. Der being left in the woods by on
ilumbermen in case Canadian lumber i
, shipped in is rubbish. 1t will cost th'
Canadian lumbermen as much, o
more, to take the tree out of the wood
and manufacture it into lumber as
Twill our own. In addition thereto h.
, will have a greater freight to pay OIL
, account of his remoteness from on
, market; so if Canadian stumpage req
, RESENTED no value. our lumbermal
standpoint, be compelled to manufaC
f ture hiss low grades. But even if tn
| low grade log was left in the wood
: and the lumber which would othe:
wise be manufactured from it is SUI
piled from Canadian forests, it woul
I not result in the greater dcStructio
t of our forests-it would have no effeC
, thereon.
i 1t therefore appears:
> 1. That lumber tariff cannot b
G justified on the ground of protection t
American labor
.. That it cannot be justified on tn
ground of protection to the America
. manufacturer.
!, s. That the only person protected
the American timber owner.
T. That the removal of the tart
. will reduce the price of lumber
). That the removal of the tart
will conserve the American forests.
= No one of the above proposition
= can be honestly controverted. Wha
: then, should your action be? Yo
should write to your congressman in
mediately and emphasize your desir
- to have him support the removal {
the lumber tariff.
:, A 20-Year Sentence.