The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1909-03-08
THE DUTY ON LUMBER.

sons Why He is in Favor of
Retaining the Present Tariff
on Lumber.
To the Editor of The Robesonian:
Upon the question of repeal
ing the present duty on lumber,
or placing it on the free list, |
have given considerable study of
late, and made some rather
searching Investigations, both in
person and by correspondence.
After due consideration | am
thoroughly convinced that the
removal of the present duty of
$500 per thousand on rough
lumber will work serious hard
ship to the manufacturers of the
South, because many of our mill
men ship their entire output in
the rough to various points in
the Northern and Eastern States,
to be worked into dressed stocks.
From the very nature of the
case this would produce more or
less embarrassment to the busi-
ness interests of practically every
community throughout the South,
for according to the statistics of
the government and otherwise,
the lumber business at this
time stands at the head of the
list. Retaining the present tariff
of $200per thousand would, in all
probability, shield our people
from that embarrassment which
| believe would otherwise be in
evitable; and in view of the fur
ther fact that the present specific
duty of 81 per thousand amounts
to less than an advalorem tariff
of IL per cent. which Democrats
everywhere must see is on {
parity with the Fundamental
principle of a tariff for revenue
only. Ny sense of duty to my
own people, whose capital anC
labor are invested in milling an(
lumber properties, as we'll a.
thousands of employees with de
pendent families on their hand
to take care of, force me to taxi
my stand with those who be
? lieve the present tariff is non
too high. | am a Democrat an
believe in a tariff for revenu
E only, but as a North Carolinian
with a large lumber constituency
it seems to me it would be yer
poor policy on the part of tn
r. Democrats of the House to de
= mand, at the hands of a Republ
h can Congress, a tariff for revenu
r only on Southern products viii.
a we are powerless to prevent thel
Y from applying the principles {
S a high protective tariff on pr(
n ducts in other sections of tt
1t country.
It AS l understand it, all of tt
n machinery and appliances
l. every kind used in the manufa
I. ture of lumber are protected {
an average of about 45 per cen
re to 48 per Gen., which is prac
z" cally prohibitive, while lumber
m protected less than IL per CEN
le which is not prohibitive; and
s. an illustration of this fact mo
D. than $50, 900, 900 feet of Canadi;
ce lumber were imported into tt
m country last year. Thus Y
al have a live example of the fs
MS that the present tariff of 81 p
It, thousand on rough lumber is
ge tariff for revenue only, and
re the Democratic party has be
of known, from my earliest rec
hit lections to the present time,
ed a tariff for revenue onl
tn party, l, for one, propose
stand for the best interests
my people in Northern Carroll
tn and other Southern States
eel we'll. I have talked with ma
ms other Representatives from
tn South on this question and | f
a good many expressing vie
that coincide with my own,
outlined above. AS matter
fact, if duty to our constitute
is the first consideration with
en Representative in Congress. t
'eG 1 I do not see any other alter
cal tive offered me but to SUPP
q the present $500 duty on fore
VI VI lumber.
al If the present tariff on il
es, steel, coal, cement, saws, fl
en- ~ betting, and all other machin
III he entering into the production
tl the lumber, was reduced to the p
Ine ent level with lumber, the
am an would say lumber should st
eau eau a proportional reduction in
yes tariff, along with other thi1
III Ile But so long as other things
en- si1 protected three, four, and
alas alas times as high as lumber, the
axe axe feel it my duty, to my cor
iear 1a tuents at least, to stand for
III III present tariff of 81 per thous
EN-, en- on every foot of lumber inn
Iten ed into this country from G
m'e da, Mexico and elseWk
Again, | find that in my
+riot MT oy,1v aro tho l1r