The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-05-08
Senators BristOW and Bacon Discuss Lead and Other
 Schedules
.LAFOLLETTE ADMITS HE
 HAS BOUGHT LEAD MINES
Senator cIapp Warns His Party That if Congress Fails to Lower Tariff Democrats Would Gain
 Their Point.

Washington May 7.-Just before ad journment today the senate voted to fix the duty on lead contained in lead ore at one and one-half cents a pound. which Ia the rate of the Dingley law. and of the pending bill as it was passed by the house of representatives.
 Fifty-three senator's including all re- publieans present, and Senators Hughes of Colorado, McEnery of Louisiana, voted in favor of the duty, and nineteen demo- cratic senators voted against 1t. This par ticular paragraph has not been opposed by teh low tariff republicans and the vote was not significant.
 During the day, Senator Clapp of Minne- sota spoke at length in favor of lowering tariff duties and Senator Owen of Okla homa upheld the constitutionality of an income tax.
 Resuming his opposition to levying any duty on pig lead in addition to the duty of one and one-half cents a pound pro vided for the lead in ore by the tariff bill as passed by teh house, MT. Bristow de- clared that it costs no more to make pig lead in this country than abroad. Mir Bristow was interrupted by Senators Ald- rich, Herburn. Borah, Shoot, Sutherland and others, all contending that the labor cost in producing lead was enough greater than abroad to justify the differential of l seven-eights of a cent per pound as pro- posed by the committee on finance. MT. Bristow said he would offer no opposi- tion to the proposed duty on lead in ore because of labor conditions but protested against any additional duty on pig lead, the product of the ore.
 Discussion by Bacon.
 There was a fair prospect of reaching a vote on the lead schedule when Senator Bacon took the floor and proceeded to discuss the general principles of the pro- tective tariff system. He declared that by a conservative estimate for every dol lar collected at the customs houses of the country $7 is placed as a burden on the people in the way of increased prices of the articles they consumed. compared to what they would pay If there were no duty. So that to raise $300000.00o results in a burden of about g, 900 on the American people. If the benefits of this system, he said, could be distributed equally to the people ~no have to pay the increases there would be greater jus tice in 1t but contended that the ben- efits go entirely to the producers of the articles affected.
 MT. Bacon declared that under a tariff for revenue only tariffs equal to 25 or 30 per cent ad valorum would be necessary to support the government which would reduce the two billion dollars to the ex- tent of about one-fourth.
 Mir. Bacon especially criticised the wool en schedule as providing excessive rates.
 LaFolIette interested.
 Senator LaFollette read from news paper a statement of an agreement among the lead interests of the world by which they were assured of harmonious cooper ation in the matter of fixing prices. The statement also stated that the Guggen- helms and other great lead producers and manufacturers were included in the com bination. MT. LaFollette then said that some year sago he had acquired lead and zinc ore producing property in Wisconsin. and for that reason would withdraw his vote on the lead schedule.
 Just before the Senate adjourned a vote was taken on committee amend ments to section 179 the effect of which was only to fix the duty on lead contained in lead bearing ore at lh cents pound. which was the amount carried In the bill as passed by the House of Representa- tives, and the amendment was agreed to by a vote of 53 to 19. This was a party vote except that Senator Hughes of Colo rado and Senator McEnery of Louisiana voted in the affirmative. This paragraph was not the subject of opposition by low tariff republicans. who have directed their opposition to the increase of the House rates on pig lead and the products of lead
 Clapps Warning.
 Senator Clapp of Minnesota commented upon the policy of protection and referred to distinctions between a protective tarin and a tariff for revenue only.
 The promise of the republican party. MT. Clapp declared, was that the tariff should be revised downward. and he asserted that promise had been made in response 10 a positive demand He said the posi- ton on the part of the protective interests was that we should let well enough alone" and on the part of the consumers that the tariff should be revised.
 Declaring that if Congress should fail now to lower the tariff rates, the demo- cratic party would be put in position to revise 1t two years hence, MT. Clapp said he did not wish to use threats, but mere ly to tell the truth. The American peo- pie" he added. have determined upon this revision downward. and anything else will disappoint them It may be in your power" he said as he faced the repub- lcan senators, ito act contrary to the wishes of the people. but so sure as you do two years from now this tariff will be revised not by the friends of protection.