Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-03-30
cox ADVOCATES AMENDMENTS
Sterling Opposes Free Hides.
Hughes Says Farmer Has
Been Ignored.


Of Ohio. who pleaded for a reduction In
the duties on sewing machines. bicycles
and computing scales. He argued that
by reason of the favored nation clause
Germany was enabled to manufacture and
ship sewing machines and bicycles into
Russia. France and other continental
countries at about one-half the tariff i'm
posed on the same articles Of American
Because of that fact the
American manufacturer was handicapped
In extending his foreign trade. Unless the
tariff was reduced he said. the manufac-
turers Of the products mentioned would
be forced to build factories abroad, which
would result in throwing out of employ
ment In this country many skilled work
men. The maximum and minimum fea-
ture OF the bill. he declared. to be not
worth the paper 1t was written on and
in consequence would not relieve the sit
uatiOn.
Referring to various witnesses before
the ways and means committee. Mr.. Cox
said:
"A prohibition tariff inspires such lust
for gain and gold that these men come
here and swear their souls down to the
gates OF hell in order to get government
license to rob the people
Cox Suggests Amendments.
Mr.. Cox, in pointing out the defects OF
the bill from his viewpoint, said that the
democrats should seek by amendments.
but not by fllibuster,' to procure free cof-
fee without a countervailing duty; free
tea, boots and shoes. as well as hides.
lumber and zinc: repeal of the prefer
entail duty on refined sugar: repeal OF
the countervailing duty on oil: consti-
tuttOnal income tax and such reduction
on wooden goods, blankets. etc. as would
remove prohibition of exports. To
those amendments, he said, should be
Joined schedules for the primary purpose
OF revenue. so as to accomplish sufh-
cient differential in the labor cost at home
and abroad: the wiping out of prohibitory
features and apportionment in an equ-
table way Of the burdens of taxation.
In the opinion of Mr.. Cox there was a
large measure of public belief that Presi-
dent Taft would follow policies quite con-
trary to the republican leaders.
Free Hides Opposed.
The action of the committee in remov-
ing the duty on hides was not approved
of by Mr.. Sterling Ull). He had listened
to all the arguments for free hides. he
said. but there had not been a single sug-
gestion to justify the committees course.
This remark brought to his feet Mr..
Weisse (Wis.), who eclared that the Is
per cent duty SO Disseminated against the
American tanner and leather manufac-
turer that they lose five dollars worth
of business on every hide and labor loses
a dollar and a half days work.
To that observation Mr.. Sterling replied
that the bill did not remedy that situa-
ton, and he suggested that Mr.. Weisses
proposition was that instead of the tan
ner losing the S. OH every hide he pro-
posed that the American farmer should
do so.
the Is per cent kept out five dollars
worth of manufactured product to the
country by letting hides come in here"
Mr.. Sterling declared that it ought to
keep out the foreign product to some ex-
tent. He charged that Mr. Weisse's pro-
posal was to open the flood gates and act
in cheaper hides from South America and
other countries and cause the American
farmer to suffer. He said the farmers
had had no representative before the COM
mittee.
Burden on the Farmer.
Speaking from the standpoint of the
farmer. Mr. Hughes (Ga.) commended that
the bill was unjust to his interests and
laid heavier burden upon him.
He declared that the history Of tariff leg
islation was zone continuous perform
ance Of tragedy for the farmers" They
had, he said, been given the cold shoulder
right along. This was especially SO. he
asserted. In the matter of agricultural i'm
plements.
Asserting that the bill is a revision
downward and not upward, Mr.. Bates Of
Pennsylvania spoke In favor of a pro-
tective tariff. 1.-The difference between
a revenue tariff and protection is that
increase which will stop ruinous compe-
1 cent per pound MEANS" he said. 1.-The
of 1900 American working
men. 1t means annual wages of slo,OO.OOO
per year and a net saving to the Amer
1,,y ~f ,>~f<1
paid for tin for the last twelve years of
nearly $4O,O0O.OOO
Comparison With Europe.
I'VE have known nothing of hard times
in this country during the past year
compared with the experiences Of Eu-
rope. and especially England and Ire
land. where is practiced the tariff for-rev-
enue policy which is today advocated by
our democratic friends on this floor"
continued Mr.. Bates. He declared that
in Belfast. which is the center Of the
textile fabric industry. and where 100, 900
are employed. the wages of the men
range from IS to s. a week and those
of the women from So to 81 week,
while the wages of the men and women
performing the same labor in this coun-
try are from two to four times as much.
There the average weeks work Is fifty
nVe hOurSs ana WOFKneu exist only by
the closest economy.
1T is no wonder" he asserted, that
the most advanced English thought Of
today Endorses and would II possible adopt
the theory and practice of the protec-
ton system
Demand for Cheapness.
Proceeding. Mr.. Bates said: LET us not
be led astray by the delusive cry for
cheap goods. Cheap goods mean a cheap
man. 1t is a principle as old as the hills
that when goods are cheapest men are
poorest; the most distressing experiences
in this country or in all human history
have been when everything was cheapest
when measured in money but dearest
when measured by labor. The best unit
OF value Is what q days labor will pro-
duce. The low tariff bills Of 1882, Of 1916
and 1898 brought about cheap goods in
this country. but they also crippled the
ability Of the American people to pur-
chase. and ruin and disaster followed
how cheaply can we purchase goods, but
what Is the state OF the market-the mar
ket for labor and all that labor produces"
Defends the OIL Duty.
Limiting his remarks to a discussion Of
the countervaiiing duty on crude and re-
fined petroleum. Mr.. Vreeland. New York.
repeated his statement of last week that
he was in part responsible for it's reten-
ton in the BILL For partisan reasons, he
said. there were many who wished the
country to understand that any provision
In the bill which related to petroleum
must necessarily be made for the benefit