Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1909-04-09
FREE LUMBER
VOTED DOWN
House Defeats Efforts to
Amend Tariff Bill.
CLOSE ON one PROPOSAL

TaWney Amendment to Admit Free OF
Duty All but Finished Lumber Lost
by Vote of 10 to 176-Fordney
Amendment Striking Out the Pro:
vision for a CountervaiIing Duty
Adopted.
Washington, April 1.-THE house
overwhelmingly adopted the Fordney
amendment to the Payne tariff bill
striking out the provision for coun-
tervailing duty on lumber.
This amendment was pending when
consideration Of the bill was resumed.
A parliamentary snarl at once was
encountered as to whether or not
other amendments would be permitted
under the rule adopted The point
was raised by Mr.. Clark Of Missouri,
the minority leader. A number OF
members were Immediately on their
feet endeavoring to put their construc-
ton upon the rule and to allay the i'm
pending excitement the chair had the
rule read for information. Messrs.
Fitzgerald of New York and Dalzell Of
Pennsylvania, both on the committee
on rules, contended that individual
amendments under the rule could be
offered.
The chair ruled that other amend
ments could be offered, but that the
committee amendment offered by Mr..
Fordney had precedence. The situa-
ton again became clouded by the of.
fering of a substitute amendment by
Mr.. Clark. who desired to speak to it,
but the chair ruled that Mr. Fordney
was entitled to the floor. Mr.. Ford
ney said he introduced his amendment
with great regret, as the provision it
sought to strike out was meritorious
one. Il am offering the amendment"
he declared, land will vote for it, but
it causes me to sweat blood in doing
So"
Mr.. Tawney Of Minnesota jumped
up with a substitute. Mr. Clark, who
also claimed the floor, was recog-
nized.
Clark Wants Free Lumber.
The Clark substitute, which was
then read, provided for amending sew
eral sections by placing lumber on the
free list.
Mr. Tawney contended that two
paragraphs could not be covered in
one amendment and offered an entire
substitute for the lumber schedule.
modifying but retaining the duty.
The chair ruled that the Fordney
amendment had precedence.
Against the protests of Mr.. Tawney
the chair recognized Mr.. De Almond
of Missouri for an amendment as a
substitute to the countervailing pro-
vision providing for the free admis-
sion of lumber from all parts of the
Western hemisphere. The De Almond
amendment was lost, 131 to 178, thirty
Democrats voting with the Republic
ans.
4AC OlOISy dluc1uluSut was Ofcl-
whelmingly adopted by viva voce
vote. Mr.. Tawney at once reoffered
his amendment, which, he said, would
take the duty off all lumber included
in paragraph 1877 of the bill. except
finished lumber, the duty on which
would be materially reduced. He
would later, he said, offer an amend
ment placing rough lumber on the
free list
The Tawney amendment was lost
on division, ISL to 173, party align
ments being badly broken. A vote by
tellers on his demand also resulted in
being lost, 40 to 176.
A motion by Mr.. Clark of Missouri
to strike out all of paragraph 1877 Of
the lumber schedule also was defeat
ed, 118 to 157.
Further amendments by Mr.. Taw-
ney adding to the free list the lumber
described in paragraph 1876 were like
wise lost:
An amendment by Mr.. Scott (Kan.)
fixing duty of 10 per cent ad valorem
on raw hides was, on division in the
house. lost. LOG to 166.