The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1909-08-07

iSNASlOu. buL any man WHO bkuufSS
this bill knows that the bill which
passed the senate was far more favor
able to the interests OF the great agri-
cultural class of the northwest than
the bill which is reported by the con-
ferees.
what have the conferees done for
the northwest? What lowering OF the
tariff has there been by the conferees
on the things which they purchase?
Just one. They lowered the lumber
duties 20 cents thousand feet. So
that If q farmer who buys finished
lumber worth, say $4,000 thousand
he can have five nickels TO his credit,
wonderful concession for which the
press ought to say great deal and
for which the conferees ought to be
eminently proud. They forgot, entire
~, however, to lower the rate on
shingles which had been raised Sc per
cent, We can probably forgive them
for that, sod is cheap in our state, and
1t was probably necessary to placate
certain lumber interests. Now, for
these five nickels which we get on
every $500 or $4,000 worth of lumber
which we buy, what have the confer
ees charged us UP in return?
First, they have taken all OF the
duty off or hides which every one
admits, even the president, ig bene-
fetal to the farmer to about the extent
OF the duty.
Again the house bill contained pro-
vision that there should be no draw
back allowed upon oil cake. The sem
ate provision was that the provisions of
the drawback law should not apply to
flax seed or the products or by-pro
ducts thereof. Oil cake is a .by-pro
duct Of flax seed. There was abb
solutely no difference between the two
houses on the question of drawback on
oil cake, and yet these conferees in de-
f1ance OF all rules eliminated both pro-
visions. / do not think that rightly
construed the old Dingley law which
was readopted will allow drawback
on oil cake, but inasmuch as both
houses had placed their positive de-
claration that there should be no draw
back on oil cake, these conferees not
only violated the rules of conference,
houses
Again the senator from Minnesota
offered an amendment which was ac-
which was intended to protect the
starch industry of this country against
the importation of starchy article,
tapioca, which was claimed to be used
for food purposes only but which was
used for starching or sizinz cotton
fabrics. All of the senators agreed
that If the tapioca was used for starch
it should be placed upon the dutiable
list and the amendment of the senator
from Minnesota provided in substance
that tapioca when used for food pur-
poses only should be upon the free
list. I did not like the form of the
amendment but knew If the confer
ees were sincere in carrying out the
wishes of the senate they would be
able to make an amendment that would
conform to the requirements Of the
case. These conferees, as in nearly
every case, quietly surrendered the
interests of the agriculturalist for the
interest of the manufacturer.
Again the senate agreed to an
amendment that the drawback pro-
visions of this act should not apply to
wheat, wheat flour, flax seed, or the
products or by-products OF flax seed,
all designed to protect the grower OF
wheat and of flax Certain of the mill
ing interests were opposed to this. The
| majority of the mills of the country
were in favor of it because it protect
| ed them against the Importation of
Canadian flour and blending it with
American -four and re- exporting in
/ competition with the wholly American
product. But. here again with a placid
ease the senate conferees surrendered
the interests Of the farmer / had little
objection to the adoption OF the old
Dingley drawback law even as at pres
ent construed when compared with the
provisions of the house bill. This house
bill did not even require the importer
to export the same grain but allowed
him any time within year to export
any other grain in lieu of it. He could
thereby bring in the Canadian wheat
when wheat was short in the section
of this country tributary to his mills
and was consequently higher than he
he wanted to pay, and could export
an equal amount, when grain became
more plentiful and therefore cheaper
in this country. That was such an
abominable provision, SO absolutely
unjust, that / would have been willing
to accept almost anything in lieu of It,
and the Dingley law was far more
to the interests of the farmer. The
conferees adopted the Dingley law.
had the assurance of number of the
conferees to whom had spoken agair
and again personally about the one
thing that the farmers insisted upon
namely that the entire product i'm
ported should be exported, that nc
amendment would be accepted which
authorized the withdrawal from bont
and the disposal of the by-products ii
this country. The value of the farm
ers wheat depends upon the value o.
each of the constituent parts Of It. i
two thirds goes into flour, in thu