Los Angeles herald., 1909-06-23
HIDES FREE IN
HOUSE; SENATE
CHARGES NHTY
RATE OF PRESENT SCHEDULE
MAINTAINED
REPRESENTATIVES,, HOWEVER
FAIL TO CONCUR
Under Rulings of Treasury Depart
ment, Skins Weighing Less Than
Twenty-Five Pounds Are
Untaxed
(RY Associated Press.)

W schedule, and after several
amendments had been defeated the
amendment of the finance committee
fixing a duty of 10 per cent ad valor-
| EN- on hides was agreed to by vote
of &c to 40. This is the rate of the
present law but under the rulings OF
the treasury department is applicable
only to hides weighing more than
twenty-five pounds.
The house placed all hides on the free
list.
Senator McLaurin undertook to nave
the provision amended so as to make
the duty apply to hides weighing less
than twenty-five pounds, but failed
his amendment being voted down 81
to 4S.
An amendment by Mr. Stone placing
not only hides. but many of their prod
ucts on the free list was also lost.
Senator Aldrich, on behalf or the
finance committee, brought in the com
mittee's new lumber schedule, and also
a. number of amendments relating to
linoleum and oilcloth The committee
proposed a rate of $3.50 per 1000 feet on
sawed lumber 30 cent increase over
the house rate.
More than six hours were devoted to
debate, which began with speech by
Mr.. McCumber for duty on hides, in
which he was sustained by Messrs.
Gamble and Hepburn. They argued
that the effort to make hides free was
solely in the interest of the manufac-
turers.
Support Free Hides
! Mr.. Burton and Mr. Page supported
the free hide policy. Mr.. Burton de
clared that the beef trust obtained all
the benefit to be derived from a duty
on hides.
A feature was a speech by Senator
Rob" Taylor of Tennessee, which at
trected much favorable attention, and
established good nature. Mr. Taylor
pleaded for a tariff for revenue, and
took a decided position against free
raw material.
mo more striking illustration of in
gratitude could be imagined than that
which has been shown by the manu-
facturers of leather and leather goods,
who seek to deprive the stockman and
| farmer of the little remnant of protec-
ton left to him on hides" said Sena-
tor McCumber of North Dakota, in de-
| Tending the proposed duty of 10 per
| cent ad valorem on hides.
The fact, Mr.. McCumber said, that
the United States does not produce all
the hides 1t uses, was an argument in
! favor of protecting the industry to
promote it's development up to the
stage when it would be able to supply
| the home demand.
| His speed was a plea for the farmer
as against the manufacturer.
Injustice Startling
1.-The gross injustice of this demand
for free hides becomes more startling"
he declared, when 1--WE remember that
our protective system has built up
these leather manufacturing industries
until it has enabled them not only to
dominate the whole American market,
but also to enter into every other mar
ket of the world.
Having gained these advantages
and defrauded the American farmer on
a duty on calf hides, they have had
their appetites whetted for further ad-
vantages, and with a lobby, amazing
in it's power and influence, they seek
to destroy the last vestige of protec-
| ton"
When Mr.. McCumber closed Senator
| McLauren renewed his efforts in behalf
of a duty on small hides. He declared
that from 1898 to 1907, inclusive. the
! government had lost more than $16,000,-
900 by it's failure to collect the duty on
the smaller hides
'If l could have my way" he said,
II would put hides, leather and shoes
on the free list, but if you put a tariff
on shoes you must put the tariff on
leather and hides.'
Senator Hepburn also favored a duty
on hides.
Asks Questions
Senator Beveridge piled the idaho
senator with questions with the inten-
tion of showing that John Sherman and
| President Mckinley had favored free
hides.
Senator Warren said that Mckinley
could have put free hides in the Ding
| ley law if he had cared to do so.
Declaring he had voted with McKin-
ley for free hides in 1890, Senator Bur-
ton said the subject had been very
carefully considered on that occasion.
1.-THE beef trust" he said, probably
tans 60 to 70 per cent of the hides, and
the whole tanning industry is threat
ened by the operations of these pack
ers I think it requires a great deal of
| ingenuity to show that the farmer is
benefited by this duty on hides"
Mr. Aldrich appealed to Mr.. McLau-
red to withdraw his amendment to the
| proposed amendment of the finance
committee, the purpose of which was
to include as dutiable small hides as
we'll as large ones.
Mr.. McLaurin's amendment was re-
| jected, 81 to AZ. Before the vote was
! taken on the committee amendment for
a duty on hides Mr.. Aldrich explained
that the general leather schedule had
been held up until the duty on hides
| had been fixed.
Amendment Rejected
BY an aye and nay vote an amend
ment by Mr.. Cummins, fixing the duty
on hides at 10 per cent ad valorem, was
| rejected.
Senator Doliver offered an amend
ment, which was accepted by Chairman
Aldrich, placing duty of Is per cent
ad valorem in addition to the rate pro-
vided for the leather in them, on
leather cut into shoes, uppers or vamps,
or other forms suitable for conversion
into manufactured articles.
Mr.. Aldrich then reported from the
| committee an amendment increasing
the duty on lumber to $3.50 per 1000 feet
| and additional rates of from 371a to so
cents, according to the number of sides
| on which it was planed.
These rates, Mr.. Aldrich explained,
are 25 per cent below the Dingley rates
| on rough and finished lumber, except
| lumber planed on one side, which re-
tains the duty of the present law.
An amendment increasing the duty
on shingles from 80 to so cents a thou
sand was also reported.
Another amendment reported main
tained the duty of the Dingley law on
| linoleum and oilcloth. except the width
Of the goods to which the duty is ap-
piled is reduced.