Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1909-09-18


100000. In schedule as to wool, there
has been no change. In sundries the
duty has been decreased on articles
that enter into consumption of the
country 10 the extent of S1.179,000, 900
and an increase on articles that en-
ter into the consumption of the coun-
try, $lO1 100000.
Wool Schedule a Mistake.
with respect to the wool schedule
I agree that it is too high. and ought
to have been reduced, and that it
probably represents considerable more
than the difference between the cost
of production abroad and the cost of
production here. The difficulty
about the wooden schedule is that
there were two contending factions
early in the history of Republican
tariff. Wool growers and wooden man
ufacturers and that finally many years
ago they settled on basis by which
wool in the grease should have II
cents a pound and by which allowance
ouOuIu DC ll1oIC III IllC StIl 1llhuSt III
the differential on wool manufactur-
es. The percentage of duty was very
heavy-quite beyond the difference
in the cost of production, which was
not than regarded as necessary or
proper limitations on protective du-
ties.
When it came TO the question of
reducing the duty on wool, Mr.. Payne
and Mr. Aldrich found that in the
Republican party the interests of the
wool growers of the far west and the
interests of the woolen manufactur-
ers in other states were sufficiently
strong to defeat any attempt to
change the woolen tariff and that, had
it been attempted, it would have
beaten the bill reported from either
committee. | am sorry this is so and
| could wish that it had been other
wise. 1t is the one important defect
in the present Payne tariff bill and
the performance of the promise of the
platform to reduce rates to a differ
ence in the cost of production with
reasonable profit to the manufacturer.
That it will increase the price of
woolen cloth, l very much doubt
There has been an increase, y
the natural law of supply and demand
in the price of wool all over the
world as an agricultural product, but
this was not due to the tariff be-
cause the tariff was not changed The
increase would, therefore. have taken
place whether the tariff were changed
or not. The cost of woolen cloths be-
hind the tariff wall, through the effect
of competition, has been greatly
less than the duty, if added to the
price, would have made it.
"There is a complaint now by the
woolen cloCniers and carded wooden
people of this woolen schedule. They
have honored me by asking in circu-
lars sent out by them that certain
questions be put to me regarding it,
and asking why did not veto the bill
III view vi IliG lat IIhC tuC Woo1Sh
schedule was not made in accordance
with the platform promise. l ought
to say in response to this point that
all of them, in previous tariffs, were
strictly in favor of maintaining the
woolen schedule as it was.
Free Hides Section Explained.
THE tariff on hides was taken off
because it was thought that it was
necessary to the man who raised cat
tie and that the profits of the cattle
business were sufficient without i'm
posing duty and that the duty inn
posed was likely to throw the control
of the sale of hides into the hands of
the meat packers in Chicago.
In order to balance the reduction
on hides, however, there was a great
reduction in shoes, from 25 to 10 per
cent; on sole leather 20 to 25 per cent
on harness, 40 to Is per cent. There
also was a reduction in the duty on
coal of 33 1-3 per cent. All counter
vailing duties were removed from oil
naphtha, gasoline and its refined pro-
ducts.
Lumber reduced from 81 to $1.25
1t is said that there might have been
more. But there were many business
/ interests in the south, in Maine, along
| the border, and especially in the far
northwest which insisted that it would
give great advantage to Canadian lum-
ber if the reduction were made more
than Is cents. Mr. Pinchot thought
| that it would tend to make better
lumber in this country if a duty were
retained. The lumber interests
thought 50 was none too much, but
the reduction was made and the com
promise effected. Possibly, was il
favor of free lumber, because | dc
not think that if the tariff was TAX
en- off there would be such suffering
among the lumber interests. In the
controversy the House and Senate
took a middle course and who car
say they were not justified?
Increases on Luxuries.
] Moreover, it will be found that il
schedule M, the increase covered onl,
4 Injuries, perfumery and like articles
schedule N, wines and liquors-tha
are certainely luxuries and made sub