Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1909-09-11

hide provision alone, while nothing is
received In exchange for the sacri-
hce." Then you say: 1.-THE price OF
boots and shoes and harness and 9TH
or leather manufactures remains un-
disturbed"
Admitting that free hides were
against the interests of the farmers
OF Iowa, how can you claim that they
were injured to the extent of the Is
per cent duty and were benefited not
at all by the lowering of duties on
boots and shoes and leather?
The duties We're reduced on these
articles as follows:
Boots and shoes, Dingley law, 20
per cent; Payne bill, 10 per cent.
Upper leather, Dingley law, 90 per
cent; Payne bill. Is per cent.
Sole leather, Dingley law, 20 per
cent; Payne bill, per cent.
do not know, to what extent the
removal OF the duty will reduce the
value Of hides, neither do I know how
much the reduction Of the duties on
boots and shoes and leather will re-
duce the price to the consumer. but
everyone does know that If 1t affects
one 1t should affect both, and your
statement is absolutely untrue that
the farmer is mulcted in the one case
while nothing is received in ex-
change for the sacrifice"
Further, If removal of the duty on
hides (and bear in mind am not dis
cussing its merits or dement's, but
simply trying to show your inconsis.
tency) decreases the price received,
why will not the farmer and other
consumers receive benefit from the
following reductions in duties:
Sawed lumber, rough, Dingley law,
50 per NJ: Payne law, $1.26 M.
Sawed lumber, one side finished,
Dingley law, $3.50 per M; Payne law,
$1.75 M.
Sawed lumber, two sides finished,
Dingley law, So per M; Payne law,
50 M.
Sawed lumber. three sides finished,
Dingley law. $3.50 per M; Payne law,
$2.37h M.
Sawed lumber. four sides finished,
Dingley law, 81 per M; Payne law,
$2.75 M.
Besides a general reduction in all
iron and steel manufactures, includ-
ing structural, bar, round, nails, cut
and wire, band, sheet and tinplate.
have purposely excluded from the
above list the items Of wsol and coal,
which you say are among the free
raw materials that "it is alleged our
national leadership is inclined to-
ward"
The item of wool need not have
been mentioned, as there has been no
change in the duty, except it be for
the purpose Of discrediting "our ma
tional leaders" and thus defending
your position on the Payne bill
The duty on bituminous coal was re-
duced from &c to 45c per ton. So far
as this district or the state Of Iowa is
concerned, the price of coal would not
be affected if 1t were placed on the
| free list, as heavy commodity like
coal could come into competition with
the product OF our mines only where
there was water transportation, and in
all probability 45c a ton is ample pro
lection at any point, as coal is moi
mined in any country near our Dor
ders at unremunerative prices.
Thus your reference to the ulterior
designs of sour national leadership
is evidently for the purpose of defend
| ing your course by an attack,
when you say, II will never cast a
vote depriving the people of Iowa OF
a tariff upon any commodity which
their labor creates"
| Finally, you say, touching your vote
upon the Payne DILL that ut is vitality
important to me that sustain friendly
|relations with my conscience
| But in another place you say. "If
had been representing a district in
Massachusetts could have substitute
ed the Aldrich (Payne) bill for the
Dingley law with enthusiasm
Would you need have conscience
in Iowa but none in Massachusetts?
Did you not make a mistake in us
4 ing the word Conscience" instead OF
INTEREST,""
AS you admit that you could have
Invested yourself of ICONS cience" In
Massachusetts you could readily have
done SO in Iowa If you deemed it tc
4 be to your interest
/ When you speak Of our national
leadership" you cannot be unmindfu
of the fact that President Taft is 8
potent factor in such leadership.
i / have no criticism to make on YOU
euoFIS 10 50 SHAPE Cue 3IdTlU law as u
| make it satisfactory to your constitu
ents even against the wishes OF any
or all of the leaders Of the party II
the senate and house. But the tariff
bill as finally passed, and against the
adoption Of which you voted, was Sc
| shaped as to be satisfactory to Presi
dent Taft, against the wishes Of thu
leaders Of whom you complain.
4 When that point was reached, in m.
Judgment, you should have stood b!
y. the administration, otherwise no flu
ture Republican convention, wher,
your views prevail. can consistent,
endorse President Taft. This is Ion,
} step towards party anarchy.
Yours truly,
H. l.. Waterman.
4 Many people delude themselves b
i saying ut will wear away" when the
, notice symptoms Of kidney and blad
der trouble. This is a mistake TAX
Foley's Kidney Pills, and stop TIL
q drain on the vitality They c11re hack