New-York tribune., 1909-06-05
ALDRICH DEFENDS
COTTON SCHEDULE
REPLIES TO ATTACKS ON
AMENDMENTS.
Says His Purpose Is to Meet Tor
rent of Misrepresentation and
NiSinformatiOH.
From The Tribune Bureau

From The Tribune Bursau1
Washington. June 4-Senator AIdrich. tonight
replied to attacks on the Finance Committees
amendments TO the cotton schedule Of the tarir
bill He told the sfxty-four Senators present
that he purposed to make statement explain
ing the amendments ard to correct any mis-
apprehension that may have been instiIIed in
their minds by torrent Of misfnrormation and
misrepresentation The galleries were crowded.
while hundreds Of persons stood in line in the
corridors throughout the evening. waiting for an
opportunity TO squeeze in.
Mr. Aldrich spoke with great earnestness but
with no attempt at oratory. He used no notes.
and taking up the several points Of his speech
seriatim he disposed Of each before going on
to the next He held the close attention OF his
colleagues. and spoke almost without Interrupt
ton His peroration was panegyric OF protec-
ton and an eloquent appeal to the Democrats
to Join with the Republicans in protecting the
industries Of the South. At the close Of his
remarks he was warmly congratulated.
Mr- Aldrtch began by summarizing the various
attacks on the cotton schedule. and asserted
that from the misinformation which had been
submitted to the Senate one would naturally
suppose that the changes recommended by the
Finance Committee revolutionized the schedule.
whereas they affected only 10 per cent OF the
items contained therein. the remaining 90 per
cent being unchanged from the Dingley law. and
practically from the Wfson-Gorman law He
said the committee had attempted to change ad
valorem into specific duties to avoid the changes
which the law had undergone through interpre-
/ taton, and to protect classes Of goods not made
when the Dfngley law was framed He con-
tended that instead Of increasing the duties over
the Dingley law the committee had reported
changes which actually averaged 90 per cent
less than the intent Of the Dingley law.
COSTLY ANTIQUITIES IN LAW
Illustrating his contention regarding the in
/ depreciation to which the law had been subject
ed, Mr.. Aldrich held up two samples of brill
iantly colored cotton cloth and explained that
under the interpretations to which he referred
one had been held TO be white The only appar-
ent difference in the weave. He declared
that the government has paid out as much as
$500O.OO0 a year as refunds Of duties on account
of decisions resulting from ambiguity in the
DingIey law. and cited recent case in which
/ the government had been compelled to refund
/ s500.eOO in duties already collected under St-
| preme Court decision He said that as soon as
any man in the employ Of the government ex-
\ hibited conspicuous ability in constituting the
\ tariff law his services were obtained BY the
importers at far higher compensation than the
government could afford to pay. and that the
attorney IN the s50000O case TO which he
ferred had been one Of the most valued employees
OF the government
Taking up a table recently submitted by Sen
ator CuIberson Mr. Aldrich showed it to be full
OF errors and he then devoted himself to the
assertions Of Senators La Toilette and Nelson.
wherein by the use OF equivalent ad vaIorerns.
they sought to show material increase in tfls
specific duties proposed by the committee. Mr.
AIdrich declared that because Of the variations
in the value Of imported goods such compar-
sons worthless So great were these vart-
ations he maintained. that were equivalent ad
vaIorems taken basis Of computation some
years would show advances OF 400 per cent IN
the rates. He maintained that under the in
terpretations to which the DingIey law had been
subjected some rates fancy goods had been
reduced from so to s per cent These the com
mittee proposed to restore to about 40 per cent
Compared with the rates now being collected
This would indicate an increase OF several nun
dred per cent. As matter Of fact, il was de-
crease of 20 per cent
CITES LA FOLLETTE'S WITNESS.
The most effective point Mr.. Aldrich mads
was his citation Of Mr.. Ia Follette's chief wit
ness ". H. ParkhiIl, chief examiner OF cotton
cloths. and number OF his associates in refu-
tation Of Mr. La ToIlettes contentious Sena-
tor La Toilette had cited Mr. Parkhil through
out his speech as authority for his facts, al
though the Wisconsin Senator had made his
own deductions Mr.. Aldrich said that no man
could say definitely Just what differences would
result from the translations Of ad valorem to
specific duties. but If any men could speak with
authority it was the Board OF General Ap-
praisers He then read the following statsrnsaA
dated at Washington to-day:
We all agree that the average duties imposed b.
paragraphs S13, 314, SO. 31S and 81 (cottor
schedulel OF the bill reported from the Senats
COMMITTEES Finance are not greater than thoSs
imposed BY Act Of 1897. originally construed.
UPON the merchandise included in those para
graphs in the Senate bill
MARION DE vRIES,
President Board Of General Appraisers
THAD S. SHARRETTS.
General Appraiser.
W r PARKHILL.