The Brookings register. [volume] (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1903-1971, 1909-07-29
went down to 800 apiece. The sheep

owner failed and went into insolvency
and the resulting period vas the sad
dest and darkest in the history Of our
state. / was elected and sent here as
a republican and protectionist. When
the proposal to reduce the tariff in the
wooden schedules came up, listened
eagerly and intently to the entire de-
bate. ! read the testimony and gave
the matter very careful consideration.
| found hat the real contest in the
wooden schedule was between two clas-
SEES Of wooden manufacturers, to-wit.:
The manufacturers Of 'worsteds' and
the carding wool people. 1t appears
that the manufacturers Of these worst
eds by e Of more improved meth
DDS, more modern machinery and mor
capital, have been able to supplant and
largely replace the carding mills, who
are not able to compete successfully
with them. 1t seems that the carding
mill people, in order to successfully
compete with the worsted mill people,
must import largely what are known
as tops and waste both competing
with American wool.
I'm all the different plans brought
forward for making reductions in the
wooden schedule, it was proposed to
reduce the duty materially upon raw
woods. In every campaign in South
Dakota made since 1894, | arraigned
the democratic party severely for the
disaster and ruin it brought to the
South Dakota sheep raiser by reduc-
ing the tariff on wool. When the pro-
posal came up at this congress to cut
and slash the wooden schedules to
pieces, | felt that | would not only be
guilty of changing front upon the wool
en- tariff question personally, but that
| would be joining in an indiscriminate
assault upon a very substantial indus
try of my own state and of the adj
joining states of Montana, Wyoming,
Idaho, Oregon and of New Mexico, and
all of that vast region of which South
Dakota is n part. In order to be fair
about the matter | notified Dolliver and
LaFollette that | could not joint them
in an assault upon the wooden SEIZED
ule and | stood by that shedule. No
suggestion was ever made in a re-
publican convention in South Dakota
that the tariff on wool should be re-
duced, and / am firmly convinced had
any such proposal ever been made in
a republican state convention of that
state, it would have been met with
overwhelming defeat. SO why should
your friend from Iowa, or John C.
of the Sioux City Tribune, or
any one else for that matter, accuse
me of inconsistency and of 'wabbling'
because l would not join in this at
tack upon the wooden schedule?
Now as to the duty on hides:
the very start | agreed that if
the tariff were at the same time re-
moved from boots and shoes. harness,
saddelry, leather and leather products
generally, / would vote to remove the
on hides. | received letters from
boot and shoe men in New England
md Columbus, Ohio, practically de-
If they could have free hides
hey would meet the competition OF
he world in the manufacture of boots
shoes without any tariff. The
Brown Shoe Co. of st. Lous, was
upon the floor of the senate as
said the same thing. On two
when the matter vas up in
he senate. voted in favor of amend {
nents placing hides, boots and shoes
md all other leather products upon {
free list. but the proposition was !
'oted down. When it came to a S
inch. the manufacturers wanted free I
lides, but wanted to retain the duty
lpon the manufactured products. S
would not agree to this and voted I
.gainst 1t, and would do so again. 7
' 80 eNAo Nhot Nv lallil III ulutS Is L
n favor of the great packers. 1t is
rue that the packers buy nearly so t
er cent of all the hides. Neverthe-
ess 1t cannot be denied that a sub a
benefit of this tariff goes to
he stock raiser, and to take the bene- a
t away from him and give him moth
ng In return for it in the way of a s
emoval of the tariff from boots and v
hoes, etc., which he must buy, would, t
1 my opinion, would be doing him an a
wholly unwarranted. l do O
OF consider that / was 'wabbling' C
hen, under these circumstances, O
oted In favor Of retaining the duty g
pom hides. p
Il have been lambasted up and down a
'r voting against the proposition to t
ut the tariff on print paper to 81 a v