The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1910-05-20

OF the tariff; that the only things on
which reductions of duties were made
were articles which we exported. and
therefore, our people being atle to ex
port under the Dingley law, The rates OF
duty on such articles were unimport
ant, because we were already going in.
to the enemy's country and competing
with the world in the sale of such
goods.
''It is true that we export some OF
nearly all the products of the farm and
factory, nearly every kind of agricul.
tural and manufactured articles are
exported to some extent by our people,
but he errs in making such broad
statement. For example, take iron ore
reduction of duty was made in the
Payne bill from 40 cents to Is cents per
ton. The United States has never ev.
ported any iron ore; if any has been
exported the amount must be very
small.
lhON OhE lMHOhIS GROW.
During the seven months ending
with February. under reduced duties,
the value of imported iron ores was
$3, S76, 4O2, as against $l,515 1929 during
the corresponding seven months of the
previous year, an increase of 1855 per
cent; and in pig iron the importauions
have increased 6St per cent during the
same period. These increased. imports
must have displaced some American
labor.
Again, the Payne bill placed heavy
hides on the free list. Such hides for
ferly paid duty of Is per cent ad va
loren. This nation has never exported
heavy hides. On the .other hand, we
have always been importers. We have
never in the history of the country pro-
duced enough hides to supply our needs
so that, again, the gentleman from In
diana misstates facts.
"Mr. Speaker, feel it my duty as
Republican and member of the COM
mittee on ways and means of this house
to answer the speech of the gentleman
from Indiana, because of his assault,
not on the new tariff law alone, but on
the Republican party, for which he
lauds himself to the skies.
THE LUMBER SCHEDULE.
HE stated that he conld not stand
for the rate of duty fixed in: the new
tariff bill on lumber and said:
Like Taft, I wanted free lumber,
out of which the homes of the people
are built. l could not stand for the
duty proposed and passed on lumber
81 believe the gentleman is incorrect
when he states that Mr.. Taft wanted
free lumber. 1 was giving very close
attention to that question long before
the bill passed the house and went to
the senate. 1 had several interviews
with President Taft regarding items in
that bill, and never have l heard that
President Taft favored free lumber.
II also wish to call attention to the
fact that although the duty on lumber
was reduced in the Payne bill rs cents
per thousand feet, the price of lumber
20 the consumer has since the enact
nent .of that law slightly advanced,
Ind the loss of revenue to the treasury
If the United States for the first year
)y reason of this reduction will reach |
of a million dollars.
Where does this money go? As before
tated neither the consumer of lumber
Tor the treasury of the United States
las been benefited. The answers easy
t has gone to the Canadian manufac-
urer. That being true, how much did
he gentleman's vote for free lumber
'enefit the people of the United States?
eff by placing lumber on the free list
he price of lumber should be lowered,
t must be plain to every fair-thinking
nan that the cost of production must
.lso be lowered at once, and when the
ost of production by any manufacturer
s seriously considered, labor is the first
# al items that is reduced, which