The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-08-31
The Duty on Lumber Reduced-its
Effects.

If the contention that free lumber
could affect the price Of that article
In the South were correct, then any
reduction in the duty on lumber in
the tariff act of 1909 would effect
corresponding reduction in the price
of lumber in 1910-one year after the
passage of the act. What are the
facts? The president of your Cham
Der of Commerce, Mr.. OF under date
of June 80, 1910, writes me that the
price list for lumber is the same now
that it was IL months ago, and that
these prices will continue for the bal
ance of the year and maybe longer.
In support Of the contention that free
lumber meant cheaper lumber in the
South, the natural effect would have
caused a decrease in the price of To-
cal lumber proportionate to the de-
crease in the duty on it; but the mar
ket price has remained the same;
ocnclusively proving, that as far as
the South is concerned, the tariff
does not affect the price of lumber
that the price of that article is fixed
by American lumbermen, according
to we'll known laws Of economy.
SO then. in the teeth Of my critics,
have. beyond question, mathemati-
cally demonstrated that my vote
against the proposition Of free lum-
Der did not affect the price of lumber
in the South.
If l had not voted for this revenue
duty on lumber, I should have given
the Republicans the right to have de-
manded the placing of duties on ar
ticles which the Southern people do
consume, to have raised rates upon
articles which we use to a point suf-
ficiently high to put into the treasury
the $4,000, ,000-which is now put
there by the duty on lumber. I took
the business view of the situation, as
against the sentimental, feeling that
it was my duty to the people of the
South to save them taxation whenever
I could under on iniquitous Republi-
can system.
What Would My Critics Do?
BY putting a small duty on lum-
ber 1 made the other sections of the
country put into the treasury SO, 3,000,-
600 and saved my own from having
to pay their pro rata share of this
amount. I want to know what these
gentlemen who criticize me would do
in making a tariff bill. Would they
make all sections Of the country bear
the burden equally or would they, in
their angelic unselfishness. put the
bulk of the burden upon their own
people and relieve other people as far
as rossible Of their just share of the
burden? I want to ask these gentle
men to tell the people Of South Caro-
lima the foreign articles upon which
they would place their revenue
and how high they would place such
duties. 1 put the duty on lumber, be-
cause our people DO not use Canadian
lumber and hence, will pay none OF
the tax. Upon what will you place
your duty. Mr.. Critic. and put $1,000
600 into the treasury and yet none OF
1t come out Of the pockets Of your
people? I dare you to name one ar
ticle upon which you can raise $3,00O,.
600 Of federal taxation and yet none
or 1t come from the people Of South
Carolina. Mr.. Critic. will you put your
duty on commercial fertilizers? The
South consumes 80 per cent Of that
VIII you raise the duty on bagging
and ties? The South consumes all OF
that. Will you raise the duty on farm
machinery? The South consumes its
pro-rata share of this. Be honest
tell the people the article upon which
you place your dutis and I will guar
antee you that you will find none ex.
| cept lumber, upon which you car
place them without putting a burden
of taxation upon the Southern peo.
pie.
Was the Rate Democratic"
| L assert that the revenue duty fol
which I voted was Democratic reve.
nue. producing rate; because, first
the rate ranged from per cent. ad
valorem to 16 per cent. ad valorem-
the lowest in the bill-while the gen.
eral ad valorem average Of the lasl
| democratic tariff act was AZ To
per cent. Second, the duties for which
voted do not prohibit, but allow
| large importations. sufficient to brine
In revenue to an amount exceeding
$3,OOo,0O0 annually. So long as i'm
variations coppo in