The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-09-21

Il ~
| tion of considerably more than so
| per cent of the present duty, and
an average duty of so per cent on
woolen cloth and manufactures. This
was avowedly a tariff for revenue
and was not drawn for the purpose
of protecting the industries. 1t pas
| sed the house and went to the senate.
where an insurgent Republican sena-
TOR proposed a substitute i'm which
| the duty on wool of the first ciass
was fixed at 40 per cent and of a
second class, or carpet wool, at 10
per cent, and the average percen-
| tage on wooden manufactures was
! made so per cent ad valorum. 1t
was claimed by its author to be a
protection bill. 1t was never sub
| mitted to a committee. no evidence
was ever taken in regard to 1t, and
it was evolved from the independent
! investigation of a single senator. A
majority of the Insurgents and the
Democrats in the senate compromised
on a bill which made the tax on
raw wool, first class 35 per cent: Sec
ond class, 10 per cent; and the aver
age duty on woolens, 55 per cent.
The bill, against the vote of nearly
all the regular Republicans and
some nsurgent Republicans, passed
the senate and was sent to confer
ence, where bill was agreed up
on In which the duty was 30 per
cent on raw wool, and an average
of 40 per cent on woolens. This bill
had the effect or raising the duty
on carpet wool, as fixed I'm the senate,
10 per cent. and as fixed in the
house, . per cent. Here was the
first case presented to me. There
was nothing in the record in either
the house or senate from which
could obtain any information as TO
the effect OF this bill upon the wool
and wool industry OF this country.
submit that the history of it's maxi
ing shows no principal whatever in
! the bill except IA compromise be
tweer two opposing principles for
the purpose of passing the BILL with
out any indication as to its effect on
the industry to which it applies.
No Information on Bill Furnished
This bill reduced the duty on wool
ems to an average of 40 per cent,
with duty on raw material wool of
20 per cent. The Wilson bill, pass
ed in 1894, had reduced the duty
to so per cent with no duty on the
raw wool at all, much more fav-
| orable arrangement to the manufac-
turers than in the present bill, and
yet the years OF the Wilson bill were
years of disaster to the wooden man
ufacturers. 1t may be that other
| causes than the tariff contributed to
the failure OF wooden mills in the
time of the Wilson bill, and it may
wei be that conditions in the wool
| en- business have changed so that
| 1t does not need as much protec-
tion as then; but / had no adequate
| information, and had been furnished
| none, upon which could say that
the bill presented to me was in ac-
cord with the Republican platform
of protection upon which was elect
ed, and to which | am honor bound
to square my official act and policy.
In, the absence of. such adequate in
| formation, and with the prospect of
SECURING it in three months, it be-
| came my bounden duty to withhold
my approval of the bill. What was
4 AbG htN'SSiNA lbl ouNH bitdl iiiolt III
| passing the bill at an extra session
called for another purpose? The bill
| as 1t passed the house provided 1t
| should go into effect January /, 1912.
The bill as 1t passed the senate con-
tained similar provision. When the
bill went into conference, 1 am in
formed that the suggestion was made
| that the date of January /, 1912. for
| its taking effect would furnish a
| strong argument for delaying its pas
sage until after December l, when
| the tariff board could report. The
date of taking effect was thereupon
| changed to October is, 1911. Such
| care was not taken with the free
| list bill or the cotton bill, both of
which were made to take effect jan
uary 1, 1912.
Passage OF Wool Bill Would End
Tariff Board.