The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-08-29
IS ;. Martin Opens His Campaign for denomination to

Sixth Virginia District in the House
OF Representatives, used the following
which l quote because it is Il
clear. strong and succinct statement vi
the attitude occupied by me as well as
himself. Senator Daniel and many 9TH
or Democrats;
Not IA Protective Tnrin.
| AS to the nature Of the small duty
on lumber, 1t is not a protective tariff
in the sense it Gds one-third TO the
price of rough lumber to the general
consumer. Nobody, in Congress OF
out. who knows anything about the
subject n has any regard Tor his in
teilectual integrity, would pretend 10
say to the contrary. Tn duty does
not increase the cost OF lumber one
farthing to Il single consumer in Vir-
Sinia or the. South, or to amy resident
OF the United States outside d narrow
zone OF competition on the Canadian
border. 1t is distinctly within the
democratic doctrine Of d tariff for rev.
enue. yielding, as l recall the figures,
! 100000 to the Federal Treasury. 1t
incidentally helps to preserve to Nir-
Sinia and the South the lumber mar
kets for New England and other North
crn states easily reached by Canadian
lumber one will search the tariff
speeches here in vain TO iind any seri-
NoS blicl NIIu u hOiidI uiAE
on lumber could increase the price |
cent TO a single inhabitant Of the
United states outside 4 very limited
territory, whose people for half a CEN
fury have grown rich BY collecting
tariff tribute from the balance of the
II whose ConSvcssmen stood
out In the House, ana more recently in
The Senate, tor the highest degree OF
protection for their own products anu
free trade In tho rPndt,.tC ~ A,har
sections
Again. Mr.. Glass on the 23d day Of
May. 1909. in an editorial in his paper,
the L~ynchburg News. after defending
Senator Daniel for votes. exactly the
same as mine. on Items IN the Payne
Aldrich tarir bill, uses the following
language:
In the Senate on the same day that
Daniel spoke the junior Senator from
virginia took part in the debate. 1t
is refreshing to note from the Con-
gressionai Record how quickly and
e%pertly Senator Martin exploded the
utterly selfish game of stripping the
South for the - cuniary benefit of New
England"
l voted for a duty of Sl.o0 per 1000
on lumber. 1T was strictly u revenue
duty. bringing in. about 81, 500, OUO per
annum. y majority OF the Democrats
in the Senate voted the same way,
along with my colleague and myself
II must be remembered that this vote
cast by me for "a duty OF Sl50 on
lumber was cast to nix that rate of
duty on lumber in the Payne-.Aldrich
tariff bill. which was being framed by
Republicans on protective lines my
idea pein to preserve this revenue
duty on a Southern product in a bill
which was being framed by Republic
cans and which contained htOb nrn-
tectire duties on all articles bought
by the southern people. II must be
remembered, too, that although / voted
TO fix that rate in the bill, ! voted
against the bill as a whole when IL
came up for inal passage. But my
opponent, in discussing this matter,
fails TO teii the Virginia people that
during tn special session of Congress
which adjourned on the I'D dag of
August. the Democrats undertook to
frame tarifr bills in accordance with
the ~time-honored principles OF the
Democratic party. In these tariff bills
which passed the House and came to
the Senate. a great many articles
Fought and consumed in the South and
by the great body II the people every
where, were place, on the free list as
Il part OF that Democratic measure, and
when articles of daily use and con-
sumption in the South We're put on
the free list ] supported that bill and
voted for II. including the article OF
lumber In other words, l have only
asked fair treatment for the people OF
my state. When the Democrats were
making the tariff and treated the
South fairly in respect to commodities
bought by her people, | was willing
to see lumber, Il product of the South
and which the South sold to the North
ern people, put on the free list. Mr..
Jones was so little in Washington
during the last session OF Congress
that he perhaps did not know that q
tree list bin had passed through Con.
Gress. but II he knew It, in under
taking TO give my tariff record ne
should, in charging that l many years
ago voted for a duty on lumber, have
stated that 1 voted for putting lumber
on the free list during The last session
of Congress when commodities largely
bought from the North and used by
tbs south went on the free list.
But my opponent says l voted eigh-
teen times with Senator .Aldrich. IL
the grade OF intelligence in oui
ountry SO low that the people have
to resort TO the manney in which some
! one else votes in order to determine
what vote Is right? pid my oppon-
ent expect me to vote wrong because
Senator .Aldrich voted right Among
the eighteen times when Senator AID
rich and | voted the same way were
my votes FOR admitting certain works
of art free of duty, against an in
crease of duty on pineapples. against
a high protective duty on wooden
fabrics. for Il tau on corporations. for
an amendment to the Constitution
providing for an income tax, Tor a
reduced duty on pig iron, against a
duty on tea. for a FpdIrp6 lntV mn
coal and the ike ! on no occasion
voted with Senator Aldrich or any
one else for a protective duty.
The Union Station Bill.
In a number of Mr.. .Iones's speeches
he has stated that what is known as
the Union Station bill, and for which
] voted, contained an appropriation
of S3,000.000 to build for the railroads
in Washington a union sta ton. That
Il hlll aGsal - i.Ean-