Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-09-23

4 1.-THE bill, without any Indication as to
II Its effect on the industry to Wnlch ~
applies.
cites Former Years Of Disaster. !.
This bill reduced the duty on wool
ems to an average of 40 per cent, with
a duty on the raw material wool OF
20 per cent. The Wilson bill, passed
lin 1894. had reduced the duty to 5V
per cent with no duty on the raw WOOL
at all. much more favorable ar
i rangement to the manufacturers than
In the present bill, and yet the years
/ Of the Wilson bill were years OF DIS
j aster to the wooden manufacturers.
4 Il may be that other causes than the
tariff contributed to the failure OF
wooden mills in the time OF the Will
son bill and 1t may wen
,|be that conditions in the
wooden business have changed
so that II does not need as much pro-
lection as then; but had no adequate
information. and had been furnished
none upon which could say that the
bill presented to me was in accord
with the republican platform OF pro-
lection upon which was elected, and
to which /, am in honor bound TO
square my official act and policy. in
the absence OF such adequate infor-
nation, and with the prospect or Sc
curing it in three months, 1t became
my bound en- duty to withhold my ap-
proyal of the bill. What was the nee
essity for such great haste IN passing
the bill at an extra session called IOr
another purpose? The bill as 1t passed
the house, provided it should 60 into
effect January /, 1912. The bill, as 1t
passed the senate contained similar
provision. When the bill went into
conference, l am informed that the
suggestion was made that the date OF
January l, 1912, for its taking enect,
would furnish strong argument for
delaying Its passage until after De
cember !, when the tariff board could
report. The date Of taking effect was
thereupon changed to October 10,
1911. Such care was not taken with
the free-list bill or the cotton bill,
both of which were made to take eff
feet January 1, 1912
| Tariff Board Principles Demanded
Veto
long and its percentages were so high
in many respects that had not hesl-
tated in times past to say that IL
ought to be reduced, and to explain
how it came not to be reduced IN the
Payne bill as 1t ought to have been.
But 1t is one thing to know that a
schedule of this sort Is too high, ana
1t is very different thing in such
complicated schedule to know upon
what items the reductions should be
made and how great the reductions
ought to be. If the principle to which
am committed, and to which the
party is committed in the strong
terms of the resolutions, which have
quoted above, was to be observed as
a policy at all. here was the occasion
for following it. II had allowed the
wool bill to become law. the prog
ress made in public opinion toWaro
better method of revising the tarif1
would have been entirely lost and the
policy cast to the winds.
Calls it Hybrid Bill.
Such defense is made of the bill
IN the ground that the committee on
WAYS and means had considered it
carefully in committee for month
or more. but the point is that the bill
they prepared is not this bill. 1t is
changed in all of it's rates and mater
tally changed to meet by compromise
bill that was never In committee at
all and the blending was done, as
was said with "blacksmith's tools
The house bill was free-trade or at
least an antiprotection bill; what the
hvhrid was. who could tell? In view
of the enormous value of the wool and
wooden industry which might be DIS
astrously affected by the bill, was 1t
asking too much to delay the bill, I'M
der the circumstances, for W days,
merely to secure accurate Informal
ton? I thought not. Indeed, could
! find no argument which would satisfy
my conscience in signing the bill.
The Free List Bill.
The free list bill was called the
farmers free list for the purpose
of giving an impression that it was
passed to compensate the farmers for
some sort of injury supposed to be
done by the Canadian reciprocity
treaty. This reason was finally re-
undated by the leader Of the democ-
racv on the floor of the house CT rep
resentatiyes and is certainly not true.
There was nothing in the Canadian
reciprocity bill thai required any COM
pensation to the farmers, for In a
very short perid after actual opera
ton 1t will appear that they, as well
as everybody else, have been improved
in condition by our larger trade with
Canada. But the bill was framed and
came to me in form calculated to
mislead as to its effect. In the first
clause all agricultural implements
were declared to be free, and great
many were named. These same i'm
Elements were named in the Payne
bill. and were made free in that bin
from any country which permitted our
AGRICULTURAL implements to enter it
without duty. This opened to England
the market of the United States for
agricultural implements. As a mat
ter Of fact, the price Of agricultural i'm
plements in America Is cheaper, as
shown by report Of the bureau OF
trade relations of the state depart
ment, to the American farmers than
to any farmers in the world. Eng
land is the one country that exports