The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-05-09
PROTECTED FIRMS
PAY LOWER WAGES
Declared Ansberry in Free
List Defense-Tariff In
equalities Shown.

Washington. May y.-Representa-
tive Ansberry. Of the Fifth. tOhio)
District, enIivened the otherwise dull
discussion OF the farmers free bill In
the house today with vigorous speech
in defense OF the measure.
Incidentally Mr.. Ansberry took his
colleague. Representative Longworth,
to task for being free trader one
week In supporting the Canadian re.
ciprocity measure. and a protcctionist
the next in his opposition to the free
list bill.
He pointed out that the employees
engaged In the industries most highly
protected received the lowest wages.
while those in the unprotected indus
tries were paid the highest wages. He
cited bricklayers, carpenters and rail-
road employees as receiving much
higher wages than men employed In
mills and factories receiving high
degree OF protection.
Referring to the Republican charges
that the panic OF 1894 was a free
trade panic. under the Cleveland ad-
ministration. Mr.. Ansberry declared
that the tariff bill which the Demo-
Gratis passed In that year could not
have produced that panic unless 1t had
been retroactive. for the panic started
in 1892 with the Homestead strikes.
when Andrew Carnegie hired Pinker.
ton detectives to shoot down men
who were asking for living wage.
Panic Of 1894. ..
Il was the only instance on record.
he said. where a law passed two years
and three months after an effect. had
been charged with being the cause.
The campaign OF 1892, said Mr..
Ansbcrry. was fought out on the single
was then In full force and effect. and
the people declared In favor of a reve.
nue. tariff. They were met with the
argument that while II was true that
the panic began several years before
the Wilson tariff act was passed. still
the people became SO scared because
they thought that they were going to
get what they wanted that they pre-
cipitated the panic.
Representative Warburton. Of Wash.
inEton. q newly elected Republican
member Of the house. announced his
intention OF supporting the free-list
bill. He said many OF the Republi-
can criticisms OF the bill were un.
doubtedly well founded. but others
were overdrawn. He believed the bill
would not do all It's Democratic spon.
sors expected Of 1t. but II was step
In the right direction. He urged TAX
Ing Of the duty of sugar.
Many Defenders.
Speeches In favor of tho free-list
bill were delivered by Representatives
McHenry. of Pennsylvania; Hensley. OF
Missouri; Mccoy. OF New Jersey; Lit.
tlcpage. of West Virginia: Dixon, Of In
diana: Bartlett, OF Georgia. and Clark,
of Florida. Speeches against the bill;
were made by Representatives Wilder,
OF Massachusetts: Farr. of Pennsyl
vania; Sloan, OF Nebraska. and Smith
Of Michigan.
Mr.. Bartlett attacked the so-called
"Cotton bagging trust" He said there
was evidence that manufacturers OF
jute bagging for bailing cotton were
operating through an understanding
equivalent to a combination.
Mr.. Gillette. OF Massachusetts,, chal'
lenged the statement. and Mr.. Bartlett
cited testimony before the Ways and
Means committee in 1909. He declar
ed the Southern farmers were dis
eliminated against In that cotton bag
ging was dutiable, while binding twine
was free Of duty, and that Southern