The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1911-09-21
TAFT DEFENDS
TARIFF VET0ES

ticulars, one requiring confirmation
of the appointment of the memb ers
by the senate and another modifying
in some respect the inquisitorial
powers of the board These changes
necessitated a return of the bill to
the House for its concurrence in
the amendments A large majority
favored concurrence, but a small mi
nority was able to beat the bill by
fillibustering in the last hours of the |
session. In the uncertainty as to |
the passage of the bill, both Houses |
had provided $225,000 for me to
continue the Tariff Board existing if |
the bin for the other board failed
passage. In this appropriation bin
the statutory Tariff Board, if estab-
lished, was directed to investigate
and report upon Schedule K on wool
and woolens by December l, 1911.
This direction was the result of an |
by a democratic senator, |
Although many of the democrats
had assisted in the support OF the
statutory Tariff Board bin and had
advocated such a means OF securing
accurate information in respect of
the probable operation of the pro
posed revision, the House at once
began to make a record for political
purposes by passing three tariff
bills, the wool bill. the free-list Dill,
and the cotton bill
The wool bill proposed revenue
duty of 20 per cent upon raw wool !
instead of / cents pound, reduc- |
ton of considerably more than 80 |
per cent of the present duty, and an |
average of so per cent on WOODEN |
cloth and manufactures. This was
avowedly a tariff for revenue and
was not drawn for the purpose of
protecting the industries. 1t passed
the House and went TO the Senate,
where an insurgent republican Sen
ator proposed a substitute in which
the duty of wool of the first class
was fixed at 40 per cent, and o. a
second class, or carpet woods, at 10
per cent and the average percent
| age on wooden manufactures was
made 60 per cent ad yolorem II
was claimed by its author to he a
protection bill 1t was never sub
mitted to a committee no evidence
was ever taken in regard to 1t, and
il was evolved from the independ-
ent investigation of a single sena-
tor A majority of the democrats
in the Senate compromised on bill
! which made the tax on raw WOOL
first class 35 per cent; second class
10 per cent; and the average duty
on woolens, So per cent. The bill
against the vote of nearly all of the
regular republicans and some lnsur
gent republicans, passed the Senate
and was sent to conference wher'
a bill was agreed upon in which thu
duty was % per cent on raw WOOL
and an average of AZ per cent OF
woolens This bill had the effec
of raising the duty on carpet WOODS
as fixed in the Senate, l9 per cent
and as fixed in the House. pc
cent Here was the first case pre-
sented to me There was notht'
in the record in elther the nous
or Senate from which | coli1 obtall
any information as to the effect o
this bill upon wool and wooden N
dustry of this country. submit tina
the history of it's making shows n
principle whatever IN the bill eXcep
compromise between two oFposln
principles for the purpose OF passin
the bill, WITHOUT any indication as :
its effect on the industry to which
applies.
r The free list bill was the 'tarn
= ers free list, - for the purpose OF glN
ing an impression that II was passe
10 compensate the farmers Tor som
sort OF injury supposed to be don
by the Canadian reciprocity treat
: This reason was finally repudlate
} by the leader of the democracy o
. the floor of the house Of represents
= tives, and is certainly not tru
There was nothing in the Canada