The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-05-06

------------ -
Senator Martin did not vote for pro-
teet,Ye tariff propositions, and that
he voted f.: ali amendments offered
by Senator's Cummins and La Toilette
seeking 10 reduce the tariff. but X In
contestabiy establishes precisely the
contrary. In substantiation of this
7 shall only refer to three or four of
the more important votes cast by
Senator Martin.
One OF these was upon an amend
nent offered by Senator La Toilette
reducing the duty Of one-haf Of one
cent per pound on extracts OF que
bacho rs proposed by the Aidrich
committee. to onc-fourth OF ono cent
per pound. Senator Martin not only
voted against this amendment. but he
made two or three short speeches
against It. And yet the Sims publies-
ton alleges in black faced type that
he voted for all the amendments Of
fered by Senator LA Toilette seeking
| to reduce the tariff.
Statement Inaccurate
Again, IL Is. stated that Senator
| Martin voted to reduce the tax on
| iron ore from 40 cents to rs cents per
! ton, which, 1t is asserted. was rev.
enue duty vote, This Is a most in
accurate and misleading statement.
| The BILL as II passed the House. pro-
vided for free iron ore. and senator
Aldrich undertook tspamend 1t on the
floor OF the Senate by imposing ii tax
| of % cents per ton on iron ore. Sen
| ator Martin voted with Aldrich Tor
| the imposition of this tax.
There was no question before the
Senate OF reducing the tax from 40
cents to 20 cents per ton. The House
| went upon record for free iron ore,
and finally the conterees adjusted the
diragreeing votes by fixing the duty
at Is cents- Thus II is seen that SEN
ator Martin voted to impose tax
upon iron ore OF almost double that
which It actually bears under the
PayneAldrieh blu.
The same pamphlet further states
that Senator Martin voted for rev.
enue duty on bituIninous coal. Let us
see about this. This House duty on
bituminouH coal was Ct cents per ton,
and Senator Aidrioh moved TO make
it so cents. Senator McCumber, a
Republican. moved to amend the AL
drich amendment BY inserting 40 cents
In tho place of 60 cents, and Senator
Martin voted for the higher duty with
Senator AIdrich and against the low
CIR proposed by Senator McCumber.
The duty finally agreed upon by
the conferees acting for the two
Houses was As cents a ton. so that
senator Martin voted to put a tax of
Is cents ton more upon bituminous
coal than It actually bears to-day. 1t
would be difficult to make most DEM
ocrats believe that duty of IS per
cent. higher than the rate In the
Payne Aldrich tart act IL "a reve-
nee duty.
Tells OF the Vote.
| Now, let us SEQ how Senator Mar
ftfn voted in regard 10 Timber. The
House fixed a duty of 81 per thousand
feet upon rough lumber. Senator AL
drich moved to increase the duty to
$3.50. Senator McCumber, a Repub-
lican and a pretaetioais.. moved to
amend the Aldrieh amendment so as
to reduce the tax to 81. as fixed in
the House bill
Senator Martin voted againSt this
reduction. and for the 80 per cent.
Aldrich. The present duty Is SIPS
per thousand: and yet II IL not a. high
rs Senator Martin would have had IL.
If, as most Democrats believe. this
rate In excessive. what must be
thought or Senator Martins error, 10
make IL even higher? And yet this
vote is declared to be a vote for a
IuIy.
Again, Senator Aldrich proposed
to increase materially the duty on
dressed lumber over the figures fixed
In the House bill. Senator McCum-
Der offered an amendment designed
TO place the duty at about tho figure
nxed In the House bill. Senator Mar
tin voted against the McCumber
| amendment. and for the increased
duty proposed by Senator Aldrich.
| II VIII be recalled that when this
measure was before the House a
vote was had upon the proposition
to take the duty entirely off rough
lumber Some OF my Democratic
brethren voted against free lumber
and in favor Of q dollar tax upon
! lumber was severely criticized not
only by his Democratic opponent, but
in the public press"
Condemned ny Press
| at was not only criticized. but
| condemned by one OF the daily na-
| pers of this city, which ia now SUM-
| porting candidate, who voted for a
! duty so per cent. higher And yet,
senator Martin voted To increase the
tax OF 81 per thousand placed on
| lumber in the House hys25o per cent.
IT, as has been charged, the votes
or those Democrats who supported a
duty OF 81 thousand upon rough
lumber were undemocratic. what must
be said OF Senator Martin, who voted
with Aifirtch for "a tax 81 Sf50 a
| thousand?
And yet Judge Sims makes him.
self responsible for the statement
that mot upon q single schedule. or
/ item 6r the tariff did Senator Martin
,yote Ter a .protective tariff or, depart
from sound Democratic principle.