The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-22

tari6 schedules would DO In December.
although many OF the Democrats
had assisted In the support OF tho stat
utory tarift board bill. tho House at
once began to make a record by pass
Ing three tariff bills-th wool bill,
the free list bill and the cotton bin.
Wool Bill Figures.
THE wool bill proposed q revenue
duty OF 20 per cent. upon raw wool in
stead OF IL cents II pound. reduction
of considerably more than 80 per cent.
OF the present 1u.y. and al average
duty of 90 per cent. on wooden cloth
and manufactures. 1t passed the House
and went to the Senate. where an in
surgent Republican Senator proposed
a substitute. in which the duty on wool
of the first. class was fixed at 40 per
cent. and of a second class. or carpet
woods. at 10 per cent. and the average
percentage on the woolen nlanufac-
lures was made so per cent ad valorem
"a majority OF the Insurgents and
the Democrats in the Senate compro-
missed on n bill which made the tax
on raw wool. first class, 80 rer cent;
second class. 10 per cent, and the aver
age duty on woolens, 80 per cent. The
bill passed the Senate. and was sent
to conference, where bill was agreed
upon, In which the duty was 20 per
cent. on raw wool, and an average ~
40 per cent. on woolens. This bill had
the effect OF raising the duty on car
pet woods. as fixed III the Senate. 10
per cent, and as fixed in the House,
per cent.
This bill reduced the duty on wool
ems to an average of 40 per cent. with
a duty on raw material wool of % per
cent. The Wilson bill. passed In 1884.
z
with no duty on the raw wool at all.
much more favorable arrangement to
the manufacturers than in the present
bill. and yet the years of the Wilson
bill were years of disaster to the wool
en- manufacturers. 1t may be that
other causes than the tariff contributed
to the failure of the wooden mills In
the time of the Wilson bill, and 1t may
be that conditions In the wooden busi-
ness have changed so that 1t does not
need as much protection as then; Tut
I had no adequate Information, and
had been furnished one. upon which
could say that the bill presented to
me was In accord with the Republican
platform of protection upon which
was elected. and to which am In
honor bound to square my official act
and policy. In the absence OF such
adequate information, and with the
prospect OF securing 1t in three months,
1t became my bounden duty to with
hold my approval of the bill.
Question of Schedule *.
Schedule K had been in force so
long and its percentages were so high
in many respects that I had not hest
tated in times past to say that It ought
to be reduced. and to explain how 1t
came not to be reduced in the PANE
bill as 1t ought to have been. But 1t
is one thing to know that a schedule
of this sort is too high and It 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 COM
mitted, was to be observed as a policy
lowing 1t. II I had allowed the wool
bill to become a law. the progress
made in public opinion toward a better
method of revising the tariff would
have been entirely lost and the policy
cast to the winds.
in view of bhe enormous value OF
the wool and wooden Industry, which
might be disastrously affected by the
bill. was 1t asking too much to delay
the bill, under the circumstances. for
ninety days merely to secure accurate
information?
THE free list bill was framed and
came to me in a form calculated to
mislead as 10 its effect. In the first
clause all agricultural implements
were declared to be free. and a great
many were named. These same I'M