The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-09-21

directed. The bill went to the senate
and was there amended In a few un-
important particulars, one requiring
confirmation OF the appointment OF the
members by the senate and another
modifying in some respect the inquis-
itorial powers Of the board. These
changes necessitated a return Of the
bin 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
| fllibustering 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 then existing IL the
| bill for the other board failed Of pas
sage. In this appropriation bill the
| statutory tariff board, IL established,
was directed to investigate and report
upon schedule X on wool and woolens
| by Dec. 1. 1911. This direction was
| the result Of an amendment offered by
a democratic senator.
Upon the failure of the bill for a
statutory board, and in an earnest ef-
| fort to enable congress TO act with ac-
curate knowledge on schedule K, and,
| indeed on schedule lon cotton man
ufactures-I issued an order to the
tariff board already appointed to con-
| tinue the necessary Investigations of
these schedules and to report upon the
| same on Dec. next. In order to make
as good a substitute for the statutory
tariff board as | could, added two
| competent democrats on the board. The
| board consists Of two professors of
economics Of the highest standing, one
at Yale and one at the University of
| Virginia, a former assistant secretary
OF the treasury in charge of customs,
the proprietor and editor of an agri-
cultural and stock raising newspaper
an authority on these subjects and a
former democratic congressman of
great ability and experience from
Georgia. Except the former assistant
| secretary, who is a republican, and the
former congressman, 1t is hard to say
that the members have any politics at
all. certainly none which win prevent
impartial investigation and judgment.
They are to report on the glossary and
the facts as to the comparative cost
Of foreign and domestic production aft
er Investigations made by experts in
their employ. They have eighty per-
sons under them working hard to COM
plete the work marked out for them.
have gone over with care this his
tory of the movement for a tariff board
in order to show how fully committed
/ am to the proposition that we ought
not to have any revision of a schedule
Of the tariff without accurate informa-
ton as to the operation and effect of
the proposed changes, and further to
| show that In this view / have had in
the past the hearty support not only
of the regular republicans, but also,
and even with more emphasis, those
who call themselves progressive re-
publicans.
Second. also wish to point out
that all republicans of whatever shade
OF nTn-4t 81 - h. So 80
our protected industries to the point OF
retaining duties on imported articles
which shall equal the differences in the
cost of production at home and abroad.
Third. Except for the extra session
called only to pass upon the reciproc-
tty bill, the first time that the Sixty
second congress could consider and
pass upon tariff schedules would be in
December, and at that time it's pre-
decessor, by consent of both parties,
had fixed as the proper time at which
full report as to the most objection
| able schedule ought to be reported.
With the money granted me by con-
gress / had provided a board, nom
partisan, and with the same person
mel as the statutory board would have
had, to make a report not only upon
wool but also upon cotton.
Although many Of the democrats had
| assisted in the support of the statu-
tory tariff board bill and had advo-
Gated such a means Of securing accu-
| rate information in respect Of the
| probable operation Of the proposed re-
| vision, the house at once began to
make record for political purposes by
passing three tariff bills, the wool bill,
! the free-list bill, and the cotton bill.
They gave no public hearings OF any
kind on either of these bills and they
| presented no satisfactory information
upon which the effect of any Of them
| upon the industries involved could be
Judged. Their Investigations may have
been sufficient to satisfy the conscience
OF a tariff -for-revenue man who be-
| lieves in any reduction, however great,
of existing duties, but for one pledged
| as / am to maintain a tariff high
| enough to enable existing industries to
| live, the case is different.
The Wool Bill.
The wool bill proposed a revenue
duty Of 20 per cent upon raw wool In
stead of IL cents a pound, a reduction
| of considerably more than so per cent
| of the present duty, and an average
duty 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 in
| dustries. 1t passed the house and went
| to the senate, where an insurgent re-
publican 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 wooden manufactures was made so
per cent ad valorem. 1t was claimed
by its author to be a protection bill.
1t was never submitted to a commit
| tee. no evidence was ever taken in
regard to it, and it was evolved from
| the independent investigation of a sin
| gle senator. A majority of the insur-
| gents and the democrats in the senate
compromised on a bill which made the
tax on raw wool first class. 35 per
cent; second class, 10 per cent, and
the average duty on woolens, 55 per
cent The bill, against the vote of
nearly all Of the regular republicans
and some insurgent republicans, pass
ed the senate and was sent to confer
ence, where bill was agreed upon in
| which the duty was 20 per cent on
raw wool, and an average of 40 per
cent on woolens. This bill had the ef-
feet Of raising the duty on carpet
woods, as fixed In the senate, 10 per
cent and as fixed in the house, 8 per
cent. Here was the first case pre-
sented to me. There was nothing In
the record In either the house or SEN
ate from which could obtain any in
formation as to the effect of this bill
upon the wool and wooden industry of
this country. ! submit that the his
tory of it's making shows no principal
whatever in the bill except a compro-
mise between two opposing principles
for the purpose Of passing the bill,
without any Indication as to It's effect
on the industry to which 1t applies
This bill reduced the duty on woolens
to an average of 40 per cent. with a