The daily sentinel., 1912-03-14

whether or not the present tariff |
rates on Colorado products are high !
er than necessary. | think probably !
they are. but a great many good peo-
pie in Colorado think they are not. |
Ihis is not question of what they
or | think. Ii is a question of fair
treatment. Every reasonable person
knows that if there is ever going to
be any tariff reduction every state
and portion of the country and near
ly every industry must submit to its
Just share of reductions on its pro-
ducts. And we must always remem-
Der that there are hundreds of con-
sumers 10 every producer of all these
various articles. But neither our
platform nor any of our candidates
IN my state ever advocated or prom
lSed tree trade, or promised to cut
all the duties off our products. ri
we mad some of us might not be here
today. We promised gradual and
substantial reduction. and | am now
ofterlng an amendment to stand by
the party platform and reduce the
duties on all of Colorados products
atiected by this bill. even more than
lhe 50 per cent general average of
the reductions in the bill. That is
N'AAS " Jul IldllbIlil. ana IL Is
tair and Is enough and il seems to
me that no Democrat can reasonable
ASK more or Republican expect anv
less of men than that.
IT the Democrats of Colorado eX-
1ected us to vote to put the products
II our state on the free list our plat
'orm should have clearly said so. We
should have frankly gone before the
eople on that issue. But not having
lone so do not consider that | have
any right or authority to advocate
>r support general free trade in Col
orado products. am certainly go
ing the limit in offering the pend
ing amendment, which would reduce
the present duty on lead so per cent
ANA my colleagues will offer amend
ments to the sections on zinc and
tungsten. making nearly as large cuts
IN the duty on them. But these
amendments will. under the caucus
rule. all be promptly rejected. There
is no middle ground for us. We are
given no chance to vote for a grad
ual reduction on our products. There
Is in this bill no tariff for revenue
only on Colorado industries.
SO far as our delegation in the
mouse is concerned, this bill puts
squarely up to us a straight. cold
blooded proposition of voting for or
against free trade in Colorado pro-
ducts, while at the same time and
in the same bill the duty on the rel
atiVely similar products of some of
the other states are only cut about
10 per cent to make the general av-
erage of this bill 35 per cent. can
not appreciate the justice of strik-
Ing an average that way. That is
not my idea of fair dealing.
we have had no opportunity to be
heard on these matters, and | under
stand the committee has had no hear
ings. The west has no representa-
tion on the majority membership of
the ways and means committee, and
II looks to me as though you have
not properly considered the interests
of our country. Upon what data or
authority does this committee pre-
sumo to strike all the duty off zinc
and tungsten? The government gets
no revenue from articles put on the
Tree list. | do not believe that zinc
ore containing % per cent or more
zinc needs protective duty of $22.3O
per ton, or that zinc in coated sheets
needs duty of S35 per short ton:
but there is no showing here as to
what effect the wiping out of all of
that duty at once would have on that
industry in about 30 counties in my
state.
The present duty of $33.GO per ton
on lead is so high that it is prac-
ically prohibitive, and the govern
ment gets very little revenue from
1t. But who has any right to say
that three-fourths of it should be
at once cut off? There is not one
word in all this 1OO-page written
report of the committee on this bill
to show why you reduced the tariff
on lead from m493.3S per cent to 25
per cent, and on lead ore from 63.l2
See Mrs. Cranston's Jewels" mt