The citizen., 1912-08-02
WASHINGTON.
Legislative and Gem
eral Topics from
the Capital.
Special Correspondence to the Citizen.)
Washington, July 29, 1912.


Progressive Republicans in the Hous,
and Senate-membere heretofore arden
Roosevelt followers-are getting ready tc
put the skins ander the third party
plan."
The greasing of the ways to send the
Bull Moosers back into the Republican
ranks is being done by such men as Sen
ators Cummins, Bourne, Borah, Brown,
Bristow, Works and Gronna and Repre-
sentatives Murdoch, Cooper, Davis, Ken
dali, Hougen, Prouty, Lenroot, Hayes
and Woods.
1t is not for love of Taft that these men
are anxious to prevent Col. Roosevelt
from forming new party. 1t is selfpres-
ervation. Most of them assert to friends
that their excuse for not "bolting" is
that they hope to bring about reforms
within the party"
Luther NJ. Walker, on behalf of several
Southwestern tap line" railroads, told
the House Commerce Committee, con-
sldering changes in the Interstate Com
merCc act, that the Interstate Commerce
Commission had used coercion and prom
lses to prevent litigation of its orders and
threatened criminal prosecution of rail-
roads which proposed to appeal to the
courts.
Mr.. Waller produced letters purporting
to have been written by members of the
commission to various railroads, making
promises of lepiency if they would with
hold suit following the issuance of the
commissions orders.
Chairman Clements, of the commission,
was given permission to reply formally to
the charges later.
The fight in the Senate over the revi-
sion of the wool schedule, which ended
so spectacularly and so sadly for Senator
PenroSe and other stand-patters by the
adoption of the LaFollettc substitute for
the Penrose and the House measures.
may be renewed when the question Of
naming OF Senate conterees on the bill
comes up. 1t will be renewed with vigor
and determination by LaFollette, if re-
ports of the stand-pat program which
reached him prove correct.
Penrose and the other stand-patters
were bitterly disappointed over their final
defeat after they had mustered enough
regular aud Progressive votes to put over
the suddenlysprung Finance Committee
substitute for the Democratic House bill.
LaFollctte had been carefully kept out of
sprung, as it was realized the Wisconsin
leader would not join in the scheme.
But enough ofthe ProgresSives who would
go along were let into the plan to assure
its success by giving the Penrose bill a
bare majority. The Democrats had also
been left in the dark with one or two pos
sible exceptions. But LaFollette's fight
ing blood was fully aroused as soon as
lhe PenroSe trick was turned and he Sc
cured working arrangement with the
Democrats to try to substitute his old
bill for the Penrose bill. He had the
ProgresSiveS in a corner, for they
couldn't afford to queer their records by
refusing TO support in this session wool
bill that was good enough for them in the
special session. The Progressives were
thus compelled to turn their backs on
Penrose after putting through his bill and
almost Immediately vote to undo what
they had done.
The essential points of the LaFollette
hill and the House bill are as fallows:
Raw wool: LaFollette bill, 10 to IS per
cent; House bill, 20 per cent.
Wool wastes and rags: LaFollette bill,
as to 80 per cent; House bill, 20 per
cent.
Combed wool or tops: LaFolette bill,
40 per cent. House bill, rs per cent.
Yarns: LaFollette bill, As per cent;
House bill, 80 per cent.
Cloths, ready made clothing, knit fab
RIGS, women's dress goods, ETC.: LaFol-
lotte bill, 55 per cent House bill, IS to
so per cent.
Carpets: LaFolette bill, IS per cent; +;
House bill. rs to so per cent.
These are the more striking compari-
sons between the two measures. When
the House and Senate conferees reached
a compromise year ago the raw wool
duty was compromised at 20 per cent. !;
the wool waste duty at 2o per cent. the
combed wool duty at 81 per cent; the
yarn duty at IS per cent; the ready-made
clothing duty at 4o per cent
When the LaFollette wool bill reached
the House Majority Leader Underwood
demanded that it be sent to conference
and the Senate amendment be agreed to.
Representative Payne, of New York.
Republican, objected to the bill going to
conference before it had been referred to
the Ways and Means Committee. Ac-
was put over until later.
callers predicted that he would veto the
wool bill il it came to him in the form it
left the Senate, which is substantially the
same bill as was vetoed last year. Mr..
Taft has yet had no conference with Re-
publican leaders about the bill.
Chairman Underwood also sees 2
| chance for the cotton revision at this ses.
sion Of Congress.
II am going to call the Ways and
Means Committee to consider the advisa'
bilIty OF calling up our cotton bill, he
said. Now that the Senate has shown
a disposition to enact some legislation
giving the tariff people relief we might as
well take up cotton"
A bitter attack was made on Repre-
] sentative Norris, Of Nebraska, by Repre-
sentative Humphrey, of Washington, :
Taft man, in the House. in reply to thc
two-day speech of the Nebraskan con
demning the recent Chicago Republican
Convention, in which he had chargeC
that the delegates from the State o
Washington had been obtained for Presi
dent Taft through political corruption
Humphrey disavowed any persona
knowledge OF the manner in which tn
delegates were selected, saying he wa
not al home at the time.
So vituperative was the Humphrey al
tack that Norris several times sought t
interrupt, but unavailngly. When Hun
phrey concluded, Norris sought time I
make reply, but former Speaker Cannon
whom Norris fought so bitterly two veal
ago. had charge of the time on the R