The Washington times., 1913-02-10
SMITH, LoRIMER, AND LUMBER.

ilege OF representing his own and other SawIn III
terests there for another six years. presents today
in the advertising columns of the Baltimore news
papers an excellent statement Of his reasons for
asking to be reelected
For the reason tina; il is so good presentation
of the sawnill statesmaa's reasons for asking re-
election it is an equally excellent statement of the
reasons why the State of Maryland ought to refuse
him tha. reelection.
Senator Smith devotes practically the entire four
columns of his defense to his record rwo matters
lumber and Lorimer. Indeed, il might be condensed
even farther, for lurrber and Lorimer were in a
large way single issue Lorimer was the protege
of the Lumber trust; its pride and care, precisely as
the lumber duties of the Payne-AIdrich bill were.
No good lumber Senator could possibly be anti-Lori-
mer; and none was.
Senator Smith accurately senses his situation
when he specializes on Lumber and Lcr.mer lie is
correct in the assumption that those are the two big
bold striking aspects in his service of the Interests
on which he must square himself with the people
Of Maryland if he would retain his seat.
As to lumber the Senator's argument is rather
difficult TO follow. He voted against the various
amendments to the Payne-Aldrich bill which looked
to moderating the tariff burdens on lumber, and
he defends those votes in this wise:
stood by my convictions and did what thought
right No matter il misunderstood by some people.
and have been and will be denounced by the demagogue
can stand that 1t is not going to hurt in the end
and even if it did, would compelled by of
public duty under the circumstances to do the
same thing over again in the same way 1t is worth
time
Let il be noted that the Sawmill Senator would
be compelled under the same circumstances TO do
the same thing again in the same way
There is Straightforward warning of what may
be expected if anotner term is granted to Senator
Smith.
Senator Smith says he was urged, for the polit-
ical advantage if would give him, TO vote for the
free lumber proposals But to this he replies:
. Il felt that If did play the hypocrite for the po
ftical advantage might mean to me this PROPOSE
tion would be unworthy of the confidence and trust
and affection with which my friends honor me.
Just wherein fhe Senator would have dishonored
the trust of mis- friends, by voting for the public
instead of his own private interest, he does not
make clear. Perhaps the explanation is that the
trust of his friends was the Lumber trust. He
certainly didn't vote to repudiate that particular
trust of his friends.
But the Sawmill Senator is not quite consistent
While showing that it would have been hypocrisy
and demagogy fo- him to vote for free lumber dur
ing the tariff session, he turns about and boasts that
he has twice voted for free lumber: once in the
farmers free list measure, the other time in the
Canadian reciprocity measure.
1t merely happens that neither the free list nor
the Canadian reciprocity vote affected the lumber
situation; the tariff bill vote DID affect it.
If it would have been hypocrisy and demagogyl
to vote for free lumber during the tariff session,
WHEN SUCH VOTE WOULD HAVE MEANT
SOMETHING what was il to vote for free lumber
in the free list bill and the Canadian reciprocity
bill?
The Senator doesn't seem to keep his lumber logic
on straight In the matter of his Lormer votes he is
more fortunate. In that regard he has been con-
sstent throughout. He voted wrong at every oppor-
tuniy. He never faltered in his loyalty to
Lorimer and Lumber throughout that difficult sit
uaton.
He voted in favor,o Lormer both the first
and the second trials.
And he defends himself thus:
could not do otherwise. I don't apologize for my
Lorimer ] proud OF them. Lorimer was not
tried in the Senate; he was lynched.
Thank God for Senator Smiths straightforward
ness at this point. We might get mixed a triflle
about MS lumber-tariff record; we can't possibly
mistake about his Lorimer record. He is proud of it
Now, let US see what it means for a Senator
himself lumber mut-millionaire announce
that he is proud of his two for LorIner, and
tnat under the same circumstances he would be
compelled by sense of public duty" again to sup
port the high lumber duties of the Payne-Adrich
measure
There is a perfectly fair service of notice on
MS constituents. If they reelect him. they will know
what to expect.
What then, should they do about it?
Manifestly, if they like to have Lorimers IN
the Senate, they should vote for Smith.
If they feel that "Lorimer was Iynched," they
should vote for Smith. .-..
If they want the high duties on lumber con- !
tinued in the tariff bill that will be enacted under
Wilson, they should sustain Smith; for Smith says
that under the same circumstances ne would be
compelled by sense of public duty" to keep those