The Washington herald., 1913-08-22
NEVADA SENATOR
TARIFF ORATOR
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE.

man called attention to the statement
which accompanied the report. in which
the board admitted that '.in a majority
OF cases the growers had not kept their
accounts in such shape as to render the
desired Information readily attainable.
However. the familiarity OF the agents
of the board with the industry was such
that, with the hearty cooperation OF the
growers themselves. results were OBJ
tanned that fairly reflect the general con-
ditions prevailing In that region"
Makes Analysis of Report.
Commenting on this report. Senator
Pittman said:
dence? From the defendants who were
under Indictment 1t is possible that the
board believed that the sheep raisers
were ignorant of the reasons that
prompted the appointment OF the board
and the uses to which the evidence would
be put, and, therefore. could be surprised
into making admissions against their
own interests. The cost of the produc-
ton of wool In the United States from
which the conclusions In the report are
drawn were obtained with the hearty
cooperation Of the growers themselves
The result Of this hearty cooperation Is
apparent tuc bOcIu cotiihohS VI sNS
cost of raising sheep in the Western
States"
He then went into an analysis OF the
report, purposing to show that 1t was
made entirely from a protection stand
point, and that many Of the deductions
therein contained were partisan.
Replying to the second complaint emu
merated at the beginning Of his speech.
that free raw wool is a discrimination
against the producer. Senator Pittman
continued.
"The complaint is based upon theory
of protection. and have already proved
by Republican statistics that the cost OF
the wool industry is no greater here than
abroad, SO raw wool, under the Repub-
lican theory, is not entitled to protec-
ton.
THE manufactured article might OF
might not bear the same relation to
similar article abroad, but the raw ma
terial, IL IL did not come within the rule,
certainly. under the Republican protec'
tive theory, would not be entitled 10 a
protective tariff on the sole ground that
a duty was placed upon the manufac.
tured article. / do not understand tha'
such a theory has ever been presented by
any protectionist. II such theory were
put into force and effect, then 1t would
be essential to have a duty on every arti'
Gle, both raw and manufactured. whether
1t required the aid Of protection or not
The Republican party has never recog'
nized such q theory, as every tarfn oil
| that 1t has prepared has placed many
articles upon the free list, and princi
| pally the raw articles.
Cut win Not XIII Proats.
'Tf one industry can exist without tn.
aid Of a tariff duty, and those ensaget
in such industry believe in the system o.
protection at all, I cannot see how the!
| would have cause for complaint becaus'
a less-favored industry received on'!
sufficient aid to preserve its existence.
II now come to the last contention o
those opposed to placing raw wool on tn
free list. viz, that it will injure the wool
growing States.
"It is contended by the wool grower
that the bill will reduce the price Of WOO
and thereby reduce the profits OF the In
dustry, even IL 1t does not destroy sucl
| industry. I admit that the price OF WOO
will be reduced, but believe that rea
sonable profits can be maintained In tn
manner have hereinbefore discussed.