Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-08-30

y Scion, Me, Aug. zf,-CongreSSma
VIM. r.. Green Of Iowa. addressed
rousing Republican rally here, to
night, and was heartily greeted an
vigorously applauded for his clear am
Convincing speech on the tariff ques
ton. He said in part:
r. Ladies and gentlemen:
Just for moment let us compar.
the duties levied on wooden cloth.
with those of the Wilson bill of Dem.
II need not tell those of you who are
engaged in any kind of business or
toccupat ton when the Wilson bill was
in operation, of the condition of la
Dor and business under a Democratic
tariff. The hardships you then .endur-
ed have fixed these conditions indeli-
bly, in your memory. The Wilson bill,
like the Underwood bill made wool of
the sheep free from duty, but the I'm
derwood bill puts a duty upon cloth
in which the wool content is the chief
value at IS per cent. The Wilson bill
gave 40 per cent. on cloth worth not
over so cents per pound and over that
fixed a duty at so per cent. There is
SO little cloth that is not worth so
cents per pound that for.all practical
purposes we can compare the 35 per
cent. rate of the Underwood bill with
the 50 per cent. rate upon cloth of the
Wilson bill,
Notwithstanding the rates of the
Wilson bill were so much higher than
the rates of the present Democratic
bill. the stagnation of the wooden in
dustry was such under its operation
that in one year nearly 100000 pounds
of American grown wool could not be
used at home and had to be exported.
1t takes no prophet to predict how
the present bill will affect the cloth
manufacturers of the East and the
sheep raisers of the West.
The proposed Democratic bill, not
only strikes at the manufacturer but
affects the farmer seriously and most
unfairly. I represent a farming dis
trict in which there is very little
manufacturing and the little is of such
a nature and SO protected by freight
rates as to be little affected by tar
if duty. Yet the farmers of my dis
'tectionists. The farmers of my dis
trict reason in this way. They were
willing that the factory operative of
the east should be protected against
the cheap labor of foreign countries
If they in turn were protected in the
markets which the operation of the
eastern factories necessarily produced.
In other words If they could retain
the American market. the finest mark
ct in the world. But they were not
willing and are not willing that the
manufacturer should be protected on
his goods and that they should be
compelled to compete without any pro-
lection with, the cheap land and cheap
labor of Canada, the meats of Argen-
tina and the wool of Australia.
In President Taft's administration
as You will remember the so-called
reciprocity act with Canada was pass
ed. 1t got through Congress by vir-
tue of the support of all of the DEM
ocrats and minority of the Republic
cans. l do not know how that meas
ure was viewed among the farmers
and lumbermen of this vicinity, but
do know it was most unpopular
among the farmers of my own state.
| opposed it at the time. I still think
it was a bad proposition for us and a
good one for Canada 1t was rejected
by Canada as you know and at the
time / was utterly unable to under
stand why, when it was such good
bargain for that country. that it
should have been refused. l think I
understand it now. The Canadians
evidently had the political foresight
to see the Democratic party was COM
ing into power and would give them
everything they wanted without ask
ing for anything in return, unless it
was to here and there solicit a cam
paign contribution from Canadian
manufacturers. Why. my friends, do
you know that by this bill that is now