New-York tribune., 1918-09-20

doesn't he propose a tax on steel prod
ucts? But that would not in the in
tercst of the profteers. Why Goes hc
not propose TO tax corn and wheat 2"
Mr.. Moore retorted that MIR. Rainey's
proposition was made to open up tho
WAY for the adulteration Of food by
unscrupulous millers. and that it had
been opposed previously because it
was the creation of tho Corn Products
Company, a subsidiary of the Standard
Oil.
Denies Moorc's Charges
Mr.. Rainey replied that his former
mixed -four bill was introduced at the
instance of the health -four makers Of
the United States and that there was
not sclntllla of truth in the charge
made by Mr.. Moore
On his first cotton amendment Mr..
Moore made brief argument to the
effect that to distribute TAXATION eQuit
ahl" tax on cotton was. necessary.
Many Southern members expressed
their difference of opinion with him.
and his motion was lost. The second
was suppressed on point of order
The child labor amendment of Repre-
sentative Greene, of Iowa. was likewise
ditchcd by n point of order that it was
not gcrmane
The amendment presented b. Repre-
sentative Wood. Of Indiana. specifically
excepting travelling statesmen from the
brokers tax, was re cjccted as supert1u-
Gus.
The only contest of the day that led
to a tellerS' vote was on an amendment
offered by Representative Stafford of
Wisconsin, providing that the en-
should come from the civil service lists.
Inc Democrats were caught mapping
and the amendment carried on a
"stand-up" vote. 33 to So After some
parliamentary manipulation the amend
ment was defeated on poll by l29 to
122
War Control Rejected
Representative Moore got short
shrift with his Joint congressional
committee on expenditures. which has
teen tavortc idea of the Republicans.
The point OF order that it was not ger
name disposed Of it in short order
Mr.. Moore pointed out that it might be
necessary to supplement the pending
bill with taxation provisions that would
raise $1,000 100000 more and that the
total expenditures for the current fiscal
year might be $1,000, 100000 more than
expected. The expenditure of such vast
sums. he argued, ought to be closely
scrutinized
Mr.. Stafford made the same fight i'm
regard to drawing appointees to the ex-
tended force Of the Commiss ion of In
ternal Revenue, authorized by the bill.
from the civil service list Chairman
kltchin insisted that as the bill read
it plainly provided that all such ap-
polntments should be in accordance
with the civil service laws
Mr.. Stafford insisted that this was
an attempt to break down the standard
of public service. Mr.. ktchin there
upon explained that when this subject
was reached in the Ways and Means
Committee, the Democratic members,
feeling that, as the civil service lists
we're exhausted and that it would prob
ably be impossible to get good ma
terial without waving its provisions,
decided nevertheless to put the ques-
ton up to the Republican minority,
which held that it would be wise to ad-
here to the present civil service prac-
tice. Representative Greene, of Iowa, a
member of the committee. confirmed
what Mr.. kitchin said. However, to
prove the committees sincerity, Mr.
kltchin accepted an amendment max
ing the civil service provision water
tight