The Monmouth inquirer., 1922-07-13
TARIFF BILL HIT
TWICE IN SENATE.
Move to Enforce CIoture on It
Fails, and 1t Is Attacked by
Majority Member.
REPUBLICANS ARE WARNED
LsFolIette Declares Defeat in Novem-
ber and 1924 Is Sure If Measure
Passes-Democrat Pre-
vent Gag.


Washington. on.-Defeat of the Repub-
iican motion for cloture on the admin
istration tariff bill and dramatic at
tack on that measure by Senator La
Toilette of Wisconsin, a Republican
member of the committee that report
ed it, featured the proceedings in the
senate. The vote to invoke the exist
ing cloture rule was 45 to 35, or nine
less than the necessary two-thirds ma
jority. The Democrats were a unit
against the motion, which was opposed
also by five Republicans.
The roll call follows:
For the motion: Republicans-Bal
Bursum, Calder, Capper, Curtis, du-
Pont. Edge, Elkins, Ernst, Fernald,
France, Frelinghuysen, Gooding, Hale,
Harreld, Johnson, Jones of Washing
ton, Kellogg. Keyes, Ladd, Lenroot,
Lodge, Mccormick, McCumber, McKin-
ley, Mclean, McNary, Nelson, New
berry, Nicholson, Norbeck, Oddie, Pep
per, Phipps, Poindexter, Rawson,
Shortridge, Smoot. Spencer, Sterling,
Sutherland, Townsend, Wadsworth,
Warren and Willis-45.
Against the motion: Republicans
Borah, Brandegee, LaFollette, Moses
and Norris-5. Democrats -Ashurst,
Broussard Caraway, Culberson, Dial,
Fletcher, Gerry, Harris, Harrison, Hef-
lin, Jones of New Mexico, Kendrick,
King, Myers, Overman, Owen, Pittman,
Pomerene, Ransdell, Robinson, Shep-
pard, Shields, Simmons, Smith, Stan
ley, Swanson, Trammell, Underwood,
Walsh of Massachusetts and Walsh OF
Montana-3O Total against, 35.
Four senators, all Republicans, pres
ent were unable to vote because OF
pairs with absent Democratic senator's,
They were Cameron, Dillingham;, New
and Watson. Twelve senator's; six Re
publicans and six Democrats, were alb
sent.
Delivering the first of promised
series of attacks on the tariff, Sen
| ator LaFollette declared the only way
the republican party could be saved
| from defeat in the congressional cleo
| tions in November and from disaster
| in the presidential election in 1924
| was to recommit the bill for rewriting
on the basis of 1.-The old Republican
| principle" of merely equalizing the
| difference in the cost of production al
! home and abroad. If that could moi
be done, he added, the legislation
| should be abandoned.
/ Characterizing the bill as even worse
than the Dingley and Payne-Aldrich
| laws. which, he declared had caused
the political upsets in 1910, 1912, 1914
and 1916, Senator LaFollette asked his
| colleagues if they thought the people
had forgotten; If they thought the peo
pie would calmly accept the burdens
in 1922 which they so decisively re
fused to carry in 1910 and 1912"
Powerful, indeed, must be the in
! fluences which can bludgeon through
| this legislation" he said. "When the
| political leaders responsible for II
know that it means the defeat of their
party and the end of the political
lives of most of the leaders responsible
| for this BILL"
Taking up specifically the cotton
schedule in the bill, Senator LaFollette
declared the rates as reported to the
senate in many instances were from
IL to 80 per cent higher than those in
the Payne Aldrich law and from 10O
to 200 per cent higher than those in
the existing statute. He said the COM
mite majority had removed zone OF
| the many jokers slipped into the cot
| ton schedule and lowered some rates
so that tables of comparison he had
prepared were not exactly accurate
He added, however, that he understood
the committee majority did not intend
to lower the rates below the level OF
the Payne-Aldrich law and presented
many tables to show that the cotton
manufacturers had prospered under
the Underwood law rates.
Senator Smoot, of Utah, ranking
Republican ON the finance committee,
| defended the cotton schedule.