The Chesterfield advertiser. [volume] (Chesterfield C.H., S.C.) 1884-1978, 1922-05-25
MR.. STEVENSON EXPOSES
DRAWBACK FRUAD IN
THE TARIFF BILL
BY David r. St. Clai,

THE TARIFF BILL
BY David r. St. Clair
Washington, May 24.-Representa-l
tive Stevenson the other day injected
little tariff speech into the house on
the rivers and harbors bill that touch
ed the skin of some\Republicans like
a fire brand. Representative Phil
Campbell of Kansas sought to inter-
rupt but the incisive South Carolinian
cut him short for he was determined
to drive home his point without him
! drance.
Mr.. Stevenson attacked the pending
tariff bill in the Senate from a new,
most vulnerable angle, that is what is
known as the drawback provision of
the bill especially as it relates to
wheat, long staple cotton, lumber and
other materials imported from
abroad, manufactured in this country
and sold abroad. He showed that the
tariff paid on these imported materials
and then refunded on the production
made from them and exported abroad
was not protection but a sheer fraud
on the farmers and the American con-
sumers.
Mr.. Stevenson's remarks on the
tariff on long staple cotton as provid-
ed in the emergency tariff act and re-
embodied in the pending bill gives to
the long staple cotton growers no pro-
lection as statistics show. This part
of his speech is of especial interest to
the people of his district. 1t is quoted
as follows:
"You put tariff on long staple cot
ton and they are maintaing it. What
about that? Practically all of the pro-
ducts Of long staple cotton are export
ed, except in sewing thread. They are
spinning it down in my district. There
are mills there that do not spin any
thing else. They are paying $5 a
bale import tax on cotton; they spin
1T and export the goods and get $3.50
back. Let me show you what effect it
had on the long staple cotton impor-
tations to this country. During the
first eigh; months of the cotton year
OF 1921-that is from August to
d April, and that was just before the
emergency tariff went into effective
7 imported of Egyptian cotton 7O,145
bales. During the first eight months of
this cotton year, during those CORES
ponding months under 7 cents a
pound tariff, we imported 214,O7l
bales. What effect did it have? Is that
the direct result of your z cents
tariff? Yet we have that and we have
this drawback. and it is an illustration
OF the fraud that you perpetrate on
the farmer when you try to fool him
into believing that protective tariff
on cotton or a protective tariff on
wheat the surplus of which goes
abroad for sale is something to raise
the price to him..
Another feature of the drawback
provision relates to lumber imported
from abroad in the construction of
ships in American yards, the ships be-
ing sold to foreigners. On this feature
Mr.. Stevenson said:
"They are asking us for ship sub
sidy here in order that we may build
up ships that can compete with the
ships Of the world, and yet they are
carrying in this very bill a provision
that our manufacturers when they
manufacture for the foreign shipown-
er shall have an advantage of the
tariff on the imported materials over
the man who is manufacturing a ship
for the home shipowner. In other
words, if there is 100000 of tariff
paid on the materials that 60 into
ship, the steel, the lumber, the other
materials, the machinery, the engine,
and so forth, if the ship is sold to
foreign purchaser, the manufacturer
can get the drawback, but if the
manufacturer sells it to our great
merchant feet that they are expect
ing us to tax our constituents to build
up, they cannot get any drawback.
Therefore, we have to tax our people
more to pay heavier overhead charges
because of the original cost of our
ships. Is that dealing squarely with