The New York herald., 1922-06-02
ined dye embargo provisions Of the bill

ified dye embargo provisions Of the bill
went over
The Senate, after this one vote, turned
its attention to the brick schedule. The
committee withdrew its original PROPOSE
tion for duty of 25 per cent. ad
Nalorem on building bricks. which came
under fire last week. and offered as a
substitute that brick be placed on the
free list. but with proviso that such
brick coming from a country imposing a
duty on the American products should
pay the same rate of duty as that inn
posed on brick from the United States.
Senator McCumber. in charge Of the bill.
said Canada was the only country inn
posing a duty on American building
bricks.
Soon after the dye debate opened
there was a sharp passage between
Senators King and Frel.nghuysen. AS
serting that Senator King had questioned
his motives. Senator Frelinghuysen de-
clared he was defending the dye legis-
lation not only on political but also
patriotic basis and as a measure OF
national defense.
Senator Frelinghuysen told the Ser.
the American dye industry had teen
built up during the war when Germany 3
grip on the industry throughout the
world had been broken. The New Jersey
Senator argued that 1t could be main
tained only through adequate protection.
Senator King took frequent filings AZ
what he characterized as lpbb yists
working here In the interests of dy.
embargo. He mentioned also the a.
legged activities OF the Chemical Founda-
tion In favor of an embargo and referred
to its organizers. Francis p. Garvin ans
Joseph H. Choate. Jr.. as dollar a year
men who came to Washington dL-ine
the war" He said some of these "d.llar
year men have cost the Government
millions of dollars"
Many Interruptions.
The Speaker was subjected TO a rapi..
fire interruption. Senator Wadsworth On.
", Republican. wanted to know wha.
should have been done with the Ger. ma L
patents. Senator King replied shey
should have been held in trust unit. the
end of the war. as was other enem:'
property.
Consideration of committee amend
ments to the provisions dealing with
duties on glass and glassware was COM
pleted with approval of reductions from
the House rates on glass bottles and ur-
polished cylinder. crown and sheet or
common window glass.
On motion Of the committee the Senate
struck out a proviso under which i'm
ported glass bottles would have been
taxed a. rate Of not less than so per
cent. ad valorem.
Specific rates proposed by the House
and ranging from so cents per gross to
cent a pound remained unchanged.
House rates on cylinder. crown and
sheet glass were reduced almost all
along the line, Senate committee rates
ranging from 1913 cents a pound to 2H
cents pound being accepted In place
of the original House duties from 1%
cents a pound to cents a pound. The
failure of the committee to propose a
reduction of the X cents a pound rate
on glass no. exceeding $50 square inches
wood of Alabama. the Democratic leader.
who also opposed the glass rates gen.
orally.
Pointing out that window glass was
building material. Senator Underwood
said the majority had followed the same
policy with respect to this matter. and
with others entering into home construc
ton, that of increasing existing duties.
There is nothing that could make
this nation greater than to allow every
man to own his own home, and when
you pursue a deliberate policy as you
do In this bill of raising the tax on food.
OF raising the tax on clothing and of
raising the tax on material to build
homes, you are pursuing policy that
Is in direct contravention to the best
interests Of your Government