OCR Text |
Show IU MOM DEFENDS CL DEMOCRATS ON WOOL .SCHEDULE q'i State Chairman Charges Ad- ministration and Standpat I Republicans With Delay-Gil Delay-Gil ing Promised Revision. 'As j SAYS PRESENT ACT IS ; COVER FOR FRAUD Asks' Tribune to Publish His cl; j Statement Because His Par-tS Par-tS ty Cannoiptherwise Get oi Fair Deal. '! jAMES H. MOYLE, chairman of the '( statu Democratic central commit-1 M I tee of Utah, recently resigned, sub- tj mlts an exhauotlve rgumcnt In 1,1 defen8e ot tlle Democratic ma-y ma-y Li jority In the houso of representatives In few I Its position on the wool tariff, air. l'B .'tf Mbyle, who Is one of the lead-ljH lead-ljH T Inp woolgrowers of the state, blt- "mt torjy condemns the Republican stand-f stand-f piittera for what he terms their perelst-ifyB1 perelst-ifyB1 f or,l- clftrnor for Inordinate protection for S wool. He declares that the present wool I tariff opens the way for the practice of 'fl 1 fra.ud on the part of those who reap J H! 1 loe benefit of the protective wall. .H I Mr. Moyle also asserts that the argu- "iW 1 nient offered In defense of the present 'H I schedule that the tariff affords protection ,Bj I to labor In the manufacturing- centers Is ;.B 3 " false position. He contctnds that the .B recent disclosures at Lawrence, Mass., B S arc evidence that the mill employees ' . MM I there are no better off than they wore s in Europe, whence they came. Mr. Moylc also says that It is labor unions that ,Hj I maintain wages and not the present wool HK. '51 Mr. iloyle requests Tho Tribune to pub. Hr j Hsh the communication for the reason ffl 4 that, as ho asserts, the organ of tho Ro- jj publican officials in this state refuses Kf (jj to publish the news and distorts to its Hq J own views any Item that might resemhle 91 a "square deal" for tho Democrats In J Seeks Fair Deal. Bffj & Mr. Moyle's letter Is as follows: Hj 5 Salt Lake City, Utah, April 2. 1312. HI Editor Salt Lake Tribune. City l I Your paper, though Republican, has Bj of late pursued the policy of pub- . 'Ri I Jishlng- all the news with reference Hjl to public queetion"''(iv'orithousrn "It Bl !$ might reflect unfavorably upon the 8 policies or leaders of the Republican 1 h party. The organ of tho Republican Blffi officials of the state is so partisan Vfiffl that no one expects it to give any- Bl3 thing like an impartial statement of BJ Si Democratic policies. Tho newspaper Bl Jj of the dominant church has avoided aH(If publishing that which vitally affects Bliil! ' or concerns t,le political Interests of Hl R tno senior senator from Utah, con- -BEI sequently very many Democrats Hn jtji have come to read your paper In pref- Kju erence to any other In the belief MD that they would thus come nearer BnS getting all the news and a lalrer K3 statement of the political issues cf ESB the day. than from any other dally Hflra paper of this section. HgE Eolieving this to be your policy, T K ta tho liberty of calling your atten- K a tlon to' what I consider an unwar- Hl f ranted misrepresentation of the at- Hl w tltude of the Democrats in congress HS j on the wool question. Hjj Growers Fear Distortion. HUB Kelther my time nor" your space HuR will probably permit of an extended ffftU discussion of the subject. If a wool- mX grower makes a frank admlHslon of MMmSM tho truth favorablo to the reduction MNB of tlle rif on wool It Is liable to be NH discounted and used unfairly, which vW I think prevents some woolgrowers LbBjH from fl'a"klir Btatlng Just what thev Hfl do believe on tho. tariff issuo, unci g leads them to demand more than nK they expect, or reallv need, in tho Htln belief that such a course will better Kfttl enable them to obtain a fair tariff Hfffi I call particular attention to your Hlnt criticism of the Democrats In con- MMWjm gress for not waiting for the report ( of the tariff commiKston beforu at- ffi tempting any lesinlutlu.i on the wool Htu The Democrats in congr&t.s, under aQg tho able leadership H Champ Clmk Bn SLnd 0scar T- Underwood, iiercly dc- Bn mand prompt action and a square deal; that thsre sua!! he no discriml- Hiul nation against thi industries of any HJOQ section, and no favors extended that HS! do not rtly boncfit all; that tariff fjEg taxes, like all other taxes, shall be tji reduced as near to a minimum as MM tho revenues of the govornmunt will KW permit: that the roau abuses that HlBi not only havo boan tolcnited. but iBI wickedly adoptol nnd prpotrated by Bifll Republican administration?, in the fflej interest of the few and to the dot- BAh rimcnt of the many, shall be re- KilJ pealed, and that without waiting for HfsH a report of a commlsu'on .appointed Ml r5acionOWr lnteresicd ln delay and Hb Calls Schedule K Fraud. In schedule "K" is found one of IBI tne rnany glaring fraud a perpetrated Hlj upon the American people In tho in- Bl terest of a few manuJacturcrs, and Hli against the many condumer. I do IB not think that schedule "It" is any exception to the general rule under IK which the Republican party lias acted BB 83 xiia consistent servant of the classes against the masses. Bl , wo1 &rowlnk Is on of tha'leading Ha Industries of our state, and one In B which I am materially Interested, but B 1 have never failed to protest against H thin injustice whenever an occasion H was presented. B 706 Democrats recognized that H President Taft was an uncertain B quantity on the tariff question. If B there has been anything in his ad- B ministration In which he has ex- BBV hlbited great weakness It has been on the tariff question. One of tho most Bl prominent leaders and observers of fB the Republican party in Utah, and Blfl on" .at Presmt very unfriendly to BHI President Taft, aptly said during thfi 1 discussion of .the Canadian reciprocity BBI question "that Presidont Taft was u B9 jellyfish because he was so easily BtVS moved from one position to another." B Tne president Indorsed the out- K ragcous Paine-Aid rich tariff act. Hy which so Incensed the nation that jpHtff at the next election the Republican Kj course was repudiated and the Dcm- uiet ""rtgain"riejv.-- H dates of Utc luncheon had previously been ocrats were given a Inrgp miijorlty in tho house of representatives. Aftor that law was passed President Presi-dent Taft said . that It was' tho best over enacted and constituted a fulfillment ful-fillment of Republican pledges to review tho tariff. The moment he dlHcoverod the attitude of4 the voters he attemptod to placate the demand for an honest revision downward of the tariff, and made schedule "'K" the sacrifice first to he placed on the altar. He led- the agitation for a revision re-vision of that schedule. From his public utterances tho tariff on wool was acknowledged to be unlust and a promise held out that it should bo reduced, at once, hut in order to delay de-lay action upon this confessedly bud tariff provision he Inolntcd that it should not be touched until a tariff board appointed by himself and favored fa-vored by the reactionaries ln congress con-gress should Investigate and report, thus assuring tho antl-rerormera of another year or two of delay in tho reform of admitted existing abuses. Vetoed by President. The Democrats ln congress, honestly hon-estly desiring to "reform the tariff downward," appointed a commission of their own, whom they knew to be in sympathy with prompt and honest hon-est tariff reform. This committee made an elaborate report without innecossary delay, upon which the Democrats as promptly aatcd. They Sroposed a 20 per cent ad valorem uty on wool. Progressive Republicans who actually act-ually wanted to reform the abuses ln tho tariff, like the Democrats, did not believe that the president and the standpatters, with whom he then affiliated, really wanted reform, and those progressive Republicans whose votes ware necessary to the passage of the bill in the senate Insisted that the tariff should be much higher. They finally compromised on a 21) per cent ad valorem duty. This was vetoed by tho president. Yo.u say that tho Democrats acted Inconsistently and should havo waited until the tariff board reported. report-ed. T have failed to note any reason which you havo ever given showing show-ing that the tariff act thus passed and vetoed by the president was not ' a' desirable, prudent and beneficial act. The fact that It was pot very objectionable to the woolgrower, whom you think to protect, and was supported by the progressive Republicans, Re-publicans, as well as by Democrats, must appeal to your sense of fairness as offering some evidence of its merits. Real Reduction Slight. TFhlle the 23 per cent ad valorem duty on wool reduoed the nomlal tariff from 11 cents per pound on wool In the fleece as it comes from the sheep's back, to probably about o or 6 cents, tho actual reduction of the tariff on wool was comparatively Blight, because about 5 cents of tho 11 cents tariff hns never been nald by Importers or manufacturers at all: and the frarners of the Palne-Aldrich bill well knew that the loopholes for fraud ln shedule "K" wore such that the manufacturers could avoid at least 5 cents of the 11 cents. The Dlngley bill contained the same op- portunlty for fraud and so did' 'Its predecessor, thp MuKfnley bill. -This waslmowinRly tolerated' and provided for by permitting tbo importer to pay only one-third of the 33 cents which must be paid on clean wool, by Importing- wool in the crease, on, which the law allows a discount of 66 2-3 per cent for dirt. Tho importers im-porters and manufacturers at once took 'advantage of this and only Imported Im-ported wool that did not contain more than from IS to 50 per cent dirt. In other' words, the maximum shrinkage of wool was taken as the basis of levying the. tariff, and the ImDorter . naturally purchased only wool that had a minimum of shrinkage ln scouring scour-ing it. Saya Woolgrower Misled. In order to complete tho opportunltv of thus avoiding the payment of the tariff on foreign wool and yet maintain main-tain a nominal high tariff to de-oelve de-oelve the woolgrower. congress provided pro-vided in all of the Republican wool schedules for what is called the "skirting clause." This permits the manufacturer not only to import the cleanest . wools raised, under thp classification of the dirtiest, but to cut off from the clean fleece the tag locks and the under part of th fleece, whlcto carries most of the dirt. Thus tho wool raiser who falls carefuly to examine the law and Its workings Is led to bel!eve that he has a- high protective tariff on his wool, but clearly he has not. The Republican tariff makers, however, how-ever, on the other hand, have treated the manufacturers, who give more attention at-tention to tariff making, very differently. differ-ently. In order -fully to protect them tho tariff on manufactured woolen goods i3 based upon the theory that 66 2-3 per cent of the wool imported is actually -dirt and therefore- that the manufacturer has to pay a tariff of 11 cents a nound on wool In the fleece, which shrinks 66 2-3 per cent, or 33 cents -oh clean wool, so the manufacturer is gtyen this 33 cents per pound on manufactured- woolens to offest the alleged Protection given to the wool raiser: but that" is not enough, and so a compensatory duty of 44 cents per nound" 'ori 'woolon goods Is added to offset tho difference differ-ence in the cost of labor. ' Thus tho manufacturer Is given a double protection. pro-tection. Compensatory Duty. One of the main reasons for the vio-lont vio-lont agitation for a revision 'of schedule sched-ule "K" is the fact that it provides the manufacturer "a compensators' duty on imported cloth of , 44 cents per pound, under the assumption that imported im-ported wools shrink 66 2-3 ner cent, and that four pounds of wool are required re-quired to make one pound of- cloth, which is by no means true, and under un-der the further assumption that tho tariff has Increatjed the cost of each pound of wool to the manufacturer 11 cents. Therefore on tho four poundB of wool required to make one pound of cloth he is given a compensatory compen-satory duty of 44 cents, when as a matter of fact much of the wool ln the Kreaso which is Imported doei not shrink more than 20 or 30 per cent- With such wools the Imnorter does not use two nounds of wool In the grease to make one pound of cloth, and yet ho Is given protection for four pounds. Now. it does not rcauiro four Dounfls of wool to make one pound of cloth, except In the case of wools which actually shrink 66 2-S per cent, and these aro never Imported. In faot, the wools importod are such that two pounds will make a pound of cloth, and on this cloth tho manufacturer manu-facturer has hi? compensatory duty of M cents under the assumption that four pounds of wool are required. re-quired. Any one who has studied tho compensatory duty as it-now exists ex-ists recognizes Its unfairness. Thre- i (or?i !t ,a,d the K'001 tariff open I to the bitterest denunciation ever directed di-rected agninst an American tariff ocneaujo, nui tne average standpatter stand-patter would never revise these glaring glar-ing iniquities. T would not have you believe., however, that schedule "K" is any wprso than manv others. Lawrence Labor Disclosures. Thus the manufacturer has doubl-ye3 doubl-ye3 treble protection. Thf- unfairness unfair-ness of -this provision is made more manifest 1n the light of the recent congressional Investigation Into the prices paid labor at Iawrence, 2las' J compVetej next wceir. sachusctts, one of the great woolen manufacturing centers of the United Stateu. The accounts of the xirlke and tho condition of thi laborers In these mills ban been recently published pub-lished In the pr3s dispatcher, wlilch, with the report from the congressional congres-sional Investigation, showa that tho laborers in these woolen mills ure no better off than arc tho laborers In the cheap labor cantors of Europe. Of the 2u,000 laborers employed, the average wage paid Is ?6 per week, Including skilled moohanics and foremen. fore-men. In fact, the larger pari of thse lahorors arc Imported from Iiuropo and live, or exist. In much the Sam's condition In Massachusetts in the employment of hls highly protected Industry, as they do in tho cheap labor la-bor centers of Europe. And yet there can be no tariff legislation without the leport of a standpat commission. to ascertain the ''JHt of labor at homo and abroad; after tho prepld'ml's commission did make n report, tho facts existing at Lawrence v.'oio not given to tho public What could exhibit moro completely the injustice of the Republican fio-ory fio-ory of protection? Thoy have given to the manufacturers oxcesslve protection, pro-tection, avowedly for the benefit of labor nnd tho real bcneflclarles have reduced labor in woolen mills to much the samo condition that prevails in foreign mills. Wages on European Basis. It has beon my observation that labor la-bor Is paid Iosb in thw highly protected pro-tected Industries of this country than those which are unprotected, and that labor unions, rather than tho tariff, maintain the higher wage scale. These workmen at Lawrenco were not members of labor unions. It is a very plausiblo slogan which tho Republicans have finally adopted that the protoctlve tariff must at least be sufficient to equal the difference differ-ence in tho cost of labor at home and abroad, but It is devised to deceive Just as was the cry twenty years ago that "tho foreigner paid tho tariff tax." After that was exposed they adopted the campaign cry that wc needed to ''protect Infant industries." indus-tries." This they have worn out, and now It Is the dlfferonco in the cost of labor at home and abroad. This is now to bo tho maak by which the laboring men of the country are to he deceived nnd the manufacturer given protection, even when American Ameri-can made goods are sold abroad to foreigners cheaper than they aro sold at home to Americans,- Opposes Discrimination. The Republicans of Utah are thus able to make a very specious argument argu-ment to tho people of Utah, because wc are Interested ln the production of what is called raw materials and sugar. We properly take groat ptlde In our local Industries, and there Is no reason why wo should not Personally Per-sonally 1 conceive It to bo tho duty of our representatives in congress to seo that in the reduction of the tariff we should not havo tho commodities produced ln our locality discriminated against, and put upon the free Hat, when the products of the east aro put on the protective list. .1 am pleased that tho Democratic majority in the house of representatives representa-tives Is opposed to any juch policy; that they Insist that tho tariff shall bo revised so as to not discriminate against any locality or industries. They further propose to reduce the tarltt on these commodities which boars most heavily upon the masses, because it is the masses who are unable un-able to dodgo tho payment of taxes and It Is the cla6Bes that always manage to do so. I am sure that a 29 per cent ad valorem duty bas,ed upon scoured wool, which will eliminate most of tho opportunities for fraud ln avoiding avoid-ing tho payment of the tariff, will provide as much protection to tho woolgrowers of our country as any bill that could be now or will hereafter here-after be passed; It Is as much as tho woolgrower needs and he should weir come it- It may be true that the Democrats would, if they could, reduce re-duce the tariff to 20 per cent ad valorem, but even that would still leave a substantial amount of protection pro-tection i It would by no means bo such a radical reduction as Republican Repub-lican newspapers claim. Specific or Ad Valorem, The administration, through Senator Sena-tor Smoot, last January announced that the Republican wool schedule would provide for a specific duty of 20 cents per pound on clean wool. This is not a very material 'dlfferenco from a 20 per cent ad valorem duty on- scoured wool. Personally," I favor the specific duty, because It is moro easily enforced. Wherein have tho Democrats thus far shown a disposition to destroy the wool industry of this state, even from the standpoint of tho protectionist? protec-tionist? As a matter of fact, there are some Republicans ln congress who favor free wool, as well as some Democrats, lijost of theso men. however, how-ever, pome from the manufacturing Boctions, and their r constituents . clamor for free -wool. The average' price of wool" ln the ' grease, such as we produce In Utah, Wyoming. Idaho .and Montana, at the seaboard wool centers Buch as Boston, Bos-ton, New York and Philadelphia, is seldom less than 20 cents per pound. This Includes the prjee of wool as It Is purchased at the shearing corrals, with freight, Insurance and commissions commis-sions of the middlemen added. .These wools may shrink 'two-thirds; if bo, it makes clean wool sell for 60 cents per pound, 20 per cent of which Is 12 cents, the amount of duty paid on our wools. The administration measuro would make It 20 cents no matter what tho price or shrinkage. Two Commissions. You say that the tariff board is non-partisan, which is nominally true; but was it not appointed after the failure of the administration to revise tho tariff downward? Why, then, Bhould the Democrats wait for the report of a commission brought Into existence by an administration manifestly non-progressive and unquestionably un-questionably opposed to honest revision re-vision downward?- Why should not the majority in congress act upon their own motion, ln their own way, and upon tho report of their own commission, which was in sympatay with the reform to be accomplished? Tho measure passed was clearly a material reduction, and yet not so radical as violently to disturb business. busi-ness. In fact, many woolmon admit that it was satisfactory to them ln view of the agitation that existed and which was inconsiderately started start-ed by President Taft, Tho leading woolgrower in Congress, Con-gress, Air. Kent of California, a progresslvo Republican, voted for the Democratic wool bill which tho president presi-dent vetoed la3t year. As Presidont Taft urged tho Imperative need of reducing the wool tariff, why should the Democrats be condemned for acting act-ing promptly and passing such an act? And why should President Taft he permitted further to delay action? And, abovo all, why should vou condemn con-demn the Democrats for " reintroducing reintro-ducing the same raeaaur after the tariff board has reported, since you make no attempt to show that the bill was inconsistent with the report of. the tariff commission? Why not . point out, first, wherein the measure Is defective, unwise or InconslBtont with the facts presented by the tariff board commission before condemning: the measure or Its authors or supporters? sup-porters? It was manifestly a well-considered measuro which could come so near satisfying the special Interests involved, reduce at the same time tho nominal tariff about 50 per cent, and also receive the support of so many Republicans. Respectfully, JAMES H. MOYLH. |