DRASTIC REDUCTIONS PROPOSED

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 110, 10 May 1913, Page 9

DRASTIC REDUCTIONS PROPOSED

THE DEMOCRATIC MEASURE WOOL ON THE FREE LIST. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SAN FRANCISCO, 13th April. At least it cannot be imputed against the Democratic Party, now in full power in the legislative and executive branches of the national government for the first time in two decades, that it has not redeemed its promise of placing in the forefront of its programme the task of reducing tariff duties. The measure introduced in the Hpute of Representatives, many of the important provisions pf which were fixed Upon only after conference between the President and the Democratic leaders in both Houses of Congress, makes broad and evert sweeping reductions in numerous duties, and practically removes duties from all articles of food and clothing. Wool, meat, and flour are placed on the- free list, and sugar is to be duty free after $he expiration of three years. Wool is, naturally, the article concerning which Australia and New Zealand will fee] the greatest interest, and it is likely to be the one around which one of the bitterest fights will revolve when the measure reaches the Senate. Tn this it probably will share honours with Eiigar. The proposal to make raw wool duty free was one of the surprises springing out of the active participation by President Wilson in tariff-framing during the week prior to the assembling of the special session of Congress last Tuesday. Wool-growers were thought to have reconciled themselves to the prospect of a substantial cut in the tariff, and the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives had proposed a duty of 15 per cent, ad valorem. This in turn was a reduction from the 21 per cent duty adopted by Congress last summer, but which failed of becoming a law because of President Taft's veto. The existing duty is approximately 11 cents per lb, or about 60 pel' cent, when figured on an ad valorem basis. While wool-grower* would have hetsti oontent with something less than this, they were determined tp oppose the committee proposal of 15 per cent. The free wool proposal is the direct result of Presi* dent Wilson's conferences with the legislative leaders. The abolition of the wool duty will cause a loss, to the revenue estimated at about £4,000,000 a year; but this and other losses incidental to tariff reduction it is proposed to make up by a graduated income tax on all incomes in excess pf £800 a year. One of the arguments in favour of free wool is that it will make clothing cheaper; but an even stronger argument js made by manufacturers of clothing, who for some years have been clamouring for cheaper raw' material for their industry. ITS FATE IN THE SENATE. The reception of the Bill in the Senate is somewhat problematical. To a certain extent, President Wilson has paved the way for the measure, which must be regarded as one modelled upon his wishes, by conferences with leading Senators. The original plan of the President was for both free wool and free sugar. It is stated in despatches from Washington that the Senators refused to fall in with this idea, and that, in order to ensure the entire abolition of the wool duties Mr. Wilson consented to the retention of a duty of 1 Cent, a lb on sugar, that duty to be removed in 1916. If this statement of the situation is correctr— «nd it seems to be so accepted— there is very little doubt but that wool will be placed on. the free list. An attempt is now being made to bring together the Senators from the wool States and those from the sugar States to make a joint fight against • the Administration proposals. But the" sugar Senators" probably will be satisfied with the retention of a duty for four years; and, besides, they are for the most part from Democratic States, and cannot afford to antagonise their party. REVISING THE DUTIES. The Tariff Bill is not in all respects a reducing Bill. It generally revises the duties, some rates being raised. Amongst items taken from the free list and taxed are the following : Rough and uncut diamonds and precious stones, furs, _ coal tar products, 10 per cent. ; volatile oils, 20 per cent; spices, from 1 cent to 2 cents per lb. On tha other hand the schedule of duty-free articles is largely extended. All these articles are put on the free list: Moats, 'flour, bread, boots and shoes, lumber, coal, harness, saddlery, iron ore, milk and cream, potatoes, salt, swine, corn meal, cotton bagging, agricultural implements, leather, wood pulp, Bibles, printing paper not worth more than 2£ cents per lb, typewriters, sewing machines, cash registers, steel rails, fence wire, cotton ties, nails, hoop and band iron, fish, sulphur, Boda, tanning materials, acetic and sulphuric acidß, borax, lumber products, including broom handles, clapboards, hubs for wheels, posts, laths, pickets, staves, and shingles. It will be of interest to Australasian producers to know that besides the foregoing removal of duties on natural products substantial reductions have been made in other lines that should foster export from the Antipodes to this country. Some of these are : Barley malt, from 45 to 25 cents a bushel; oats, from 15 to 10 cents a bushel 1 , wheat, from 25 to 10 cents a bushel ; butter, from 6 to 3 cents per lb ; cheese, from 6 cents a lb to 20 per cent- ad valorem ; beans, from 45 to 25 cents a bushel ; eggs, from sto 2 cents per dozen ; fresh vegetables, from 2b per cent, to 15 per cent ; apples, peaches, etc., f ronv 25 to 10 cent 3 a bushel ; combed wool and tops, from 105 per cent, to 15 per cent. ; flax, jute, and hemp, from 2 cents to 1 cent a lb. Protection to the American faimer, it is estimated, is cut lully 50 per cent, in an endeavour to reduce the cost of living. Already the rumble of discontent and criticism from the industries hit by the drastic proposals of the Bill is making itself heard. From Montane, Idaho, Wyoming, California, and the other wool-growing States come angry protests, but not more angry than those from the beet-sugar growers of Colorado and California. The last-mentioned State is made to suffer in more directions than one. Reduction of the duties On lemons, oranges, raisins, timber, walnuts, and other natural products foreshadows great loss to California industries. For twenty years or more the United States >has been endeavouring with but scant succ&a to negotiate reciprocity

treaties with other countries. The Democratic Tariff Bill has a reciprocity clause empowering the President to grant favours to any nation that gives mutual concessions to the United States. It reads : "That f6r the purpose of readjusting the present duties on imports into the United States and at the same tiirte to encourage the export trade of this country, the President of the United States is empowered to negotiate treaty agreements with foreign nations wherein mutual concessions are made looking toward freer trade relations and further reciprocal expansion of trade and commerce."