The Fair Trade League To Be. Mr. H. E. Miles is attempting to start the "Fair Trade League," which means a League for the diffusion of propaganda in favor of practical Free-Trade. Its genesis is set forth in an item which appears in the New York Commercial for July 22, which reads in part as follows: An interesting story attaches to the for-mation here on Wednesday of the Fair Tariff League, which, investigation discloses, is supported by a number of the leading banks and department stores in the country. These interests, according to a statement obtained from one who is familiar with every detail entering into the creation of the new or ganization. have been exceedingly reluctant to voice disapproval with the proposed Tariff measures through the recently formed National Council of American Importers and Trades, Inc. The Fair Tariff League, however, is an outgrowth of the Importers' Council, and will be directed by men who hold to the view that the greatest influence can be exerted through a body more closely identified with the consumers than a strictly import association. The item further states that the movement has "the active support of a representative of J. P. Morgan & Co.," that eminent representative of the "consumers." It must not be forgotten that where there are "consumers" there must also be the "consumed." We all realize, through the propaganda which has filled the papers owned or financed by the international banking interests, how greatly interested in "Fair" Tariff such banking interests are. They have financed about all the Free-Trade propaganda which has found its way into print since the close of the war. During the war there could be found very few Free-Traders. Those who had formerly adhered to this pernicious policy were loth to admit that they would ever buy anything not "made in U. S. Α." The rankest of former Free-Traders were foremost in adopting this as their slogan. It remained for the international bankers to find out, after the sudden cessation of the war, that their interests lay in the direction of building up foreign productive industry at the expense of American productive industry, so that they might reap a great profit on their foreign investments bought at a great discount during the war. Hence they became the most rabid of Free-Traders and they have ever since financed the major portion of FreeTrade propaganda. The organization of the Fair Tariff League is wholly consistent therewith. No one need be told how anxious the great department stores are concerning the interests of the "consumers." If there is any one thing such stores are always looking out for it is the "consumer." They want to corral as many consumers as possible, so that their profits may be increased and no one can blame them for that desire. Their immediate interest is to obtain their goods at as low a price as possible, no matter whence they are obtained. If they can buy goods more cheaply in Japan or in Germany, they will buy there, no matter a When it comes to "Fair" Tariff League, there has never been an organization which could more fully fill the description than the American Protective Tariff League. That organization stands for a "Fair" Tariff, that is a Tariff which shall place the domestic producer upon a fair competitive basis with the foreign producer, so that the latter may not crowd domestic products out of the domestic market. That is the only "fair Tariff," and that is the only kind of a Tariff which is worthy of support. At was Americans Abroad. a recent Free-Trade gathering it said that Protection would injure Americans abroad. What Americans abroad was not stated, but we can guess as to some of them. These are Americans who have built factories in the Old World, or have put money into Old World plants. Under a low Tariff, and with low wages they can undersell their competitors on our own soil. This is what they wish to do, and they are going very effectively about it. A Protective Tariff will undoubtedly lessen their chances for getting control of our markets, and they are disappointed. But why should we desert the home manufacturer, and the wage worker at our doors for the sake of pleasing the men who have established themselves on the other side of the ocean? They are our competitors as surely as if they were British, or French, Italians, or Germans. Supposing that the new Tariff does lessen their dividends, that is one reason we need to pass it. It would be hard to draft any economic measure that did not meet with somebody's opposition. There has never been a Protective Tariff that did not block somebody's way to strike down native industry, and if there had not been Old World attempts to undersell us we might never have planned a Protective system. Betrays Woeful Lack of Mr. C. H. Macdonald, in an article which appeared in the New York American of July 20th in support of the dye embargo, among other things says: The importance of the dyestuff industry to the color using trades; its vast importance as the source of certain indispensable pharmaceuticals, and its essential connection with the production of poison gases and high explosives in times of war, are all vital questions. Its transcendent values, however, is in the provision of a training ground for the chemical experts, in whose hands the industrial defenses of this nation are placed. It happens that Mr. Macdonald does not know what he is talking about. He has evidently become confused by the propaganda of the dye embargo proponents and has gathered the idea that the terms "chemical industry" and "coal-tar dye industry" are synonymous terms, but such is very far from being the case. He is muddled all through. For one thing, the great bulk of poison gases are not made from coal-tar at all but from chlorine and bromine. Those derived from coal-tar are properly in charge of the Chemical Warfare Section for their development and manufacture, as they were during the war. They are made at the great Government plant at Aberdeen, Maryland. Almost the entire quantity of poison gases used during the war were made from either bromine or chlorine and are a branch of those industries and not of the coal-tar industry. Bromine is chiefly derived from the natural brine found in salt wells, while chlorine is derived from common salt, sal ammoniac and other substances. Coal-tar dyes, therefore, do not need to be embargoed so as to provide poison gases for use in warfare. The only connection between these poison gases and coal-tar dyes is that bromine is used in connection with the manufacture of certain dyes. Yet Mr. Macdonald is not the only one who is ignorant on this subject. The proponents of the dye embargo have been going about the country trying to impress this false belief on the minds of the public. It has been a campaign of falsehood and fraud from the very start and many people have been deceived in consequence. The only support which the dye embargo proposition has received is based upon a misconception of the facts, and such misconception is the direct result of misrepresentation by those who know better, or who should know better. There have been many who have argued in favor of dye embargo because they have themselves been deceived. Mr. Macdonald refers to the dyestuff industry "as the source of certain indispensable pharmaceuticals," but he is as much "off" in this claim as in the one just discussed. It is true that there are certain pharmaceuticals which are derived from coal-tar, but they are not derived from dyes. One of the main reasons for our opposition to the embargo on coal-tar products is the fact that the embargo which has been in force for the past seven years has operated greatly to the detriment of certain manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. The profiteering of the dye circle has nearly driven them out of business and they are only hanging on in the hope that the Congress will realize the situation and will not drive them out of business entirely. If things are to continue as they now are, they must cease doing business. The dye embargo is not a proposition for the Protection of American industry but a proposition to aid one American industry to wreck or seriously damage quite a number of other industries. Instead of Protection it means ruin. Before an embargo was ever thought of we had in the United States the greatest explosive manufactories of any country. The Tariff Protection then afforded was sufficient to enable the makers of explosives to lead the world in quality and quantity. Explosives are not a by-product of dye-stuffs but dye-stuffs are rather in the nature of by-products resulting from the manufacture of explosives. That is the testimony of a chemical director of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, explosive manufacturing company in the world. Therefore Mr. Масdonald's argument fails in this particular, Imports and Exports. During the fiscal year ending with June, 1921, the total imports of foreign merchandise into this country amounted, in round numbers, to $3,654,449,000, as against $5,238,352,000 for the fiscal year 1920. The total domestic exports were valued at $6,385,636,000, as against $7,949,309,000 for 1920. On the whole this is a favorable showing for the domestic interests. There was an over-export trade in 1920, one which far-seeing men knew could not be maintained. It was a menace to the country rather than a benefit, for many of the goods exported are still unclaimed and many more still unpaid for. We would be better off if we had the goods rather than the frozen credits. The export trade for the past year has been very creditable. It was greater than any year during the war and very much greater than at any time prior thereto. While the imports are less in value than during 1920, they are still too high, for every dollar's worth of competitive imports displaces no less than double its amount in volume of domestic products. Still the outlook is encouraging, for it is apparent that we are fast approaching a normal basis in both exports and imports. Non-competitive imports we must always buy, but it is a double economic loss to import vast quantities of foreign products similar to those which we are exporting in even greater quantities. That is true of wheat. We are great producers, great exporters of wheat, yet we imported something like 60 million bushels of wheat during the past fiscal year, while, at the same time, other millions were lying unsold in our granaries. The farmers of the country have the Free-Trade administration of Woodrow Wilson to thank for that. Fortunately, the great bulk of our agricultural products will find adequate Protection under the Fordney Tariff. Domestic Interests May Appeal from Appraisements. Under the present law and past laws, the testimony of a domestic producer in classification cases was entitled to the same weight as that of importers or foreign shippers, but it was different with cases of valuation. In protests against valuation fixed by appraising officers the domestic interests had no standing. All that will be changed under the Fordney law. Under the provisions of the Fordney bill domestic producers may cause appeals from the assessment of duties on imported merchandise to be filed and they may appear and give testimony in appeals to reappraisement on the same footing with the importers themselves. This is a privilege which the domestic interests have always claimed they were entitled to, but this is the first legal provision therefor. The language of the Section making this important provision is as follows: "Sec. 529. Appeal or Protest by American Producers. Whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of a Board of three General Appraisers that it is impracticable for a manufacturer or producer in the United States to make, in his own name, or by agent, an importation of merchandise for the purpose of having determined the dutiable value or classification thereof, such manufacturer or producer shall have the right to appear and be heard as a party in any case involving the disputed question of fact or law; or, in the absence of such a case, the manufacturer or producer, or the Assistant Attorney General in charge of customs litigation for the Government. may state in a written notice to the appraiser or the collector what he claims to be the proper value or classification, as the case may be of such merchandise, and if the appraiser or the collector shall not accept such valuation or classification as correct, such manufacturer, producer, or Assistant Attorney General shall have the right to appeal for reappraisement or to make a protest, and to be heard as a party, the same as the importer would have, in any subsequent appraisal or classification involving the same question of fact or law. No manufacturer or producer shall have the right to inspect any documents or papers disclosing any information which the General Appraiser or the Board of three General Appraisers shall deem improper to be disclosed to him. In every such proceeding the importer or his agent shall be notified by the manufacturer, producer, or Assistant Attorney General, whichever is the moving party, of his intention to appear and shall be apprised of all hearings in accord-. ance with the rules of procedure." There has never been any good reason why anyone, whether domestic manufacturer, merchant, or whatever his business, to should not have been eligible to give testimony concerning foreign market value, provided he could show that he was in possession of accurate information on the subject, nor has there been good reason why domestic producers should not be able secure appeals from appraisements which they knew to be too low. The intent of a Protective Tariff is to safeguard American industry, as well as to raise revenue, and it has been inconsistent with that policy to refuse permission to domestic producers the right to secure the Protection to which they were entitled. Under the proposed American valuation system it is even more consistent that the domestic interests should be heard and should be able to secure appeals in undervaluation cases, because they are even more qualified to testify concerning domestic wholesale values than are importers. The provision in question is an excellent one. Calls the Turn. The following letter from our good friend, Harold Goodwin, dated Tamarisk Cottage, Ocean City, N. J., July 16, 1921, contains sound historical and economic truths which should not be lost sight of: "I see our woman Congressman is voting for free hides to furnish cheap shoes to the farmers' children. Can't you show that up much as you did the 25 cent stockings some weeks ago. If you could, I think it would be very useful. "By the way, apropos the woman, I remember that, about 1870-1-2, there was a higher Tariff placed on women's corsets a manufacture then almost exclusively in the hands of foreigners. The New York World, and Times too, I think, had lots to say of the meanness of the Republican party in increasing the living expenses of poor shop girls, etc. The Tariff was imposed, the American manufactories grew up and now, and for a long time, I believe, we have made cheaper and better corsets than foreigners ever furnished for so long a time, I think, that no one would think of dropping the American manufacture. Am I not right?" Quite right, but there are some people who never seem to learn through experience or observation. It is true that a properly adjusted Tariff has the effect of building up home production and lowering the costs to consumers, but too many people forget or shut their eyes to the truth. Fortunately, all are not so, for the majority of the people of the country are firm believers in an adequate Protective Tariff. According to the London Statist, leading organ of British finance, the United States should realize that it was never intended by Providence to be builders or navigators of ships. If the versatile Statist will take time to examine real statistics, it will discover that for sixty consecutive years previous to the civil war the United States had a great and prosperous merchant marine, because it was amply protected. We don't believe in putting on the shoulders of Providence the blame for what Free-Trade has perpetrated. The Banker's Argument Against the Fordney Bill. W. H. ALLEN Under the head of "Protection and Foreign Trade" the New York Times of May 30 quotes from an article by Professor Taussig on "Extreme Protection and Foreign Trade" in the New York Evening Post of May 28: "Some inescapable international facts which the Republicans at Washington now framing a permanent Tariff should ponder. Before the war we were a debtor nation. Foreign nations lent us capital, sold us transportation, and insurance. Through continuous excess of our exports we paid our foreign debts, interest, freights and so on. Now foreign nations are in debt, public and private, to us to the amount of fror $12,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000." Now what the Times here calls "inescapable facts" are just bald misstatements. The New York World exploited the same facts last year to support a similar argument and challenged Protectionists to answer it. THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST promptly took up the challenge and answered the argument. But up to this present time the World has not ventured a reply to the ECONOMIST. The renewed discussion of this subject by Professor Taussig affords an opportunity to present some additional evidence on the Protectionist side. The claim that we are a creditor nation is based upon the estimate of a committee of bankers and railroad officials of which Mr. L. F. Loree was chairman. According to this estimate foreign investments in our railroads and United States Steel stocks amount to $2,704,000,000; 70 per cent. of which was credited to Great Britain, and 30 per cent. to Continental Europe. It was also estimated that foreign investments other than in railroads would add about 20 per cent. to this amount. This addition of about $550,000,000 would make the total foreign investments to $3,250,000,000. That was our pre-war debt. It is now claimed that foreign investments in this country do not exceed $1,000,000,000, while the other hand our loans abroad amount to some $15,000,000,000. on amount The chief defects in this theory of the matter are that it greatly underestimates our pre-war debts, annual and permanent, and practically ignores our new debts contracted since 1914. The estimate of German investments here is a case in point. Wall street authorities, quoted by the World, February 11, 1917, declared that German investors had been liquidating for several years before the war; so that in 1914 their American holdings did not exceed $300,000,000, and this amount had been greatly reduced in the next two years. According to the Evening Post, June 12, 1915, "Germany has drawn its American holdings down more heavily than any other country, and the American stocks it might still sell, according to international bankers, are now pretty well exhausted." I find this estimate of German liquidations endorsed by Stuart P. West, financial editor of the Globe (March 18, 1916) and by numerous other financial writers. After quoting "one of our foremost bankers" on the reduction of German balances here the New York Tribune of February 7, 1917, stated that the "cash balances now in local banks belonging to German banks did not exceed $5,000,000. As to American securities held for German account it was believed that the total was not over $50,000,000." After we entered the war when A. M. Palmer, Alien Property Custodian, got busy he had a different story to tell. He found German investments in our industrials amounting to $750,000,000. This was $200,000,000 more than the Loree estimate had allowed for all foreign holdings of our industrials. And Germany was supposed to have much less money invested in this form than France, England, or Holland. Evidently Mr. Palmer must have consulted some one else besides "our foremost bankers." war. As to the claim that German cash balances here did not exceed $5,000,000 in February, 1917, we know that the Kaiser had funds enough here to finance spy activities, bomb plots, and to buy up munition plants, copper, cotton, and other military supplies in order to keep the Allies from getting them. German bankers here were also able to take large blocks of our liberty loans. Furthermore a study of market reports shows that these German bankers were taking railroad, and other bonds during the whole period of the Among their largest investments were $110,000,000 Pennsylvania railroad bonds, $60,000,000 Baltimore and Ohio railroad bonds and $60,000,000 Rubber bonds, all taken in 1915 by Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Other bankers who usually buy and sell for German account were as active as at any time prior to 1914. In spite of the fact that these bankers are using German capital mostly, optimistic stock market reporters will have it that they are simon pure agents of American capital. Thus when Kuhn, Loeb & Co. floated a $55,000,000 issue of Japanese bonds here in 1905 it was much exploited as an evidence of our financial primacy. But in January, 1915, the official Press Bureau of Berlin gave out a report that "money for the interest on the Japanese 4 per cent. loan of 1905 had arrived in Berlin, and negotiations were pending for the payment of interest on the 41⁄2 per cent. Japanese loan of 1905." And, by the way, the same explanation will do for all the foreign bonds floated before 1914. Practically all of them are now lodged in European banks. As for the reports of German liquidation, there may have been some stocks returned by individual investors, but there is no proof that the big German capital• ists let go any of their American holdings. If they had, the effect would be seen in changes in control of the corporations which they formerly dominated. But there is no such proof. There is, how ever, one very clear case where Germans stepped in and Americans stepped out. When the Goulds quit control of the Missouri Pacific Railroad in 1915 it was announced that "Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and Blair & Co. and the Deutsche Bank of Berlin would take over the financial management of the road and provide funds to meet all obligations." It was also announced that "there would be sweeping changes in the directorate." For the benefit of Professor Taussig I would state that the Deutsche Bank of Berlin is located in Germany. It represents German capital and has always had large interests in this country. There is no proof that its interests have grown smaller since before the war. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and Blair & Co. also represent German capital, and they represent fully as much of such capital today as they did before the war. After Japan entered the war it was reported that Kuhn, Loeb & Co. had severed their financial connections with that country. But there is no evidence to show that this firm severed its financial connections with Germany after we entered the war. The Fordney Tariff Bill is now before Congress and its most formidable opponents are the international bankers whose sole argument is based on the assumed correctness of their own estimate of our foreign debts before and since 1914. Professor Taussig's "inescapable facts" are based on the same estimate. But the facts presented in various articles in the AMERICAN ECONOMIST prove that this estimate is itself based on a series of brazen falsehoods. And this $750,000,000 of German money invested in our industrials at the very time when these bankers were claiming that there was only $50,000,000 invested here clinches the matter. There is no getting around it. If it can be made equally clear that the Loree estimators were just as far out of the way in regard to the investments of other foreign countries, this banker's argument will prove a boomerang; for it will strengthen the plea for the Fordney Bill. Studying the Effect of Embargo. The following circular letter is self explanatory : July 22, 1921. To the Textile Manufacturers of America: At a recent meeting held in Boston, of a small group of textile manufacturers, the undersigned were appointed a committee to consider the interests of this industry with relation to the dye stuffs sections of the Tariff bill now before the House of Representatives. In view of the great importance of this legislation, both to the textile manufacturers of the country and the consuming public, some Protective measures may be necessary. This committee believes thoroughly in the advisability and necessity of an adequate Protective Tariff for the dye stuffs industry, but in its judgment the legislation now proposed in the form of an embargo against certain dye stuffs, which is drastic in its nature, has not been given sufficient study to warrant its enactment without further and more careful consideration. The committee is not necessarily opposing the present legislation but seeks an expres. sion of opinion from the whole industry as to what course should be pursued to not only protect our own interests but that of our customers. This committee is by no means representative, but it is willing to serve as a nucleus of a larger committee if a sufficient number of the users of dye stuffs think it necessary to form a committee for this purpose. Very truly yours, EDWIN FARNHAM GREENE, Treasurer, Pacific Mills. FRANCIS W. FABYAN, ROBERT AMORY, Bliss, Fabyan & Co. Amory, Browne & Co. Please address replies to John A. Sweetser, Secretary, 48 Franklin Street, Boston, Mass. The names appearing above will be recognized as among the most prominent in the textile trade of the country. It is quite evident that the textile interests are at last awakening to the danger of dye embargo to the industry and that they are about to enter into active opposition to that most dangerous policy. It is rather late in the day, but the first half of the battle has been won in their behalf and we trust that they will come in strong with their re-enforcements at the windup. The dye embargo monopoly must be finally defeated or the textile industry will be made to suffer such impositions as the dye trust may determine. We trust that the committee aforesaid will advise us of the result of their referendum. The Proof That Protection Pays. One of the speakers in the National House of Representatives recently said: "I can take the balance sheet of the interests with which I am connected and, year by year, for thirty-two and one-half years, pick out the period when this country has not been under Protective and adequate Tariff." It has been so since this government was organized. Adequate Tariff Protection has always brought prosperity, while Free-Trade has always brought business depression and idleness. It makes no difference whether any particular line of business be the object of Tariff Protection, it will prosper or otherwise, as we have Protection or Free-Trade. Under Protection the workers of the country are constantly employed and they are good customers of merchants in every line of business. Under Free-Trade there is always widespread unemployment and the idle are poor customers. The thought is a good one. An examination of the balance sheets of any line of business will prove conclusively the benefits of Protection. EMBARGO DEFEATED. The Longworth Proposal to Grant Embargo to Coal-Tar Products Defeated In Gallant Attack Led by Congressman James A. Frear of Wisconsin-Victory Against Monopoly Won by Vote of 208 to 193-Fight Now Transferred to Senate Full Record of Vote. Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST. WASHINGTON, D. C., July 25, 1921.— The advocates of genuine Republican Protection won a signal victory for the American people last Thursday when by a yea and nay vote the House of Representatives repudiated the Longworth proposal to grant the dye trust a monopoly of the dye industry in the United States for a period of three years. The amendment of Representative James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, to strike out the embargo paragraphs was defeated earlier in committee of the whole by a narrow margin. On that occasion a change of eight votes would have reversed the result, but there was no roll call that put members on the permanent record where the country could hold them responsible for the vote they cast. On Thursday last when the record vote had been taken, the dye trust went down to defeat, the embargo proposal being rejected by a majority of 15 votes. The recorded vote stood as follows: For the Frear Amendment to strike out the embargo, 208; against the amendment and in support of the dye trust, 193; answered present, 2; paired or not voting, 27; total vote, 430. The membership of the House is 435, but there are a few vacancies and the Speaker, who rarely exercises his privilege, did not vote. The unusually large vote cast gives an idea of the great interest in the question in the House, and neither side failed to have its forces on hand until the fight was ended. Of course the minority of the Republican membership, who made the fight to prevent the perpetuation of the monopoly granted in the Emergency Tariff bill had the support of the Democrats, otherwise they would have failed. But the vote shows that 96 Republicans voted against the embargo and that 189 Republicans voted to grant the dye trust everything it demanded. The party divisions on the vote was as follows: Against the embargo --Republicans, 96; Democrats, 111; Socialist, 1; total, 208. For the embargo: Republicans, 189; Democrats, 4; total, 193. a The fight, so gallantly led by Representative Frear, and won through the loyal support of Republican members of the House anxious for a real Protective measure in accordance with Republican principles, which would have been outrageously violated if this dye embargo had been written into the bill, was waged against an organization within the Republican Party that had behind it all the old-time leaders and the great majority of the chairmen of the influential committees. In support of the embargo, according to their votes as cast, were such prominent figures as Majority leader Mondell, former Speaker Cannon, P. P. Campbell, chairman of the Committee on Rules, Martin Madden, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Fordney of the Ways and Means Committee, and James R. Mann, former Republican leader, and chairman of the Committee on Committtees. The influence of such leadership was shown in the fact that the chairmen of 27 important committees supported the embargo while only seven chairmen had the courage to vote against it. The odds were so great against those fighting the dye trust that their ultimate victory was greater than the mere vote indicates. It is to be presumed that the proponents of the dye embargo will now transfer their attention to the Senate where the bill was taken up for hearings before the Finance Committee today. The chemical schedule will be reached by the end of this week and by that time the representatives of the dye industry will begin their siege of that committee in the hope of having their embargo and monopoly scheme reinserted in the bill. Meanwhile there is pending before the Senate the resolution from the Judiciary Committee for an investigation of the lobbying activities of the dye trust in influencing legislation in its behalf. The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported the resolution and the inquiry will be concluded before the Tariff bill reaches the Senate for consideration. Disclosures that predicted as a result of that investigation will give Senators something to think about before they cast their votes on the chemical schedule of the Tariff bill. are The detailed vote in the House that resulted in the defeat of the dye trust and the rejection of its contemplated monopoly, follows: Against the Dye Embargo. Republicans-Sydney Anderson. Minn.; William E. Andrews, Neb. Martin C. Ansorge, N. Y.; Daniel R. Anthony, Jr., Kans.; Samuel S. Arentz, Nev.; Henry E. Barbour, Cal.; J. D. Beck, Wis. John S. Benham, Ind.; Albert A. Blakeney. Md.; William D. Boies, Iowa; Joe Brown, Tenn.; Edward E. Browne, Wis. Clark Burdick. R. I.; William J. Burke, Pa.; Sherman E. Burroughs, N. H.; Olger B. Burtness, N. D.; John L. Cable, Ohio; Walter M. Chandler, N. Y.; Frank Clague, Minn.: Charles R. Connell, Pa.; James J. Connolly, Pa.; Henry Allen Cooper, Wis.; Clarence D. Coughlin, Pa.: Louis C. Cramton, Mich.; Chas. R. Davis, Minn.; Cassius C. Dowell. Iowa: Richard N. Elliott, Indiana; Robert E. Evans, Neb.; Hamilton Fish, Jr., N. Y.; Roy G. Fitzgerald, Ohio; Israel M. Foster, Ohio: James A. Frear, Wis.; Chas. E. Fuller, Ill.; Harry C. Gahn, Ohio; L. M. Gensman, Okla. Fred B. Gernerd, Pa.; John J. Gorman, Ills. Gilbert N. Haugen, Iowa: Manuel Herrick. Okla.; Andrew J. Hickey, Ind.; Homer Hoch, Kans.; Theodore W. Hukriede, Mo.; Harry E. Hull, Iowa; Ambrose Kennedy, R. I.; Edward J. King, Ills. M. P. Kinkaid, Neb.; John C. Kleczka, Wis. Adolph L. Kline, N. Y.; Clinton I. Kline, Pa.; Chas. L. Knight, Ohio; William F. Kopp, Iowa, Milton Kraus, Ind.; Florian Lampert, Wis.; Oscar J. Larsen, Minn.; Henry F. Lawrence, Mo.; Edward C. Little, Kans.; Washington J. McCormick, Mont.; John C. McKenzie, Ills.; Melvin O. McLaughlin. Neb.; M. Alfred Michaelson, Ills.; C. Ellis Moore, Ohio: William M. Morgan, Ohio, Adolphus P. Nelson, Wis.; John M. Nelson, Wis.; John I. Nolan, Cal.; Miner G. Norton, Ohio: Charles F. Ogden, Ky.; C. William Ramseyer, Iowa; C. Frank Reavis, Neb.; B. Carroll Reece, Tenn.; Edwin D. Ricketts, Ohio ; Sidney C. Roach, Mo.; John M. Robsion, Ky.; John M. Rose, Pa.; Benj. M. Rosenbloom, W. Va.; Albert B. Rossdale. N. Y.; Thomas J. Ryan, N. Y.; Lon A. Scott, Tenn.; Milton W. Shreve, Pa.; James H. Sinclair, N. D.; Nicholas J. Sinnott, Ore.; John C. Speaks, Ohio: Elliott W. Sproul, Ills.; William H. Stafford, Wis.; James G. Strong, Kans.; Nathan L. Strong, Pa.; John W. Summers, Wash.; Burton E. Sweet, Iowa Chas. L. Underhill, Mass.; Edward Voight, Wis.; Edward H. Wasson. N. H.; Hays B. White, Kans.; Wallace H. White, Jr., Me.; William Williamson, S. D.; Roy O. Woodruff, Mich.; George M. Young, N. D. Total Republicans, 96. Democrats Edward B. Almon, Ala.; James B. Aswell, La.: Wm. B. Bankhead, Ala.; Alben W. Barkley, Ky.; Thomas M. Bell. Ga.: Eugene Black, Texas: Schuyler Otis Bland, Va.; Thomas L. Blanton, Texas; William B. Bowling, Ala.; John C. Box, Texas; Chas. H. Brand, Ga.; Clay Stone Briggs, Texas; Samuel M. Brinson, N. C.; James P. Buchanan, Texas; Alfred L. Bulwinkle, N. C.; James F. Byrnes, S. C.; Joseph W. Byrns, Tenn.; James C. Cantrell, Ky.; John F. Carew, N. Y.; Charles D. Carter, Okla.; W. Bourke Cockran, N. Y.; James W. Collier, Miss.; Ross A. Collins, Miss.; Tom Connally, Texas: Charles R. Crisp, Ga.; Ewin L. Davis, Tenn.; Joseph T. Deal, Va.; Fred H. Dominick, S. C.; Robt. L. Doughton, N. C.; Herbert J. Drane, Fla.; Patrick H. Drewry, Va.; William J. Driver, Ark.; William J. Fields, Ky.; Hubert F. Fisher, Tenn.; Henry D. Flood, Va.; Hampton P. Fulmer, S. C.; John N. Garner, Texas ; Finis J. Garrett, Tenn.: Daniel E. Garrett, Texas: Ralph Gilbert, Ky.; T. Alan Goldsborough, Md. Anthony J. Griffin, N. Y.; William C. Hammer, N. C.; Rufus Hardy, Texas; Thos. W. Harrison, Va.; Carl Hayden, Ariz. George Huddleston, Ala.; Benj. G. Humphreys, Miss.; H. M. Jacoway, Ark.; Rorer A. James. Va.; Lamar Jeffers, Ala.; Ben. Johnson, Ky.; Paul B. Johnson, Miss.; Marvin Jones, Texas: David H. Kincheloe, Ky.; John J. Kindred. N. Y.; Stanley H. Kunz, Ills.; Fritz G. Lanham, Texas: Wm. C. Lankford, Ga.; Clarence F. Lea, Cal.: Gordon Lee, Ga.; J Chas. Linthicum, Md.: W. Turner Logan, S. C.; B. G. Lowrey. Miss.; Homer L. Lyon, N. C.; James V. McClintic, Okla.; John McDuffie, Ala.; John J. McSwain, S. C.; Jos. J. Mansfield, Texas; Andrew J. Montague, Va.; R. Walton Moore, Va.; Chas. F. X. O'Brien, N. J.; James O'Connor, La.; William A. Oldfield, Ark.; William B. Oliver, Ala.; James W. Overstreet, Ga.; Lemuel P. Padgett, Tenn.; Frank Park. Ga. Tilman B. Parks, Ark.; Lucian W. Parrish, Texas: Edward W. Pou, N. C.; Percy E. Quin, Miss.; John E. Raker, Cal.; John E. Rankin, Miss.; Sam Rayburn, Texas: Arthur B. Rouse, Ky.; Adolph J. Sabath, Ills. Morgan G. Sanders, Texas; John N. Sandlin, La.; William J. Sears, Fla. Thomas U. Sisson, Miss.: James H. Smithwick, Fla.; Henry B. Steagall, Fla.; Chas. M. Stedman, N. C.: William F. Stevenson, S. C.; Philip H. Stoll, S. C.; Hatton W. Sumners, Texas; F. B. Swank, Okla.; Peter F. Tague, Mass.: Peter G. Ten Eyck, N. Y.; Robert Y. Thomas, Jr.. Ky.; John N. Tillman, Ark.; John R. Tyson, Ala. Carl Vinson, Ga.; Hallett S. Ward, N. C.; Zebulon Weaver, N. C.; Riley J. Wilson, La.; Otis Wingo, Ark.; James W. Wise, Ga.; James P. Woods, Va.; William C. Wright, Ga. Total Democrats against embargo, 111. Socialists, 1. Total Grand total against the dye embargo, 208. For the Dye Embargo. Republicans-Ernest R. Ackerman, N. J.; J. Frank Appleby, N. J.; Wiliam O. Atkeson, Mo.; Isaac Bacharach, N. J.; Carroll L. Beady, Me.: James T. Begg, Ohio: Richard E. Bird, Kans.; Harris J. Bixter, Pa.; Oscar E. Bland, Ind.; Chas. G. Bond, N. Y.; George M. Bowers, W. Va.; Vincent M. Brennan, Mich.: Fred A. Britten. Ills.; Edwin B. Brooks. Ills.; Edward S. Brooks, Pa.; Theodore E. Burton, Ohio: Thos. S. Butler, Pa.; Philip P. Campbell, Kans. Joseph G. Gannon, İlls.; Wm. W. Chalmers, Ohio ; Carl R. Chinblom, Ills.; Chas. A. Christopherson, S. D.: John D. Clark, N. Y.; David G. Glasson, Wis.; Wynne F. Clouse, Tenn.; George P. Codd. Mich. Clint R. Cole, Ohio; Don B. Colton, Utah John G. Cooper, Ohio ; Ira C. Copley, Ills. Frank Crowther, N. Y.; Chas. F. Curry, Cal.; Porter H. Dale, Vt.; Frederick W. Dallinger, Mass.; George P. Darrow, Pa.: S. Wallace Dempsey, N. Y.; Edward E. Denison, Ills.; L. J. Dickinson, Iowa; James W. Dunbar, Ind. Thos. В. Dunn, N. Y.; L. C. Dyer. Mo.; Leonard S. Echols, W. Va.; Geo. W. Edmonds, Pa.; Edgar C. Ellis, Mo.; John A. Elston, Cal.; Chas. L. Faust, Mo.; E. Hart Fenn, Conn.; Simeon D. Fess, Ohio; Benj. K. Focht, Pa.; Joseph W. Fordney, Mich.; Arthur M. Free, Cal.; Richard P. Freeman, Conn.; Burton L. French. Idaho; Louis A. Frothingham, Mass.; Frank H. Funk, Ills.; James P. Glynn, Conn.; Wells Goodykoontz, W. Va.; Norman J. Gould, N. Y.; William J. Graham, Ills.; George S. Graham, Pa.; William R. Green, Iowa; William S. Greene, Mass.; Frank L. Greene, Vt.; W. W. Griest, Pa.; Lindley H. Hadley, Wash.; Guy U. Hardy, Col.; Willis C Hawley, Ore.; Edw. D. Hays, Mo.; Ira G. Hersey, Me.; John Philip Hill, Md.; Joseph H. Himes, Ohio; Michael J. Hogan, N. Y.; A. B. Houghton, N. Y.; James W. Husted, N. Y.; Elijah C. Hutchinson, N. J.; Clifford Ireland, Ills.; W. Frank James. Mich.; Albert W. Jeffries, Neb.; Albert Johnson, Wash.; Evan J. Jones, Pa.; Julius Kahn, Cal.; Chas. C. Kearns, Ohio; Patrick H. Kelley, Mich.; M. Clyde Kelly, Pa.; Samuel A. Kendall, Pa.; John C. Ketcham, Mich.; Edgar R. Kiess, Pa.; Wm. H. Kirkpatrick, Pa.; John Kissel, N. Y.; Harold Knutson, Minn.; Aaron S. Kreider, Pa.; Oscar J. Larsen, Minn.; Caleb, R. Layton, Del.; Elmer O. Leatherwood, Utah, Warren I. Lee, N. Y.; Fred R. Lehlbach, N. J.; Nicholas Longworth, Ohio; Walter F. Lineberger, Cal.; Robert Luce, Mass.; Oscar R. Luhring. Ind.; Clifton N. McArthur, Ore.; Louis T. McFadden, Pa.; James C. McLaughlin, Mich.; Joseph McLaughlin, Pa.; Isaac V. McPherson, Mo.; Clarence MacGregor, N. Y.; Martin B. Madden, Ills.; Walter W. Magee, N. Y.; James R. Mann, Ills.; Carl E. Mapes, Mich.; Schuyler Merritt, Conn.; Earl C. Michener, Mich.; John F. Miller, Wash.; Ogden L. Mills, N. Y.; Frank C. Millspaugh, Mo.; Frank W. Mondell, Wyo.; Nestor Montoya, N. M.; Allen F. Moore, Ills.; Merrill Moores, Ind.; John M. Morin, Pa. Luther W. Mott, N. Y.; Sydney E. Mudd, Md.; Frank Murphy, Ohio; Walter H. Newton, Minn.; Cleveland A. Newton, Mo.; Archibald E. Olpp, N. J.; Henry Z. Osborne, Cal.; Calvin D. Paige, Mass.: James S. Parker, N. Y.; Richard Wayne Parker, N. J.; Roscoe C. Patterson, Mo.; Francis F. Patterson, Jr., N. J.; Randolph Perkins, N. J.; Nathan D. Perlman, N. Y.; John A Peters. Me.; Andrew N. Petersen, N. Y.; Stephen G. Porter, Pa.; J. C. Pringey, Okla.; Fred S. Purnell, Ind.; Amos H. Radcliffe, N. J.; Harry C. Ransley, Pa.; John Reber, Pa.; Daniel A. Reed, N. Y.; Stuart F. Reed, W. Va.; Marion E. Rhodes, Mo.; Carl W. Riddick, Mont.; Wm. A. Rodenberg, Ills.; John Jacob Rogers, Mass.; Everett Sanders, Ind.; Archie D. Sanders, N. Y.; Frank D. Scott, Mich.; Guy L. Shaw, Ills. Samuel A. Shelton, Mo.; Isaac Siegel, N. Y.; C. Bascom Slemp. Va.; Addison T. Smith, Idaho: J. M. C. Smith, Mich.; Bertrand H. Snell, N. Y.; Homer P. Snyder, N. Y.; Halvor Steenerson, Minn.; A. E. В. Stepbens, Ohio; Philip D. Swing. Cal.; Herbert W. Taylor, N. J.; J. Will Taylor, Tenn.; Henry W. Temple, Pa.; Chas. J. Thompson, Ohio; John Q. Tilson, Conn.; Chas. B. Timberlake, Col.; J. N. Tincher, Kans.; George H. Tinkham, Mass.: Horace M. Towner, Iowa; Allen T. Tres way, Mass.; William S. Vare, Pa.; Albert H. Vestal, Ind.; Lester D. Volk. N. Y.; Andrew J. Volstead, Minn.; Joseph Walsh, Mass.; Anderson H. Walters, Pa.; Chas. B. Ward, N. Y.; Henry W. Watson, Pa.: J. Stanley Webster, Wash.; Loren E. Wheeler, Ills. Thos. S. Williams, Ills.; Samuel E. Winslow, Mass.: William R. Wood, Ind.: Henry C. Woodyard, W. Va.; Harry M. Wurzbach, Texas; Adam M. Wyant, Pa.; Richard Yates. Ills. Total Republicans, 189. Democrats-H. Garland Dupre, La.; George K. Favrot, La.; Ladislas Lazaro, La.; Whitmell P. Martin. La. Total Democrats, 4. Grand total for the dye embargo, 193. Answered "Present" On the Roll Call. Thomas A. Chandler, Republican, Okla.; Louis W. Fairfield, Republican, Ind. Paired on the Motion to Strike Out the Dye Embargo Provision. Benj. L. Fairchild, Republican. N. Y., with Frederick C. Hicks, Republican, N. Y. Paired "Until Further Notice" Without Their Position on the Dye Embargo Being Announced, Royal C. Johnson, Republican, S. D., with Claude Kitchin, Democrat, N. C.; John W. Langley, Republican, Ky., with Frank Clark, Democrat. Fla. Robert S. Maloney, Republican, Mass., with Wm. W. Rucker, Democrat, Mo.; Walter R. Stiness, Republican, R. I., with C. B. Hudspeth, Democrat, Texas; Thomas A. Chandler, Republican, Okla., with Lilius B. Rainey, Democrat, Ala.; Oscar E. Keller, Republican, Minn., with Samuel L. Taylor, Democrat, Ark.; Frederick N. Zihl man, Republican, Md., with James A. Gallivan, Democrat, Mass. Thos. D. Schall, Republican, Minn., with William D. Upshaw, Democrat, Ga.; Alice M. Robertson, Republican, Okla., with Harry B. Hawes, Democrat, Mo.; William N. Vaile, Republican, Col., with Edward T. Taylor, Democrat, Col. Not Voting or Paired. Guy E. Campbell, Democrat, Pa.; Thos. H. Cullen, Democrat, N. Y.; James M. Mead, Democrat, N. Y.; John W. Rainey, Democrat, Ills.; Daniel J. Riordan, Democrat, N. Y. FRANK I. WHITEHEAD. But then the Democrats have got to be busy attacking something, and they are more at home in attacking a Tariff bill, so why begrudge them what pleasure they may derive from it, seeing they can do no harm?Rochester (N. Y.) Democrat and Chronicle, 7.8.21. The "Fordney" Tariff is the Republican answer, in great part at least, to the national demand for a return to better times. When the Tariff bill shall have been passed there will follow the readjustment of federal taxes, and out of these two typical measures will come the general encouragement to industry and business that it is hoped and sighed for. The proper course now is to watch Congress and to forego the chronic inquiry why it does not do something.-Des Moines (Ia.) Forum, 7.6.21. |