Mr. FERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mia BANKS] I reply to him by merely saying that there are ine forests in the southern States now waiting or northern industry and ingenuity, a/nd that there is timber enough there untouched to supply all the pressing wants of the South. But my main object is to repl to the argument presented by the distinguised chairman of the ComWays&Means. I call attention to his remarks by reading the following lines from what he offered to fortify the pending bill: “When we abandonedall duties on lumber under the treaty, the effectwas not to reducethe price in American markets, but the value of lumberincreased in the provinces." I thankthe honorable chairman for the weight of his considerate testimony to my observtious of the histor of the lumber market in the States. twill be observed by his statement of facts that at the commencement of the treaty domestic competition had so perfectly adjusted the legitimate value that the influx of canadian lumber free of duty had no perceptible effect 11 on the markets. Instead of the quantity supplied by the Provinces cheapening the price, rates remained precisely as they were before the treaty went into operation. In other words, Canadian lumber possessed no control over the markets in the States. o Now, sir, the proposition of the ComWays&Means is to fix a grade of duty of one dollar on a valuation of 7 dollars and under, 2 dollars on a valuation of over 7 and under 12, and 3 dollars on all over 12 dollars. I advocate a.uniform duty of 3 dollars per 1,000 feet on all pine l mber brought into the markets of the States. he Gentfrom Massachusetts has well observed that a uniform method is preferable. I coincide with him for its practical simplicity not only, butbecause we are thereby only placed open a par with Canada stuinpnge. the value 01 the timber standing in Canada is less than 25 cents per 1,000, and in the States ranging from 2 to 6 dollars per 1,000. This(price of 3 dollars is only placin timber staning in the States upon a par with that of Canada. Mr. Chairman, if we could be assured of an honest invoice of the qualities of the lumber coming from the Provinces into the markets of the States, I would not so ur eutly press a modification of the bill. Butt e plan it proposes will in (practice prove nothing less than a legalized bi for misrepresentations of qualities and values a system of shrewd practice, to say the least of it, to avoid the bigher rates of duty. The revaleneeof continued smug gling along the order, notwithstanding the utmost vigilanee of officers of both countries, is a fitting comment upon a system so prejudicial to good morals and so disastrous to public reve nue. If honesty is to prevail in the workings of the raded method and the dutiable lumber supplie of the higher quality subject in practice to 3 dollars per 1,000, according to the bill, and the Canadian lumber being admitted to be mostly of the higher grades, why this opposition to the simpler method of a uniform duty of 3 dollars on all classes received, if the result is to be practically the some? Why tenacionsly hold to the complex scheme and reject the uniform method? such persistency bodes no good faith in the workings of the graduated system. I am totally opposed to making the U.S. a party to commercial fraud. Alabored effort has been made by a large and influential delegation from the Provinces, recently here, to secure the adoption of the features of the bill as reported. I will not charge that delegation with intentional misrepresentation of facts, but I will call attention of the committee to an article bearin upon the profits of the lumber business, which i by some accident, if not design, recently up.eared in the lntelligeneer. It is copied from t ie Cincinnati Times, and purports to be taken from the Detroit Free Press. It is headed a “ swindle, ” doubtless meant to be a financial swindle. I will characterize it more properly a diplomatic swindle. Here is the article: THE 1.17MEBR SWINDLE. Muskegon Michigan, is a prodigious lumberregion. Tmhiells Detroit reePressgives statistics of 26 which arevalued at $740,000 and which are en pable of cuttin 147,000, 0Ofcoct. They employ 930 men and from September to April about3.000menare employed in the forests cutting and hauling logs to the stream, which are relied upon the ice and left to float down when it breaks up. Each log is branded with the ownersname. There were out last season 142799.866 feet.worth at themills the respectable sum of 021.419.977m9.ealtimes pald are 51.300 to 52.000 to foremen and engineers. 83to 84 perday to sawyers, and from82to $2 25for laborers. The salaries and wagespaid are about as f To foremenand engineers. A.lg. who 0s:0 To sawycrs. 136.000 To laborers at the mills. 2.000 To loggers m the forests Total. Value of product. Balancelto proprietors. With that profit the proprietors realize at least 100%. ontho capital invested: and yet they cry out for a duty on Canada lumber to protect them against competitionl We think the people have some rights in this matter. one of which 15! e right to lumber as cheap as it can be allorded. Of course the will not get protection unless the people shu.ll me e themselves felt at Washington Umcmnati 11W! Now, sir, I read from the Detroit Adverti ser and Tribune the correct statement of this noted swindle. Instead of $21, 419, 979 as the total value of the manufactured product which would be at the rate of $150 per 1,000 feet, the true value as shown by the Tribune is $2, 141, 997, at the rate of 15 dollars per 1,000 feet, the average valuation at the mills. The swindle makes out a profit of the enormous sum of $19, 773, 979, while the feet exhibits but $496, 979. Permit me, Mr. Chair man, to analyze this profit so as to completely ventilate this swindle. The cost of the amount manufactured was $1, 046,000; the interest on $900,000, the value of logs and leggings at 7% is $63,000; insurance of mills value at $746,000 at 7 and a half%. $55, 950; depreciation of mill value of $746,000 at 10% is $74, 600; commission and inspection on sales of 142, 799, 866 feet, and loss by navigation 5%, is $107, 099 making an aggregate of $1, 946, 649, which do noted from the $2, 141, 997, leaves a net profit of $195, 348, which is an average profit of $1 37 per 1,000 feet. Before I pass from this exposure, I wish to express my obligations for the opportunity of placing upon the records of conrosethe factthat Muskegon, in the district in Iichigan which I have the honor to represent on this floor, is the largest lumber manufacturin locality in the U.S., and I take p easure in thus paying a merited tribute to the enterprise, ingenuity, and sagaeity of the lumbermeu of Muskegou; adding, to their high credit, that manufacturing is there done more perfectly and scientifically than any other place in the States, and I might with propriety say in the world. [ ere the hammer fcll.]