Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 19, 1902)
Vol. a, No. 35. H The Commoner. h l Ij " 1 1 . but cannot exist. And thon to add to their inconsistency, after telling you that the competition in this country is Biich that no combination can exist (In spito of the actual fact that it does exist) they tell you a littlo further on that they aro not willing to destroy the competition of tho American man ufacturer and leave tho farmer entire ly at the mercy of tho foreign producer and importer. In othor words, it Is impossible for tho manufacturers of tais country to combine, but just take off tho tariff and all tho factories in tho world will comblno against tho poor farmer of tho United States. Again, they state that If wo take the tariff off, tho imported will chargo his per cent and tho farmer will not got his binding twine any cheaper than ho did before. At what straws a drown ing mnn will catch! Why, Mr. Chair man, if it is true that tho. amount charged by tho importer will offset the tariff, then what becomes of all this gloomy prediction that this industry is going to be destroyed in our country and transferred to foreign countries? If the importer charges an amount enual to tho tariff, then the farmer will not get his twine any cheaper; and if he will not get his twine any cheaper, these men can sell at the same price, can they not? And how are they going to bo run, out of tho mar ket? Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another thing to be said in regard to binding twine. Complaint is made hero in the last part of this minority report that the effect ot tho bill will bo to admit free a large class of juto yarns and twine In an advanced state of manu facture and to disarrange the entir? manufacture of juto goods in this coun try. (Here tho hammer fell.) Mr. Burrows. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that tho gentleman from Nebraska may "have such addi tional time as ho may require to con clude his remarks. The Chairman (Mr. Ellis). Is thera objection to tho request of tho gen tleman from Michigan? a here was no objection. Mr. "Rrvim. Mr. Chairman, l am manufacture of binding twine? Mr. Bryan. That is a fair question and I am glad to answer it, as I shall ho glad to answer any question that may be proposed In good faith by any of our friends on this side of tho house or tho other. There is this difference: There is no doubt that tho manufacture of bind ing twine under present conditions can bo conducted in this country as cheap ly as in any other country in the world, and that this tariff of seven tcnths of ono cent per pound is abso lutely unnecessary to protect the in dustry. , J There could be, therefore, no injury inflicted upon tho manufacturers by not putting tho machinery for making tho binding twino on the free list 1 will say this, that speaking for my self, I shall bo glad to put on tho free list not only the machinery for manu facturing binding twine, but for manu facturing all things, for I believe it a legitimate advantage that can bo given to Industries In all parts of tho coun try. I was glad when tho last congress put on the free list tho machinery used In tho manufacture of beet sugar. My onlv criticism was that they did not mako it oroad enough to include not only tho machinery used in tho manu facture of beet sugar, but that used in the manufacture of all other kinds of sugar. Now, Mr. Chairman Mr. Lind. If the gentleman will pardon me for another interruption, that does not answer my specific ques tion. Hero you put a manufactured article, specifically named, on the free list Why not put the machinery for manufacturing that specific article also on tho free list, so as to give the do mestic producer at least an equal show with the foreign producer? Now, I am not discussing or rather Inquiring into the gentleman's gen eral ideas here on this subject, but in regard to this specific article I ask why that exception Is made. Mr. Bryan. I will say this to the gentleman. That it was the object or tho committee, in presenting separate bills, to as far as possible confine tho discussion to these bills and to tne is, reform is not to bo delayed until exact justice can be rendered. . Mr. McKenna. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. Bryan. Certainly. Mr. McKenna. Do you really be lieve that the protective policy is sim ilar to the pickpocket's policy of put ting a man's hand into another man's pocket and extracting money from it? Mr. Bryan. Yes, that is my belief. Mr. McKenna: Now, then, one other question. You can answer it all to gether. If that is so, how do you jus tify your position, not in economics, but in morality, for reporting a bill which leaves 39 per cent taxes on wool en clothing? Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, IE l found a robber in my house who had taken all I had, and I was going to lose it all or else get one-half back, I would take the half. I will ask tho gentleman from California whether he would refuse to give the people any relief because he could not give all that he wanted to give? . Mr. McKenna. No. Mr. Bryan. Then we agree. Mr. McKenna. No, we do not If I was in a position of power, being a member of the committee on ways' and means, and believed that my vote would relieve this country from a sys tem of policy which was simply a sys tem of pickpocketing, I would never consent to vote for a bill in that way. Mr. Bryan. In that respect the gen tleman from California and the gen tleman from Nebraska do not think alike. Mr. McKenna. And in some other respects also. Mr. Bryan. I am willing to take the best method that is possible, to obtain relief just ae far as possible, and I will not insist upon getting it all before I consent to take any. our report on this bill so states: and yet the minority of this committee say that it was induced by a misun derstanding, and we haVe been given to understand by high authority that they will not allow any bills of a tariff reform nature to pass tho senate. My hope- Is it is simply a. hopethat when these bills go before that body their consciences will rise superior to their partisanship. Mr. Clover. "Vain hope! Mr. Bryan. It may be a vain hope, but it Is the only hope wo have, unul tho people, speaking at the polls, carry still further the reform that was be gun in 1890. But now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to the principle of pro tection. As I said in tho beginning, we were invited by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Dingley) to discuss it; and if gather anything from the remarks that I hear on this side of the house, and from what has already been said, there will be no hesitation In accepting the invitation. Let us go back to the foun dation of the principle. What is the object of a protective tariff? There are two kinds of tariff; a tariff for rev enue and a tariff for protection. In our platform of 1876, that upon which Mr. Tilden was nominated and elected, wo declared, "we demand that all custom house taxation shall be only for rev enue." That is the platform upon which the party stood then. That I believe is the principle of the demo cratic party today; and that we will approach just as rapidly as we can. Thon there is a tariff for protection. That is the only tariff of which we complain. I am not objecting to a tariff for revenue. If it were possible to ar range a system just as I believe it ought to be arranged, I should collect Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call one part of our revenues for the sup attention to a letter which I received today from the bureau of statistics. obliged to my colleague upon the com- items they embody; and if wo had at- rniHoo for his kindness ana to tne committee for its courtesy. I was, when interrupted, about to call tho attention of tho members present to tho fact that this bill puts on the frae list those kinds of twin which aro made in whole or in part from raw material already upon tho free list. There is an apparent excep tion in tho case of jute. Jute and jute butts aro already on the froo list; but what is known as juto yarn is sub jected to a tariff under tho present law, and tho objection made to this clause in the bill is thaUvhat is known as jute yarn used in othor industries may come in free as twine and disar range the whole business in this coun try." I have simply this to say: we make free binding twine made of juto and these other materials It jute yarn can be used for binding twine, we want it to come In free. If it is not binding twine. It does not come in free under this law, and wo can 'safely trust tho authorities to prevent something com ing in as binding twine which is not binding twine. Mr. Lind. Will tho gentleman yield for a question? Mr. Bryan. Very gladly. Mr. Lind. I notice that in tho report brought into this house by tho gentle man from" Georgia (Mr. Turner), a' member of your committee, tho ma chinery used in the manufacture of cotton-bagging is put on the free list Cotton-bagging, as I understand It, is made from substantially tho samo material as binding twine. Now, I should like tho gentleman from Ne braska to state to tho committee why you put tne machinery for tho manu facture of cotton-bagging on the free list and not tho machinery for tho tempted to put on the free list the ma chihery by which this material now under consideration Is made (I have stated that the manufacturers can com pete without this advantage), then there would have been men owning machinery who would have come and complained that we ought also to put on the free list pig iron, iron ore, and othor articles. Mr. Lind. But do not the manufac turers of machinery for making cotton bagging complain? Mr. Bryan. I do not know, but I will say in regard to machinery' for the manufacture of cotton bagging, that it is very simple machinery, and is about all Imported anyway. That is my, un derstanding at least But the gentle man will see that if we should at tempt to embrace in this bill every thing that can bo related to it we could not confine tho subject to binding twlno and, we would soon find some of the associates of my friend telling ..no people of Minnesota and Iowa that they were much in favor of this fea ture or that feature of tho bill, but they could not vote for it altogether. Now, we want them to go on record on Individual propositions, and con demn them or support them as they see fit. Mr. Lind. And stultify oursolves. Mr. Bryan. Well, you can do just as you please about that But If tha present system were framed with an eye to justice, entire justice, there might bo some reason in opposing any change that was not entirely juot In all Its details and relations. But when you have a system conceived in greed and fashioned in iniquity I do not think that tho question of justice can be brought in when you revise it That It may assist in understanding wheth er there is any trust in this country or not We addressed a communication to tho bureau of statistics for informa tion upon the subject We received a number of letters, and , today I wan handed two other letter's which have just been received, one from the Na tional Cordage company and one from Edward H. Pitler & Co. I want to call attention to one sentence in the letter from the National Cordage company. Tho National Cordage company, erroneously termed the trust, has the power of legislating for some forty of these mills. Now, those who believe that a trust is a "private affair," into which we should not inquire, might regard it as all right; but It seems to me that those are not accustomed to the use of the English language who can read that statement, that this company has the legislating for forty, mills, and then deny that there is any combination. Tho TFitlor company write: We would think that the average price obtained by the manufacturer would be slightly higher than last year, when we had 20,000 tons carried over from 1890 which the large crop of 1891 consumed. Now, there is the promise of a man outside of the National Cordage com pany that tho chances are that the farmer will pay a little more for his binding twine this year than last year and tho papers of the last few days have contained items to the effect that the advance In price has already been agreed upon; agreed upon, I presume, with a confident expectation that a re publican senate will not permit the people, voting through their represen tatives in congress, to bring relief from this tax. But enough on that subject Mr. Turner. Does my friend from Nebraska remember that that body agreed during the last congress to mako binding twino free? nnrh nf thp fprlprnl imvornmPTit from internal taxes on whisky and tobacco. These are luxuries and may well be taxed. I should collect another part from a tariff levied upon Imported ar ticles, with raw material on the free list tho lowest duties upon the neces saries of life and the highest duties upon the luxuries of life. And then I should collect another part of the rev enues from a graduated Income tax upon the wealth of this country. It Is conceded by all writers that a tariff upon Imports operates most oppres sively upon the poor. A graduated in- come tax would fall most heavily upon the rich, and thus tho two would par tially compensate each other and less en tho injustice that might come from either one alone. That, I say, would be my idea, if it were possible. But I am not complaining at this time of a revenue tariff. What I de nounce Is a protective tariff, levied purely and solely for the purpose of protection. It is false economy and the most vicious political principlo that has ever cursed this country. Mr. Raines. Will the gentleman al low me to ask him a question? Mr. Bryan. Certainly. Mr. Raines. I want to know if tho gentleman does not remember that in the democratic platform of 1876 they expressly said that it was for the pro tection of American industries, a tariff for revenue, and to promote Industry? Mr. Bryan. There is a question, Mr. Chairman, when you come to consider the uetails of a revenue tariff, as to just how It ought to be laid. I do not remember the exact language of that platform upon that question; but I do believe, as I say, and I am ready to stand by it anywhere, that a protective tariff levied not to raiso revenue but to protect some particular industry is wrong in principle and vicious In prac tice. Now, what is a protective tariff, and what does it means? It is a simple de vice by which one man is authorized to collect money from his -fellow-men. Mr. Bryan. I do remember it, and J There are two ways in which you can ST-.ZMWM