P' MHMWpPBJWWWWiir?
ir'-
$ .
- r'i'w, 'W'W "' frTiTv-TV'nT 77-$
AUGUST 21,
J
. .' v. y
1903
The Commoner.
.!
3
patism needed no endorsement; his record is a guaranty that no
beneficiary of special privileges will he disturbed. It was Congress
man Sherman who, in a speech in the House on the 18th of last
April, boastfully declared, "We recognize the fact that we have a
Republican majority in the Senate, that we have a Republican ma
jority in this .House, that is ready to resort to every legal, every
proper constitutional right to enact such legislation as it deems for
the best interest for the greatest number of our people, and which
is witling and ready io accept full responsibility for alt those measures
which are introduced here and 'which are not enacted into taw'
The Republican platform suggests that there should be a maximum
tariff and a minimum, the maximum to be used in retaliation and
the minimum in ordinary cases. This is merely adding delusion to
procrastination and uncertainty. We have prominent Republican
authority, Senator Dolliver and Senator Hanna, to prove that in the
present law the rates were knowingly made higher than necessary
with the understanding that reductions would be made to secure
foreign trade. Mr. Dolliver said in the Senate on January 13, 1903 :
"It is true that in the bill which he (Mr. Dingley) reported from
the committee on ways and means he did put duties up for the' ex
press purpose of having them traded down." Mr. Dolliver insisted
that the reciprocity provision in the Dingley act was as distinctly
a part of the tariff policy as the coal schedule and complained that
"not one line of the wisdom of James G. Blaine remained on the
statute books" and that "not a step had been taken to fulfill the
purpose of the last Buffalo address of President McKinlcy." And
yet the very men who present this new plan prevented the carrying
out of the old plan.
The schemes resorted to by the men who have grown rich by lay
ing tariff burdens upon the country are more numerous than novel.
Tariff measures which embody the principles of protection are not
drawn by legislators, although as a matter of courtesy they generally
bear the names of legislators; they are really drawn by the repre
sentatives of the interests which demand protection. These repre
sentatives claim to be the guardians of the laboring men, and yet
they carefully avoid writing into the law anything that will require
the guardians to execute the trust. It is strange that so many voters
have been so long deceived as to the object and the operation of the
laws which are ostensibly designed for the protection of the wage
earners; it can. only be accounted for on the theory that the, voters
have jaot understood eitner the theory of protection or the facts iiiui
are relied upon to support it.
In ordinary affairs there is no difference between a tariff reformer
and a protectionist. They meet together in business, in society, in
the lodge-room and in the church. In their daily life they apply the
same rules and are guided by the same business rules. This simi
larity manifests ifrolf all through life and up to the very hbur of
death. If a protectionist makes a will, he makes it upon the same
plan that the tariff reformer follows. As death approaches, he esti
mates the value of his property, leaves to his wife and children what
he wishes them to have, and then makes such bequests as he likes to
public institutions and to those outside of the family; and such part
as he leaves to his wife and children, he carefully divides among
them, giving to each a definite share. He does not give all his prop
erty to one child and say that he trusts the child to deal fairly with
the rest of the family. Why? Because he knows his children and
would not put a child in a position where selfishness might lead him
to do injustice to other members of the family. No, he would not
trust his own flesh and blood to deal fairly with those reared at the
same fireside with him; and he is wise in not placing this temptation
before one of his own family. But when a protectionist comes to
make a tariff law, he acts on an entirely different plan; he votes
millions, yes, hundreds of millions of dollars to manufacturers whom
he has never seen, and trusts them to be just in the distribution of
the trust fund among their employees. And what has been the re
sult? Just what might have been expected : -the manufacturers
have appropriated the trust fund to their own use and have paid
their employees only such wages as trade conditions compelled.
The Homestead strike occurred after the Republican convention of
1892, but before the Republican candidate wrote his letter of ac
ceptance. He could not ignore the strike, for it presented an object
lesson which -even, a high-tariff Republican could not fad to see.
So Mr. Harrison, the candidate, referring to the strike, said:
"I regret that all employers of labor are not just and considerate
and that capital sometimes takes too large a share of the profits!
"Too large a share of the profits"? Yes; more than that. The pro
tected manufacturers have secured, in many cases, a tariff of more
than twice the percentage paid to workmen in wages The not
profits of the steel trust last year were just about equal to ' the entnre
amount paid in wages, and the wages constituted e J wenty
five per cent of the total value of the product. According to this
statement, each working man employed by the steel trust earned
on an average, not only the amount paid to to, tat one h undred
per cent profit besides for his employer. And, I
these beneficiaries of protection have been pretending to make the
jj
tariff laws for the direct benefit of the employee, these same em
ployees have, as a rule, been, kept close to the hunger line, while
many of the employers have become the possessors of the "swollen
fortunes" which now menace the nation's morals as well as its
business.
And yet the Republican party was not willing that a single item
on the steel schedule should be touched, and the Republican cam
paign committee will not dare to publish, bafore the election, tho
contributions that have been made or will be made to the republican
campaign fund by the men most largely interested in the steel trust.
Let me show you how the tariff oporates. I have here a statement
made by Mr. H. E. Miles, Chairman of the Tariff Committee of the
National Association of Manufacturers and head of the Agricul
tural Implement Trust. The statement appears in tho American
Industries of November 15th, 1907, a paper which is now support
ing the Republican ticket and making a special fight against the
labor plank of the Democratic platform. Here is what Mr. Mile
says :
"I have made money every year out of the Tariff Graft, Not
much, but still a little.
"The tariff barons raised their price $50,000 to. me. I made a
charge against the jobber of $60,000 and I know that ho charged
more than $70,000 for the $60,000 he paid me. Before reaching the
consumer the $50,000 charge became about $100,000 to be paid by
the agricultural consumer.
"The manufacturer who would prosper must make a double profit,
one by the shrewd management of his business and another by still
shrewder manipulation in Washington.
"We have no great difilculty in shopping abroad for we could get
as high prices as at home. We are so held up, however, by our sup
ply people that to most of us there is very scant profit in foreign
business.
"When Congress gave us forty-five per cent, we needing only
twenty per cent, they gave us a congressional permit, if not an in
vitation, to consolidate, form one great trust and advance our price
twenty-five per cent, being the difference between the twenty per
cent needed and the forty-five per cent given."
Mr. Miles shows how the tariff raises prices to thoso ,who, in
manufacturing, have to buy other manufactured products, Thi
expense is transferred to the next purchaser. The jobber charges
a JJlullL on fclio tariiT an wall act nn tho OOSt of thft Jirticlfl n-rtrl oanh
person who handles the product collects a profit, so that, according
to Mr. Miles, the first charge of $50,000 becomes $100,000 by the
time it reaches the consumer. Mr. Miles in another article estimate
the total loss to the people at $500,000,000 annually. The statement
of Mr. Miles also shows that the tariff law is an invitation to con
solidate, and that having been given the tariff on the theory that
it is needed, the manufacturers naturally assume that it is intended
that they shall take advantage of it, even if they have to combine
to do so.
How will Mr. Taft explain to the average man the benefits of pro-
tection? He can easily convince a trust that it profits by the tariff,
but what about the victim of the trust?
No Republican leader will now deny that reductions ought to be
made, but vho is to make the reductions? The only answer given
by the republicans is that the tariff ought to be reformed by its
friends; that is, that those who made the last tariff law should be
entrusted with the making of a new tariff law. But suppose the
people adopt the Republican idea and entrust the making of the
tariff law to Republican congressmen; what will be the method of
procedure? Fortunately for the voter, Mr. Miles explains this also.
In the April, 1908, number of American Industries, Mr. Miles says:
"The people instruct and trust Congress to grant just, equitable and'
ample protection."
Is not that just what the Republican leaders claim to favor? They
want you to "instruct and trust Congress to grant just, equitable
and ample protection." And what does that mean? Mr. Miles says
that Congress "trusts the Ways and Means Committee." And a
Republican leader will tell you that this is also proper. Then what?
Mr. Miles says that "this committee trusts such persons as Mr. Dak
zell," and that "they they trust the trusts."
The method of procedure is simple. It is a case of confidence.
The voters have confidence in Republican leaders ; the leaders have
confidence in a Republican Congress; a Republican Congress ha
confidence in the Ways and Means Committee; the Ways and Mean
Committee has confidence in the men who represent the trusts, and
the trusts write the tariff law and thus secure to themselves the right
to levy tribute upon the public. So accustomed have Republican
leaders become to allowing the protected interests to write the tariff
schedules that so eminent and honorable a man as Senator Hoar of
Massachusetts said, in discussing the McKinley bill, then before the
Senate
"Instead of coming before your subcommittee for a formal hear
ing on our Massachusetts industries, I thought the best way was to
carefully prepare a table of all the various industries, perhaps some
i
.... .- . !
