t- -sf"-,"' 'farcer?' i jtv, -rP"' tpfc i""'3yi!jwv, iflppm!v5pwfj --
The Commoner
2
iv '
M
8V
41
state in tho union, so far as I know, that gave
the Nebraska platform a sweeping endorsement
beforo tlio Denver convention was held, and the
Nobraska platform contained this plank in re
gard to tho free admission of articles coming
into competition with articles controlled by tho
I ask you to read the speech of Senator Cul
berson in dofonso of his vote for free iron ore.
Ho quotes the testimony of the representatives
of tho steel trust themselves. They control over
02 per cent of tho total output of iron ore.
Wo can not fix tho exact amount of their con
trol, but it is not loss than G2 per cent. You
toll mo that I am disturbing tho harmony of
my party when I say that a democrat can afford
to vote against any tariff demanded by tho steel
trust? Am 1 disturbing the harmony of the
party when I toll you that the democratic party
can not-afford to favor tho collection of $250,000
on iron oro when by doing so it collects ten
millions of dollars for the steel trust?
Have I not convinced you that this is more
than a personal question? Is there anyone In
Texas who will insist that nobody is involved
in this question but Senator Bailey and myself?
My Hfo is an open book. You took me up
when I was a young man in Nebraska and helped
to make mo a candidate for the presidency. For
thirteen years I have been combatting the trusts.
Three times havo they helped t6 defeat me in
the national campaign; three times have they
poured out their money like water; three times
have they coerced employes and intimidated
business men but they havo never intimidated
me, You can not point to a' vote that I have
cast on the side of monopoly. You can not
point to a speech that I have made that was
over quoted with approval by a monopolist. They
havo never quoted my speeches, for they know
that if ever I have had an ambition, it has been
to deservo the confidence that six millions and
a half of people havo shown in me.
You ask why I come- to Texas. Because I am
not willing to believe that I must avoid Texas
and visit tho other states only. I expect to go
elsewhere, why not to Texas? I shall
come to TexaB as I come to other states,
and I expect when I come to have a
respectful' hearing as I have always had- here
. as I havo had in other states, and when I speak
in Texas I shall use tho samo language that I
use in other states, for I have not prepared a
variety of speeches to suit the different sections
of the country. Do I surprise you when I make
an argument in favor of free raw material?
You convict yourself of. gross ignorance if you
say I surprise you for when I was in congress
I was on the ways and means committee and
helped to prepare and pass the free raw material
measures. The first speech of importance that
I made in congress was in favor of free wool
and a reduction of tho tariff on woolen goods.
"When I visited Dallas a few days ago tho
papers were asking why I came to Texas. Some
of them have criticised me for oven coming
to the state. Some of theia have been weeping
tears because they think I am losing some
friends. Do not worry! I am not losing any
, friends; I am simply locating my enemies. Some
of the democratic papers in Texas say that I
am insulting the democracy of Texas. Do not
Texas speakers go into other states, both north
and south? Is it an Insult for a man to go from
one state to another and talk democracy? When
a paper tells you that it haB supported me in the
past and is grieved to have to leave me now,
read the editorial carefully and see if you can
find any grief embodied in the language used.
If this was the first time I had ever had a fight
on my hands, it might pain me more to read
the criticism of such papers but I have never
made a fight that I did not have to meet not
only the criticism of open enemieB but the criti
cism also of editors who claimed to havo been
my friends and who declared they were dis
tressed over my course. I have not changed my
position even if they have changed theirs.
If you will read the Texas platform of 1896,
which condemned the doctrine of free raw ma
terial, you will find that it complains that free
raw material subjects "the agricultural and
pastoral classes to competition with the world."
Where did that language come from? That Is
Rhode Island language. That is what they say
in Rhode Island when they are demanding pro
tection. They protest against being compelled
to enter into competition with tho world and
they want a protective tariff to prevent com
petition. Why did that platform avoid the word
protection? If you are going to defend that
platform, why not come out and say that you
are for protection? Why commence your plat
form with a declaration for a tariff for revenue
oniy ana ena your piauorm with another declar-
atlon for a tariff for revenue only, and then
put in the middle of it a demand for tho pro
tection of your products from competition with
tho world7 Why do you not take the position
that they do in New England and frankly say
that you want protection? Those whor insist
upon a tax upon raw material can not defend
it as a revenue tariff; if they defend it at all, It
must be as a protective tariff, and when you be
gin to ask for protectipn on one thing, you can
not well refuse it on other things.
A word as to platforms. Why should it be
necessary for me to enter into a joint debate
with anyone as to the binding force of a plat
form. Insofar as Senator Bailey has discussed
this question, he has not met my proposition.
He says that a man ought to be governed by his
conscience, and he quotes me as saying the same
thing. It was unnecessary for him to go back
to a speech of mine in congress to secure proof
of that, for I say it nearly every day. I said
in my speech a year ago when I accepted the
third nomination that a man had a right to re
pudiate his platform and that his repudiation
then became his platform, but if he wants to
repudiate a platform, he must do it before the
election. When a man endorses a platform and
comes before the people of his district asking
their votes on the platform, he gives them to
understand that the platform represents his
conscience and his judgment. Do you tell me
that an honest man can make a canvass upon
a platform in which he does not believe? Do
you tell me that an honest man will conceal
from his constituents his objections to the plat
form upon which he is running? A man who
would go out and secure Totes by an endorse
ment of a platform that he does not believe in
is on a level with a man who secures anything
else by false representation. I do not believe
that Senator Bailey wll differ from me on this
proposition. I do not believe that he would
stand before an intelligent audience and say
that a man is justified in running upon a plat
form with a' secret reservation and an intention
to repudiate the platform after the election. -
So much for the platform before the election.
Now when the votes are counted and the candi-1
date is eledted,, what then? Do you believe he
is at liberty to change his, mind after the elec
tion that he. is at liberty to follow his con-
science and go in .another '.direction? You will
not find that doctrine endorsed in any of my
speeches. It is a very poor district that has but
one conscience in it a mighty poor district. I
take it for granted that In a district of two
hundred thousand people that is about the size
of our districts there are about two hundred
thousand people with consciences. If the vote
is one to every five of the population, it means
that there are about forty thousand voters with
consciences, and I assume that the conscience
of each voter is just as sacred aa the conscience
of the representative. I assume that each voter
voted according to his conscience, and has he
not a right to expect that his conscience will
be respected? When a representative feels that
he, can. not conscientiously do what he conscien
tiously promised to do and what his constituents
conscientiously expect him to do, he ought to
be conscientious enough to resign and let some
one else give expression to the conscience of his
constituents. Is not that sound democratic
doctrine?
Senator Bailey said that the platform ought
not to deal with details that it ought to con
fine itself to general principles, but that is the
opinion of one man. Suppose that a candidate
for congress goes before his constituents and
says: "I want you to trust me; I do not want
to be hampered by details; my conscience might
not agree with your conscience, and I must fol
low mine regardless of what you ay and re
gardless of what I promised." If a candidate
makes such a' speech before his constituents and
they are willing to trust him without any plat
form, that Is their business and they have no
body to blame but themselves If he misrepre
sents them. But suppose a candidate says to
his constituents: "I want a platform but I
want it to deal with general principles and not
with details," and suppose the constituents re
ply, "We tried that before." Have they not a
right to be specific just as specific as they de
sire? There was a time when we elected men
to congress on the general declaration in favor
of bimetallism, but we found that some of them
construed their platform to mean one thing and
some another. Some did not want immediate
bimetallism; some wanted only International
bimetallism, and some wanted bimetallism at an
impossible ratio. After awhile the party de
cided to be specific, and the platform "of 18 9 C
was specific. Texas joined in making the
VOLUME 9, NUMBER 3$
bimetallic plank specific, and I think that fh
time has come to niakfc a specific declaration on
tho tariff question. Our general declaration
have been misconstrued and misinterpreted and
I think that the people have a right to demand
specific declarations which will be binding unon
those who are elected.
It has been suggested by some of the advo
cates of a tax on raw material that I am not
asking to have Nebraska products put on the
free list. I would be ashamed to come before
you if my record did not answer any charge of
that character. I have been advocating tariff
reform all these years, and I havo never asked
whether the protected interests were located in
Nebraska oi not. When I made my speech in
congress in favor of free wool in 1892, w0 had
about a fourth of a -sheep to tho inhabitant
almost as many in proportion to population as
Texas has now, and I think if the facts were
Icnown, we now have, as large a percentage of
our population owning sheep as Texas has, and
tho same may be said of hides. I am quite sure
that as Jarge a percentago of our people own
cattle as own cattle in Texas, and yet I am in
favor of free hides. Everybody knows that the
tariff on wheat is a fraud so far as the farmer
is concerned, and I Would vote to take it off.
We export wheat, and the price of wheat is
fixed in Liverpool. A tariff on wheat has no
more effect than a tariff on cotton would have.
The samo may be said of the duty on corn, oats,
cattle and nearly all other farm products. I
think it would be better if there were a duty
on none of these things so that the farmer would
know that he Is not getting any benefit from pro
tection. The main use of the duty on fann pro
ducts Is to deceive the farmer and lead him to
consent to a duty on manufactured prbducts.
If democrats have not removed them it is be
cause they have been immaterial.
The main point in this discussion Is whether
a duty placed on raw;nmterial is transferred to
the consumer. I affirm tnat it is and that a tax
on raw material contemplates ah increased price
of the product to the' , consumer. That is, not
only the theory but ttiat' I& the practice. In my
Dallas speech I pointed' but that the duty on
leather, harness, fyo'dts and sn,oes was reduced
when hides were put oji, the ,fr,ee lisi:. If you
will examine the tariff on cottjon goods, you will
find that the averdge rate & a fraction, 6ve 60
per cent while the average r'ate on woolen "goods
is about 89' per cent. The difference between
the two is almost exactly the duty levied on
raw wool. There is no duty on cotton, and
cotton manufacturers come In at about 50 per
cent; there is a duty of 40 per cent on wooi, and
that being added to the duty on .the manufac
tured product, the rate is nearly 90 per cent.
That means that when a man "buys your wool
under a 40 per cent tariff, he adds the price
to the manufactured product. , If you tax him
40 per cent on liis raw material and then put
his product on the free list, you Will simply tie
his hands behind him and leave him unable to
compete with those who have free raw material.
If you think that you are getting even with New
England by putting a tariff on wool, examine the
statistics and you will find that the tariff on
wool leads to a high duty on woolen goods and
that your people pay many dollars to the man
ufacturers in increased price of woolen goods
for every dollar that your woolen growers col
lect from the tariff on wool.
Senator Bailey in defending a tariff on lum
ber, says that free lumber would only help a
few people on the Canadian line, but if the
Kirby Lumber company wants a tariff on lum
ber, what does it want it for? Is it to collect
a tribute from the people on the Canadian line
or is it to collect a tribute from the people of
Texas? If the people of Texas do not suffer
from a tariff on lumber, then a tarifT on lumber
will not benefit the lumber companies of this
state, and my observation Is that the men who
ask for a tariff know what they are doing. I
would not insinuate that any democrat in Texas
is influenced by a beneficiary'-of the tariff, but
I simply present this proposition as a matter of
mathematics. When one man in a hundred asks
for a tariff on something that he produces, the
other ninety-nine men must contribute to the
payment of that tariff, and you need not tell
me that tho one who demands the tariff does
not know what he is doing
Let me illustrate this by a story. When I
was a boy I lived on a farm, and by father used
to send me out to work with the men. I was
not large enough to do much, but he thought it
was a good thing to have me help even if I
could help but little. I remember one day when
i I went6ut with two men who were repairing
a. rail' 'fence. I was' not big enough to carry
i .A ?..
flrf-irt1 ;f..
MiMwmii
, '.afkif..2Ai -. ;mla mu
r AKvk.-.u... .W .,jfc. AMirtittJ. l,viWS(lSUsfllfcjtoW -$&..