mverKri-.ex.3Lzz j.. j
iHnnBHmm
NOVEMBER f, Hit
The Commoner.
lb 4-..y. 'W i
4 Congressman Gets Pointers From a Cobbl
The Ventura (California) Democrat prints the
following::
O. H. Hedges makes his bread, possibly but
ter, and occasional hunk of pie, by the manipula
tion of leather in the capacity of a cobbler.
Leather Is tho product of green hides, and tho
duty on hides gets pretty close to tho product
of his toil, affecting his purse according to tho
ratio of the duty imposed.
He carried his grievance to Congressman S. C.
Smith who, under date of July 6, replies as
follows:
Mr. O. H. Hedges, Ventura, Cal. Dear Sir:
I am pleased to have your note of tho 30th,
again referring to the subject of the duty on
hides. I have been Industriously trying to learn
from some one what effect the repeal of tho
hide duty will have on the hide supply. You
epeak of a certain tannery going out of business
because it was unable to obtain green hides. I
wish that you would write mo again telling me
why they can get more hides under free trade
than under present conditions.
Yours very truly,
S. C. SMITH.
The following Is Mr. Hedges' reply:
Ventura, Cal., July 15, 1909. Hon. S. C.
Smith, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Yours of
the 6th inst. at hand, asking mo to tell you
why more hides could be procured under free
trade than under the present conditions.
Now, don't you think that a rather big order
to give a common cobbler, who is not supposed
to kno. anything but to mend old soles, and
vote her-straight?.! Especially rAB it comes from
one who is supposed to know all these things,
that he may intelligently transact the business
of his employers? But I am going to take for
granted that you honestly wish to know hat
people of my class are thinking of these things
and try to answer you.
It is a fact that 80 per cent of the hides of
the United States go into the packing houses on
the backs of tho cattle.
Now, anyone controlling 80 per cent of any
commodity can control price of same. But
packing trusts are not an open market for hides;
they tan most of their own hides, and only sell
to tho tanneries with which they have a gentle
manly agreement. Then where are independent
tanneries going to got hides?
They can not have them shipped from South
and Central America, or Mexico, because the
duty added to the freight makes them too ex
pensive. Take off the duty and for a short time,
until the trusts could get themselves in a posi
tion to control the world supply of hides, the in
dependents could have hides shipped in, and
compete with the trusts.
The tariff simply restricts tho supply by creat
ing a false condition, thereby making it more
easy for the powers that be to control that
supply.
Leather has advanced from 38 cents to 57
cents per pound since 1895. Do you realize what
that means? It means that I am paying to the
trusts a tribute of 19 cents on every pound that
I use. I use about one hundred pounds per
month; that means $19 every month, or $228
per year, for one poor cobbler. A hundred thou
sand of us pay the enormous sum of $22,800,000
accrued tribute every year. Did you ever hear
of any of that being divided with tannery em
ployes? The tariff Is a farce, so far as helping any
one but the trusts is concerned. It helps the
trusts, because it restricts the supply of all com
modities, while the demand Is over increasing,
thereby allowing large combinations to control
the available supply, and charge all tho traffic
will bear.
Even supposing it resulted in increased wages
for the working man, is it right to tax eighty
million people dollars that a few thousand may
gain cents? But it does not increase wage::.
With the tr- ts and corporations owning most of
the jobs, and 38 per cent of the workingmen con
tinually out of a job, competing with their fel
low working men for their job, is any sane cor
poration manager going to pay any higher wages
than he has to?
But you say the American working man does
receive a higher wage than those of most other
countries. So he does; but why?
The history of the world shows that when the
standard of living for the working man was re
duced to three meals of rice a day, that three
meals of rice was about all that he received.
The United States being a new and undevel-
er
oped country up to a few years ago, and plenty
or jobs to bo had In tho dovelopmont, also plenty
pf opportunity, tho American working man be
ing moro prosperous bocauao of those reasons
than tho working men of other countries sot his
Btandard of living higher, and demanded a wngo
that would support that standard.
Tho powers that bo do not dare to reduce
that standard to threo meals of rice a day, at
ono blow. If thoy did, they would havo a revolu
tion on their hands. But thoy advanco wages
one per cent to fool tho worker, and then ad
vanco tho cost of living flvo por cent. About
how many advances llko that will it tako to
gain the desired result? That is, to reduce tho
worker to just onough to keep himself, and al
low him to reproduce himself?
Now, my dear sir, just a few more words in
an endeavor to jar you out of a rut in which our
law makers havo long run. By education and
association you all have become so trained to
think of and for property Interests, that you all
seem to think that one who has no property is
not worthy of being legislated in behalf of.
Now, if you consider that twenty por cent of
tho people own eighty per cent of tho property,
you will find that as long as you only consider
property interests, you aro representing really
only a small por cent of the people. Surely, ho
who has the greatest need should got tho most
attention. Or, do you all bolievo that "to him
that hath" should bo given, and to him who
hath should bo taken away oven tho littlo which
he has? Well, that is tho way our laws aro be
ing framed today.
But I am not one who accuses you all of dis
honesty; but rather that most of you aro honest
in purpose. However, your education and asso
ciations aro such that you aro really in touch
with but tho one class, who represent property
interests. And your sympathies and tastes nat
urally being with that class, you do not got In
touch with tho groat masses who nood you, and
badly; and so you havo really no opportunity to
study their needs, or to find out what is really
best for them.
I do not apply this to you personally, but to
most members of our legislative bodies.
Thanking you for your kindly hearing, I am
Very truly yours,
O. H. HEDGES.
Some Texas Opinions
In all seriousness, what is tho difference be
tween Aldrich, the republican senator, and
Bailey, who claims to be a democrat? Aldrich
voted for the tariff schedule that was most help
ful to his constituents, and professes to bo a
high tariff man, while Bailey voted for the
same kind of a tariff because it helps his con
stituents, but claims to be opposed to a high
tariff on general principles. Ono is as much re
publican as the other. Palestine Herald.
SENATOR BAILEY'S FORT WORTH SPEECH
The major motif of tho Fort Worth deliver
ance, if we may use a term somewhat technical
to the language of music, Is essentially different
from that of the speech Senator Bailey made at
Dallas or anywhere else during tho present tour
of explanation. In his latest allocution Senator
Bailey endeavors to make himself tho defender
of the national as well as of the state democ
racy. That he does it with some skill we shall
admit, tho more eagerly for having been Im
pelled so often of late to complain of the kinder
garten quality of Senator Bailey's arguments,
though all will- testify that our criticisms in
this respect have been tempered with a full
understanding of Senator Bailey's predicament.
Yet, while admitting the skill with which Sen
ator Bailey endeavors to make his own course
tho test of orthodox democracy with respect to
the tariff, we nevertheless believe the enter
prise Is too difficult even for ono of his sophisti
cal skill. For Instance, If the votes he cast
are dumb but infallible witnesses of democracy,
what an unpardonable heretic is his colleague.
Senator Culberson! Tho weakness of Senator
Bailey's position is suggested by his effort to
prove himself a better tariff reformer than those
progressive republicans. Proof of that conten
tion would not be without force; but when ho
offers In evidence only those Instances in which
ho yoted for lower duties than the progressive
republicans would assent to, and ignores those
Instances in which he was on the side of Senator
Aldrich rather than on tho sldo of Senator Cum
mins, can it bo said that ho proves his proposi
tion? Bvon his partisans, wo think, could not
concede more to his argument than that ho
proved himself to bo as much of a tariff reformer
as tho progressive republicans aro, and thoy.
as Sonator Bailey remarked, avow thomsolvcH
to be protectionists, ll0 did, Indeed, as ho says,
vote for riiioa lowor than the Dlngloy rates, and
Senator Aldrich did tho samo thing with vory
little loss frequency; hut Sonator Bailoy In most
cases voted against the lowest rates proposed,
and often despite tho fact that I. In party had
positively pledged him to tho contrary course.
Sonator Bailey's excuse for ihls is that the rate
for which ho voted, when Ills alternative was
a choice of tho lower or tho lowest rate, consti
tutes hut a small porcontago of tho artlclo'a
value. Ho defends his vote on hides, for ox
anlplo, with the plea that tho duty ho supportod
was only 15 por cent of their valuo. Wo shall
not say that ho subjects his democracy to a per
centage test, but slneo tho values of commodi
ties fluctuato constantly and wldoly, thus vary
ing tho percentage of protection, ho gives his
democracy rather a precarious status.
So much relates only to tho effort of Sonator
Bailey to prove that his own courso with re
spect to tho Aldrich bill marks tho historic posi
tion of domocracy on tho tariff, r.nd this effort,
?,? W- lfl ft?"""01' lB th0 nmJr motif of
Mb l on Worth deliverance In Its minor motif
it is with somo conspicuous exceptions, sub
stantia ly the same speech that Sonator Bailoy
had delivered at Dallas and Houston, and since
wo offered somo criticisms of that speech It
would bo rather supororogatory to consider the
detailed arguments with which ho oxcusoa his
repeated violations of tho Donvcr platform.
Most cheerfully we shall admit that this part
of his Fort Worth speech Is devoid of somo of
thoso absurd propositions which gave Imitated
luster to his Dallas and Houston dollvorances.
Senator Bailoy assures us he was besought by
no ono Interested in tho lumber industry In
Texas to voto for a duty on that commodity.
That proves nothing. Southorn lumbermen
were In Washington during tho formatlvo stage
of tho tariff bill, and Toxrb lumbermen wr,
too; and so far as tho general observer could
see they were as clamorous as any others for
protection. If thoy did not lobby with him,
may It not havo boon that thoy wore Kcnnlble
of other considerations which Imtwllod thorn to
think that work superfluous? No ono, bo far as
tho News knows, has charged that Senator
Bailey was Improperly Influenced; thereforo the
fact that ho should defend himself from an
Imputation which ho himself Infers from the
moro mention of a' name illuminates the ovll
of allowing public servants to onter tho service
of large corporations.
Senator Bailey's speech shows unmistakably
tho refining Influences of criticism. Ho elimin
ated some of tho moro grotesque absurdities,
though, since It Is the keystone of his defense,
ho must try to make us believe that although
tho trusts can collect from tho people any fine
thoy aro made to pay tho sheriff, there Is some
mysterious circumstance of tho tariff which pre
vents them from reimbursing thomselves for the
duty they aro made to pay tho tax collector.
Senator Bailey's latest deliverance, while more
specious, is not less sophistical than thoso from
which it Is evolved. Dallas News,
REPLYING TO BRYAN
Senator Bailey has spoken again. This time
it is In Fort Worth and in reply to Mr. Bryan's
El Paso speech. And there is nothing sincere
or sound In his last speech any moro than in his
first. All of them Indicate clearly to citizens
who understand contemporary politics that Sen
ator Bailey thinks himself strong enough not
only to vote with tho republicans In congress
whenever the interests need his vote, but to
preach republican doctrine in the banner demo
cratic state of Texas and endeavor to pass It
off as good democratic doctrine. Why? Un
deniably in order to give aid and comfort to tho
republicans or to completely disrupt tho demo
cratic party. Houston (Texas) Chronicle.
ELECTION RETURNS
When this edition of Tho Commoner went to
press the election returns were not sufficiently
complete to give an accurate idea of the results
In general.
If the republican stato convention of Ne
braska had declared for the bank guarantee
would republican judges have felt sure of its
unconstitutionality? Or did a republican na
tional victory settle that question?
