: w T"T("t T3T7" 1
VOLUME 11, NUMBER S
"
"VTTJ'
v
4U
fl
&W
K:V"
6
xtondod to any of tho industries of the country,
thoy ought to bo oxtondod to nil. Any discrim
ination would bo unjust. To put raw material
on' tho froo Hot undor a protective system would
onjy bo'noflt tho manufacturer. It would not
reduce prlcos to tho consumor. Tho tax remit
ted on tho raw material would not only bo lost
to tho government rovonuos, but it would bo
transferred to tho pockets of tho manufactur
er!. And In that caso complaint could well bo
m'ado that tho system is unjust, because It dis
criminates against tho producer of raw material.
An4 complaint could well bo made also becauso
tho manufacturers are given froo trade in what
thoy buy while leaving them protected on what
thoy soil.
'Aiid whilo democrats might denounce pro
motion as robbery, yet if the system is forced
upon thohi, thoy can consistently denounce any
Hn'- (liRfirlmitiatlnnn or inoniialitlos it may contain.
"Whothor or not thoy can afford to oppose dls
6rlminatIons undor a protective policy to tho
oxtont of asking protection for tho industries
In which thoy. happen to bo interested is a ques
tion of policy I shall not now discuss.
' But wo are not discussing what ought to bo
ddno undor a protoctivo system. The question
is1, what ought to bo dono undor a democratic
tariff system, which would protect neither raw
material nor tho manufacturer's product? (Ap
plause on tho democratic side.)
' Can it bo, thon, that when thoy arguo that
froo raw material would give manufacturers
freo trade in what thoy buy and leave them
protection on what thoy sell thoy refer to tho
"incidental protection" that a revenue rate
would glvo tho manufacturer? Necessarily this
niilst bo true, for -"incidental protection" Is tho
ohly kind of protection that can exist under a
" democratic tariff.
A democratic tariff is a tariff levied only for
rovonuo. It is always fixed at or below a point
Which will produco tho maximum amount of
rovonuo. This moans it must bo at a point which
Mil allow freo competition from goods imported
from abroad. "While there Is theoretically some
protection in such a tariff, practically there is
yory little so littlo that it would bo tho height
of folly to contend that tho advantages to be
dprlvod from extending it to raw material would
justify an injury to our manufacturing indus
tries or tho additional burdens which it would
place upon tho people.
- Prosldont Polk dlscuqsed this very question
in his second annual message to congress. After
$ denouncing tho nrotectlvn fio.t. nf 1RA9 n nnnminf
of its inequalities and discriminations in favor
of manufacturers, just as Secretary of tho Treas-.
ury Walker had denounced it and as it ought
to havo been denounced, ho discussed the act of
1846, which had superseded the act of 1842.
Ho said:
"Tho favored classes, who, under tho unequal
and unjuBt Bystem which has been repealed, havo
heretofore realized largo profits, and many of
them amassed largo fortunes at tho expense of
tho many who havo been made tributary to
thorn, will havo no reason to complain if they '
shall bo required to bear their just proportion
of tho taxes necessary for tho support of tho
government. So far from it, it will bo per
ceived by an examination of existing law that
discriminations in tho rates of duty imposed
within the rovonuo principle have been retained
in their favor. Tho incidental aid against, for
eign competition which thoy still enjoy gives
them an advantage which no other pursuits pos
sess, but of this none others will complain, "be
causo the duties levied are necessary for revenue
Tho country will bo satisfied with these
rates, becauso tho advantages which the man
ufacturers still enjoy result necessarily from
tho collection of revenue for the support of the
government."
Mr. Polk drew tho proper distinction. Pro
tection which required tho people to pay tribute
to private manufacturers was intolerable. But
tho "incidental protection" in favor of manufac
turers necessarily resulting from merely revenue
rates, which are levied solely for the needs of
the government, ought not to bo complained of
by anyone and ought to bo satisfactory to the
country.
Mr. Chairman, those who insist unon an
equitable distribution and equalization of tho
benefits of this so-called "incidental protection'
ought to be able to show some substantia ad
vantage to bo secured thereby, but they are
not. On the contrary, it may bo easily shown
that any effort in this direction would result in
piling up a heavy and burdensome system of
SS;!on th0 con8umors of thIs m3y n
Let mo prove this by an illustration. Sup-
The Commoner
poso a duty of 20 per cent is levied upon a
manufacturer's raw material, and then you un
dertake to glvo tho manufacturer tho same
amount of incidental protection that you have
given tho producer of raw material. Can you
do so by levying in tho manufacturer's favor
exactly tho same amount of tariff you havo
levied in favor of the raw material? Not by
any means. By levying tho 20 per cent duty
on tho raw material you have placed a burden
to that extent upon tho manufacturer, and when
you levy an equal amount of duty in favor of
tho manufacturer you have only removed his ,
burden and placed him In the same position
relatively as ho was before any duty was levied
upon the raw material. You have not yet given
him a particle of "incidental protection." So,
in order to give tho manufacturer "incidental
protection" equal in amount to that given to
tho producer of raw material, you will still have
to go further and levy an additional duty in
favor of tho manufacturer, equal in per cent, but,
on account of increase of cost of production,
greater in amount than tho duty levied upon the
raw material.
Tho result of this equalization of duties would
be, these taxes would all bo carried over in a
lump into the finished product, and that much
would be added to the cost to tho consumer.
Manufacturers would be greatly hampered in
their export trade, producers of raw materials
and labor would be correspondingly injured, and
competition from abroad curtailed, and all tho
evil consequences which usually grow out of a
protective system would ensue. , And all for
what? Merely that the very small benefits to
be derived from the "incidental protection" af
forded by "a revenue duty may be equalized.
Such stupendous folly, I dare say, has not a
parallel in the legislative history of this coun
try. If this sort of thing is to be continued, -let
some one explain how and when tho people
are to be relieved from the exactions and bur
dens of republican protection and from the
trusts and monopolies that grow out of that
abominable system.
But if an equitable distribution of the inci
dental benefits of a revenue tariff is to be made,
lot me call attention to another fact which ought
to bo taken into consideration, but which these
.equitable distributors seem to ignore, and that
is, the producers of raw material already enjoy
an advantage that the manufacturers do not
have. As I have already said, every manufac
turing country on the globe admits raw ma
terials free; therefore, the Amerlqan producer
of raw material has a world-wide open and
free market for his product, whereas the manu
facturers of this country are handicapped by
foreign tariff laws, some of them highly pro
tective, whenever they export their products for
sale. So, in view of this great disadvantage .to
our manufacturers in tho foreign markets, "it
would seem to me that no one ought to begrudge
them the small benefits that may accidentally
result to them from a tariff laid with the view
solely to raising revenue, and which still leaves
them to compete, even in our home market, with
the manufacturers of foreign countries.
Mr. Chairman, nothing can be more un-demo-cratic
than this scramble for the benefits of a
tar ff. Democrats have always regarded the
tariff as a tax, and they have always treated it
as such. They have looked to its burdens in
stead of to its benefits and have endeavored to
adjust and distribute its burdens justly and
equitably. Those who regard the tariff as a
benefit and enter into a despicable scramble for
a share in its benefits and who regard the nir
celing out of its benefits of mor! impo?tance
than a jus distribution of its burdens are prop!
erly regarded by democrats as nothing more or
oatisidT0"0111818, (Applause on e m
Anather objection that is made to free raw
material is that it relieves the manufactured
of taxation and that it transfers to other classes
the taxes from which it has relieved the manu!
facturers. This objection shows an utte?mis
conception of the nature and effect of tariff
laws. It would indicate that those who make
this argument look upon an import duty s I
direct tax which can be levied upon particular
industries or occupations. Nothing can be
further from the fact. It is a tal which Is
levied for the privilege of importing mto th s
Sry00ds from abroad, and it is always
paid by the consumer. If a manufacturer SmSS
import raw -material.for his ownus Tor i he
purchases raw material imported by some ono
else upon which a duty is paid, he adds sSch
ulV Se C0St of nIs Wished product, anSlJ
is entiUedto TT7' Thls the manacturer
is entitled to do, in fact, must do, or else his
business must fail, for no manufacturer can do
business unless ho can include in his ' selling .
price the entire cost of his production. It is
an utter impossibility to levy a tariff tax against
any occupation or industry. When men insist
that both raw material and tho finished product
shall be subject to duty, they are necessarily
advocating double taxation upon the consumer.
They must know that when they insist that if
a duty Is levied upon what tho manufacturer
sells to the people, that the manufacturer should
be required to pay a tax on what he buys from
the people is only a flippant, meaningless state
ment which is fit only to arouse the prejudices
of and to mislead tho unthinking. (Applause
oh the democratic side.) They further object
to free raw material by Baying that when we
take the tariff from raw materials 'wo must
increase the tariff on other articles; that it
simply amounts to a transfer and not a reduc
tion of taxes, and that it usually relieves one
class of taxpayers by increasing the burdens
of others. Not so. If no duty be imposed upon
raw material, the duty on all manufactures can
be reduced to a revenue basis from which we
would derive a greater amount of revenue than
from the high-tariff system which , necessarily
results from the taxed raw material policy.
Under the free-raw-material system we could
relieve the people of all burdens of protection
and of compensatory duties, and at the same
time greatly increase our revenues. However,
if after such a system should be inaugurated
there should be any deficiency in the revenues,
I would not make up such deficiency by increas
ing duties. I -would make it up by levying an
income tax, and by so doing require the wealth
of this country, which has been largely acquired
under the protective system to contribute its
just share to the support of the government.
(Applause on the democratic side.)
Mr. Chairman, it is easy to show that the
position I take upon this tariff question is strict
ly in accord with the rules which have always
guided democrats in the preparation of tariff
laws. Those rules as laid down by Secretary
of the Treasury Walker in his report of 1846",
are: T
1. That no more revenue should be collect
ed than is necessary for the wants of the gov
ernment economically epspdd,
2. That no duty be. Imp'osed upon anyWUble
above the lowest rate which will yield thVlargest
revenue.
3. That below such rate discrimination may
be made, descending in the scale of duties; or,
for imperative reasons, the article may be placed
in the list of those free from all duty.
4. That the maximum revenue duty" should
be imposed upon luxuries.
5. That the duty should be so imposed as
to operate as equally as possible throughout the
union, discriminating neither for nor against
any class or section:
My contention is that there are imperative
reasons why raw materials should be placed
upon the free list, and those imperative reasons
I have already pointed out. Some democrats
make the mistake of. placing the incidental pro
tection the producers of raw material get ojut
Laa revTenue JaTi? above a11 other considera
tions. My contention further Is, that when Sec
retary Walker said that the duty should be so
imposed as to operate as equally as nossible
throughout the union, neither discrimination fol
or against any class or section, he had pri
marily in mind the burdens and not the benefits
of the duty and that his position was that" a
proper and just distribution of the burdens
should be made, discriminating for nor against
any class or section. He did not mean that the
benefits should be equitably distributed to t e
neglect of an equalization of the burdens
It has been contended that the doctrine of
free raw material is undemocratic, and' I havl
heard some very ingenious arguments made to
sustain this view. Of course, the evidence il so
conclusive that the party held to the doc rine
of free raw material during what is called the
Cleveland era (which, by the way, embraces the
only period of democratic ascendencTsfnce the
war) that no one can dispute the fact -R?,?
once in a while a meager supply of historical
data and a few expressions of public men a?e
fcruSkt forward, and a labored argument ir
made to show that such position of tC demo!
cratic party during the Cleveland era waHx
ceptional; to show that before thnt ,J? SfZ
party was against the fieTrow-miteriS6 doc
T"" """"wmhswiwo
.tttcnwiBMi
J-AMJI
iKga
