rW'WKgXffirmr:
JUNE 23, 1911
. The Commoner
Democrats and Free Raw Material
Democrats everywhere will bo interested In
nn editorial that appeared In the March 24th
issue of "The State" published at Columbia, S.
C, and edited by Mr. W. B. Gonzales. This
editorial was printed prior to the abandonment
of free wool by the democratic caucus. Par
ticular attention is called to the closing para
graph of this editorial where so late as March
24th Editor Gonzales said that Mr, Underwood
had told him that the committee would stand
for free raw material.
The State's editorial follows:
SENATOR BAILEY AND TREE RAW
MATERIAL
Senator Bailey is the chief advocate, on the
democratic side, in or out of congress, of a duty
on raw material, and as that question will prob
ably be the most difficult one for the democrats
of the Sixty-third congress to settle among them
selves, the expressions of the Texas senator on
the eve of the convening of the new congress
in extra session when the tariff Is to have con
sideration, is of peculiar interest. The New York
World devotes a page of its editorial section
to an interview with the gifted Texan, and we
And a reiteration of his attitude on the tariff
tax, in its relation to raw products, of most
value.
Senator Bailey earnestly denied' heing a "pro
tection democrat" and then proceeds:
"Curiously enough, the charge that I am a
'protection democrat' is based upon my refusal
to give our manufacturers a double protection
by removing the duty from their raw material,
while still leaving a duty on their finished
products. The men who criticise me seem to
think that they can vote for a duty on manu
factured articles for the purpose of raising
revenue, but that I can only vote for a duty on
raw materials for the purposo of protection.
My tariff philosophy wholly excludes the idea of
protection and looks purely and only to revenue.
"I believe in a duty on wool as well as on.
woolen goods, but advocate a duty on each for
the purpose of raising revenue, and I would not
levy a duty on either for the purpose of protec
tion. There Is no sound principle of taxation
which requires me to exempt the manufacturer
from a duty on his Imported wool, and the only
argument in favor of free wool I have ever heard
or read is that if the manufacturer is allowed
to import his wool without the payment of a
duty on it he can manufacture his goods at a
lower cost. That argument does not convince
me, hecause It is as true of every other man as
It is of the manufacturer, and if we are going
to relieve anybody from taxation in order to
reduce their expenses, we ought first to relieve
those who are the least able to pay their taxes,
and who, therefore, stand In the greatest need
of relief.
"When analyzed, the policy of free raw ma
terial bears absolutely no relation to the ques
tion of revenue, and it is a pure device to give
the manufacturer, an advantage nc-enjoyed by
the other classes of our people. I do not ques
tion the patriotism of those who insist upon
extending that Bpecial favor to our manufac
turers, but I do deny their right to call me a pro
tectionist because I Insist that every class shall
bear its fair share of taxation. I have always
believed that our manufacturers are the chief
beneficiaries of our tariff system, and they will
be the last to receive an exemption from It at
my hands. It is a grotesque absurdity for a
man calling himself a democrat to demand that
the manufacturers shall be relieved from all
taxes on what they buy, and yet be left to exact
a tribute from American consumers, on what
they sell a tribute, too, that will he still
further enhanced by the additional duties which
must be imposed on their manufactured goods
in order to supply the loss of revenue incurred
by placing their Taw material on the free list."
Senator Bailey makes a strong exparte pre
sentation but It is difficult to accept as the calm
judgment of this able man the reasons which he
assigns for insisting on a tax on wool. "My
tariff philosophy wholly excludes the idea of
protection and looks purely and only to reve
nue." Then why lay a tariff tax on raw wool,
forcing the manufacturer to pay the tax not only
on Imports, but to put the amount of the tax
into the pockets of American wool growers, and
charge the total to the consumers of manufac
tured wool? The average Imports of raw wool
for ten years have been but 22.07 per cent of
the quantity consumed by American mills. In
other words using round numbers and speaking
relatively: A duty of five cents a pound would
bring the custom houses $5,000,000 for 100,
000,000 pounds imported, but would givo the
wool-growers in Texas and elsewhoro In America
approximately $20,000,000 for 400,000,000
pounds. The manufacturers pay the five mil
lions duty and the twenty millions protection
to the wool-grower and charge the $25,000,000
to the American consumer.
The "philosophy" of a tariff tax "purely and
only" for revenue should includo the Idea of
conveying into the national treasury the largest
possible per cent of the Increase which tho
tariff forces tho consumer to pay. According
to Senator Bailey, ho would put a tariff tax on
raw wool regardless of tho amount of Import.
It is a "pure" revenue measure to make manu
facturers pay ono dollar (to bo afterwards re
turned to them by the purchasers of tho
finished product) when but five or ten or twenty
cents goes into the government's strong box
and the remainder as "incidental protection" to
the producer?
There is no wish on the part of sane persons
in any section to crush or cripple American
manufacturers. Many of them have been un
justly pampered but the prosperity of all is
desired; on the prosperity of manufactories is
dependent the prosperity of many parte of this
country. It is the wish of all Americans that
the American manufacturer should be able to
compete in other markets. The first essential
to such competition is that he shall be able to
buy his raw material at least as cheaply as
manufacturers of other countries, and that ho
can not do with a tariff tax in America on that
which is free to manufacturers elsewhere.
Now, then, if we tax the manufacturer's raw
material and from 70 to 80 per cent of tho
tax he pays go into the pockets of tho producer
the manufacturer will appeal for protection
against the manufacturer who buys raw material
in a free market, and ho will have a strong case.
"It is a grotesque absurdity for any man call
ing himself a democrat to demand that tho
manufacturers should be relieved of all taxes
on what they buy, and yet be left to exact a
tribute from American consumers on what they
sell." So it would, but it is a "grotesque ab
surdity" that Senator Bailey has1 frequently
imagined but none other has suggested. Tho
democrat who would make raw material free is
thinking about tho "American consumer." Ho
Is the ono whose set purpose is to deprive tho
manufacturer of the power of exacting that
"tribute." He wiBhes, for example, to have tho
tariff on manufactured wool so low that foreign
wool manufacturers can come here, pay tho
duty Into the custom houses, and compote with
American manufacturers. A strictly "revenue
tariff" would be fixed at the point which would
actively stimulate imports while producing the
greatest amount of revenue. The cost of all
clothing, wholly or partly of wool, would be
reduced, and while the customs revenue would
be large, the consumer would gain several dol
lars, where the government gained one. But
if the , government taxes raw material it must
Increase tho tariff on the manufactured product
to reach an equitable basis; it must, in other
words, protect the manufacturer as an offset
to the protection given under whatever name
called to tho wool-grower, and add to the cost
to tho consumer of every thread of manufac
tured material.
Tho leaders of Mr. Bailey's party are opposed
to him on this policy. Oscar W, Underwood,
chairman of the ways and means committee, re
cently Informed the editor of the State that his
committee would stand for free raw material;
not as a principle but as a policy. There would
be cases, Mr. Underwood thought, where the
revenue consideration would be such as to war
rant an exception as sugar for Instance but
the policy of the party, as represented by tho
committee charged with the duty of preparing
the revenue and tariff measures, would be for
free raw material.
THE TAXED RAW MATERIAL PRETENSE
Following is an editorial printed In the
Indianapolis Star: Those members of congress
who thought they had Mr. Bryan muzzled on
the surrender of freo wool can not derive much
comfort from the utterances he puts forward
in this issue of The Commoner, after he has had
a week or so to think it over. He makes good
his promise not to advocate a bolt of the caucus
or a vote against the Underwood bill; but he
makes it very clear that he deplores the retreat
from this time-honored democratic doctrine.
Democrats have reason to regret, he says,
"that tho coinmittco abandoned tho free wool
principle, and still moro reason to regrot that
a democratic caucus indorsed tho commltteo'a
action." If tho democratic party can bo scared
by tho bleat of a sheep, ho asks, "what will it
do when it hears tho bellow of tho bulls and
tho growl of tho boars on Wall stroot?" Ho
pronounces it "a stop backward, at a time when
tho tariff reform sentlmont of tho country ia
moving forward."
It is hardly fair to Mr. Bryan to say that ho
merely criticises, as has been charged, but pro
poses nothing positive Ho does propoBo some
thing, for ho says that freo wool would bo better
for tho party to adopt. lie would havo tho
paTty not bo deceived by tho sophistical advico
to adapt the houso legislation to what it la
thought tho republican senato would pass, but
to show tho country what it may expect of tho
democratic party if it should como Into full
power not concessions to tho protected in
terests, but redemption of pledges and relief for
tho consumer.
Mr. Bryan is also honest enough to ropudiato
wholly tho dishonest pretenso that tho wool
tariff is retained because of tho revenue extre
mities of tho treasury. Ho knows, as well aa
everybody else knows, that this is a palpable
fraud. You can defend every protective tariff
in that way, ho says; and ho characterizes tho
plea of revenue necessity, as "absurd." It ia
a "specious" argument, ho says, and will not
deceive either tho consumer or tho country. "If
tho democratic party is to bo of real service to
public Interests," Mr. Bryan says, "it will bo
controlled by the voice and conscience of tho
rank and file and in accordance with tho party's
principles."
Mr. Bryan's conduct in this matter is above
reproach. He does not use any violent or. un
kind words or resort to exuberant oratory, but
he tells the truth about the surrender on freo
wool In restrained and eimple language, which
makes his meaning clear without vitupera
tion or abuse. It seems a far cry from his
youthful ardor of expression to this wcll-polsed
statesmanlike mood; and it la both an impres
sive and a pathetic thought that if Grovor Cleve
land wore allvo today, this utteranco of Mr.
Bryan could hardly fall to draw theso two great
democrats together; for It was precisely upon
just such a betrayal of democratic principles
as this (though tho malefactors of Mr. Cleve
land's time did not dare to tamper with freo
wool) that drew from him tho letter in which
ho characterized the surrender of freo raw ma
terials as an act of "perfidy and dishonor."
SHALL DEMOCRATS PRACTICE WHAT
THEY PREACH?
No subsequent concession that the democratic
Aldriches aro able to wring from Mr. Bryan can
vitiate tho merit of his splendid outbursts
against tho surrender onfree wool. It may well
bo doubted whether any considerable number
of honest democrats will bo reconciled to a
democratic tariff bill, to be defended exactly aa
tho Aldrich-Payne bill was, on tho ground that
it is "a step in tho right o .oction" and that
business must not be distuned.
Thimble-rigging about th comparative merits
of various ad valorem or specific duties on raw
wool is entirely out of place and palpably dis
honest. So is the pretense that duties on raw
wool are tariffs for revenue uAtariff for revenue
only is free raw materials and revenue duties
on manufactures. A tariff for revenue is laid
on things wo do not produce, but must buy, not
home products that crave support, for that
would bo protection.
It Is to Mr. Bryan's credit that he would not
allow this lying pretense about tariff revenue in
connection with the surrender on Schedule K
to get by him without denouncing it for Juat
what it Is a fraud of the first water. The Ne
braskan may not bo tho slickest politician in tho
world, but he is an honest man. Ho knows tho
difference between crooked politics and straight
forward conduct.
In the wool-growing states tho democratic
congressmen are afraid of losing republican
votes. They want to save the tariff on wool,
and the revenue extremities of the treasury are
invented to excuse them. It is a very crooked
and discreditable piece of business. If there
Is any democratic tariff doctrine In tho world,
it Is free raw materials. If there is any prin
ciple of free raw materials that has always been
sacred hitherto, it Is free wool.
What tho tariff on wool ought to be has no
place In this discussion at all. Tho question of
revenues is not before the house. The over
whelming issue that dwarfs everything else into
Insignificance is tho question of essential man-
t.
4)9tm mn&mmHiw ummti I
vliWMJfaJ!
.ij-cjXriiftfripww qv.ifc-i. i -