'msanT ir xrjtySWt''" "?5pwtr " """'
!.
i)i
JULY 14, 1911
the election of representatives, in order to secure
the election of senators by a direct vote of tho
people, I will vote for it in that form; but I
consider tho optional plan very much stronger
than either.
It Is not original with me, although, so far
as I know, I was the first to proposo it to con
gress. Judge Thomas, of Deadwood, S. D., first
suggested it to me, and I accepted the sugges
tion as a good one, because tho plan avoided
the question of federal control, acted in the lino
of least resistance, and recognized the demo
cratic principle of allowing the state to decide
the manner of election for itself. Mr. Bush
nell, of Wisconsin, presented a minority report
in favor of it in the last congress, I having then
introduced a bill embodying the optional feature.
The substitute which I have presented is the
only one that I have seen which avoids all other
questions. If anybody has any other pr6posi
tion which will avoid both Scylla and Charybdis
I will willingly support it, but no such proposi
tion hatf been offered and I do not know of any
that has been suggested anywhere. This leaves
the state to do as it pleases and avoids all side
Issues. No person can complain of this propo
sition on the ground that it takes away an
existing right. No persn can oppose it who does
not want to engraft on the constitution some
new provision not there today, and I ask you
are you going to load this question down with
burdens that it ought not to carry?
Are you going to make its fate depend on
other propositions over which people are con
tending, or are you going to do the patriotic
thing and say that because you believe in the
election of senators by the people you will
submit that proposition, simple and direct,, for
the people to decide upon? If you do the latter
I Relieve that victory is ours. I believe that we
can call upon, the common people and Bummon
them to the defense of their rights; but, sirs,
if we ask them to accept this proposition con
nected with some party tenet we must go out
arid fight the prejudices of thirty years. Is it
not the part of patriotism, Is it not the part' of
wisdom, to strike from this everything but the
one" proposition and make the opponents of
pophlar government .come oU(t in the' ojipn , field .
and'Hglit for,,tbej.cqtrdl of; politics, by, corpora
tion ,lf they dare to' .make such a fight? ?- (Ap.n ,
plause.) ' , ' ,i
The Speaker. ' The 'question is now on the
substitute of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bryan), which will be read.
The clerk read as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and
insert the following:
That the following amendment be proposed to
the legislatures of the several states, which,
when ratified by three-fourths of said legisla
tures, shall become and be' a part of the con
stitution, namely: That section 3 of Article I
bo amended as follows:
Strike out of the third section of Article I
the following words: "The senate of the
United States shall be composed of two sena
tors from each state chosen by the legislature
thereof, for six years; and each senator shall
have one vote;" and insert in lieu thereof the
following words:
"The senate of the United States shall be
composed of two senators from each state, chosen
for six years; and each senator shall have one"
vote. The senators Bhall be chosen by the legis
latures of the several states unless the people
of any state, either through their legislature
or by the constitution of the state, shall pro
vide for the election of United States senators
by direct vote of the people, then, in such case,
during tho existence of such statutory or con
stitutional provision, United States senators
Bhall be elected in such state at large by direct
vote of the people; a plurality shall, elect, and
the electors shall have the qualification requi
site for electors of the most numerous branch
of the sate legislature."
The question being taken on agreeing to the
substitute, there were, on a division (called for
by Mr. Bryan) ayes 78, noes 66.
Mr. Tucker. I call for tellers.
"" Tellers were ordered.
Mr. Hepburn. I call for the yeas and nays.
The question was taken; and there were
yeas 88, nay 108, answered "present" 2, not
' voting 153.
c i r, i r
PRAOTICAIi TARIFF TAMOS
' The presence In tho tariff law of a duty upon
wool is due to a combination formed years ago
nd perpetuated by succeeding agreements be
, tween the wool growers and the manufacturers.
The Commoner.
In this compact the wool growers woro clearly
overreached by the representatives of tho manu
facturers, but they have not objected because,
while not receiving the protection thoy ostensibly
get, they have been given an opportunity to grow
rich at the expense of the consumer. All of
tho wool grown in this country Is purchased by
tho manufacturers, and every cent of tariff upon
their purchase is paid by them In the first place.
Ordinarily a man would not bo content to favor
a plan whereby tho raw materials of his busi
ness wore made more costly to him. Under the
protective system, tho manufacturers have been
generally satisfied by being given a protective
duty on what tboy make. This was not true
with tho woolen manufacturers, howevor, and
under the compensatory duty system, which
appears only in this schedule, thoy have boon
given the opportunity to levy an enormous
tribute upon tho masses who must buy clothing.
-In previous articles I havo endeayprcd to mako
plain just what this compensatory duty moans.
It is rather difficult to define in a few phrases,
but the vital part it cuts In determining tho cost
of each suit, of clothes or ot each dross made of
materials of which wool forms "a part justify
a further effort to make clear what this audiclous
trick consists of. It should bo understood that
this is a duty over and above and In addition to
the protective duty, which Is the duty levied
presumably to cover differences in labor cost
between the homo manufacturer and tho foreign
manufacturer. It is levied to cpmpensato tho
manufacturer for the extra price of tho wool
which enters Into -the clotli because of tho
tariff assessed against foreign wool. As this
tariff Is 11 cents a pound on greased wool, tho
law Says that' the manufacturer shall also have
li cents a" pound, but the compensatory duty Is
levied upon c'lbtn and cloth is taxed by tho
pound. On the presumption that it requires four
pounds of greased wool to make one pound of
cloth, the duty Is, therefore, four times 11
cents, or 44 cents. But as in most pieces pf
cldth It takes' but two pounds of wool to mrfke
one" pound of dlotfi, the manufacturer actually'
gets twice as much compensation as .vhe . is
entitled to: - - -
Thereto lies the -explanation of why tbe,wodl'eri ,
manufacturers are soeagfcr Jo ,hnve the price of',
raw material made higher to them by law. 'Put"
it another way: Because of tho tariff tho
woolen manufacturer fs required to pay 11 cents
a pound more for the wool he uses than he would
pay if there were no tariff. The manufacturer
says to congress, "because I must pay this much
more than does my trade rival in foreign coun
tries, where there is no wool tariff, I ought to
be compensated for this extra cost." Congress
takes him at his word that it requires four
pounds of greased wool to make one pound of
cloth, and fixes the compensatory duty on each
pound of cloth at 44 cents. But as he uses only
two pounds of greased wool to make each pound
of cloth, his actual expense because of the tariff
on raw wool is but 22 cents. The other 22 cents
he pockets. As the ordinary cloth used in suit
making runs from 12 to 19 ounces to the yard,
and it requires about two and a half yards for
a suit, it Is not difficult to figure out just how
much this unearned "compensation" adds to
the cost of each suit.
When Senator La Follette was making his
great speech in congress against the compensa
tory duty fraud, he cited a number of analyses
of cloth made by the Textile Record, a trade
organ .that has waged ineffective war upon it.
Some of the figures are interesting. One piece
analyzed consisted of 10,000 yards of worsted
serge, 54 Inches wide, weighing 18.4 ounces to
the yard. It weighed 11,500 pounds, and con
tained 21,941 pounds of greased wool. The duty
which should have been allowed the manufac
turer to compensate him for the higher price he
was obliged to pay because of tho duty on wool,
assuming that tho price was increased by the
full amount of the duty, was $2,413. Tho actual
duty allowed him, under the DIngley law
which is the same as now was $5,000. On an
other piece the duty was assessed on the theory
that it contained 16,748 pounds of greased wool,
whereas In fact It required but 9,700. This
meant a present to the manufacturer on the
10,000 yards In the piece of over $3,000. The
other pieces submitted to analysis showed the
same disproportion between fact and supposi
tion; In actual business practice the manufac
turer makes a largo profit off tho duty on raw
wool, and his interest, because of tho compensa-
tory 'duty, lies entirely in a high tariff on wool,
whereas, without It, ho would naturally be for
free wool, if he consulted his own interest.
C. Q. D.
'V
f
(Headlines and dispatch from Donver Times of
July 7.)
Bryan Rushes to the
Rescue of Both Parties
Has Plan to Settle Squabble Over Direct Eleo
tion of United States Senators.
Leave It To States, He Say
Scheme Ho Suggested in 1804 Will Enable Con
gress to Dodge Question of Federal Control.
EACH PACTION IS SAFEGUARDED
(By John Callan O'Laughlln.)
Washington, July 7. (Spocial dispatch to
Denver Times.) William Jonnings Bryan has
mado a proposal which may straighten out tho
tangle between tho senate and houso of repre
sentatives' with reference to tho direct election
of senators.
He has revived and submitted to the conforees
of the senate and house the plan he advocated
in 1894, when a membor of congress. This, he
believes, will dispose of tho troublesome ques
tion over the continued control of the federal
government over tho time, place and mannor of
holding elections.
Tho senate resolution loft this power in tho
hands of tho United States. Tho house resolu
tion confined it to tho states. The democrat
to a largo extent, particularly those of tho bouse,
have insisted upon the adoption of the house'
scheme.
In an attempt 'to reach an agreement the vice
president appointed as conferees on tho part of
tho' semtto Messrs Clark of Wyoming, Nelson'
of Minnesota and Bacon of Georgia, whilo
Speaker Clark named as representatives of tho
houso Messrs. Rucker of Missouri, Conry of Ncwa
York and Olmsted of Pennsylvania. .
LEAVE CHOICE TO STATES
Tho composition of this committee is such as
to indicate great difficulty in effecting a satis
factory compromise. Mr. Bryan's plan, bow
over, may bo the solution of tho situation. It
Is as follows:
"The senate of tho United States shall be com
posed of two senators from each state, chosen for
six years, and each senator shall havo one vote.
The senators shall be chosen by tho legislatures
of the several states, unless the people of any
state, either through their legislatures or by
tho constitution .of tho state, shall provide for
the election of United States senators by direct
vote of tho people. Then, in such case, during
the existence of such statutory or constitutional
provision, United States senators shall be elected
in such state at large by direct vote of the
people; a plurality shall elect, and the electors
shall have the qualifications requisite for elec
tors of the most numerous branch of the stato
legislature."
Mr. Bryan explained that under his plan It
would be left optional with a state whether It4
should elect senators by a direct voto or not.
BOTH FACTIONS SAFEGUARDED ,
"Tho justification for this plan," ho said, "is
simple and plain. If we leave it optional with
tho states, we are not compelled either to pro
hibit federal interference or to provide for it.
The optional plan gives to the republican party
all the protection which it now has. It gives
to the democrats who want to prohibit federal
interference all tho protection they now have.
"If wo adopt this substitute wo leave it to tho
states to say whether they wish to elect senators
by the people under tho constitution as it is
now. If the republicans say it will give the right
of federal interference, let them believe so and
voto for it; but it does not alter the constitution.
"If those who oppose federal interference fear
that the general government will attempt to
control the election of senators, I say to them
this bill provides that the state may go back and
elect by the present plan, if it desires, and thus
secure all the protection it has now. Thereforo
it gives to the man who opposes federal inter
ference every safeguard now provided.
"It gives to the man who favors federal con
trol every safeguard he has today. My substi
tute neither adds to nor takes from the consti
tution so far as federal control is concerned."
I
4
f il
;
n I
I
I 1
i
i
I
PI
i
in
i
v-
iiitik5
4 & 222m