The Commoner.
Sept. i9t 1909
13
framed to meet conditions, and wo And
now that infants that could get along
on 10 per cent when they were born,
and 20 per cent when they were chil
dren, and 30 per cent when they were
young men, have required 40, 50, 60, or
70 per cent when old and entering upon
their second childhood.
Therefore they had to frame new ar
guments. What is tho argument ad
vanced now? It ia that the conditions
in this country are such that wo can
not compete wltn other countries, "and
that therefore we must put upon the
imported article a tariff making the
price so high that we can afford to
produce the article in this country. Do
they say that they need a protective
tariff to help tne sheep Industry get
upon its feet? Not at all. Mr. Law
rence in his speech said in regard to
the impossibility of competing:
"And these are the existing con
ditions. In Australia merino wool
can be and is produced at a less
cost than it can be in tho United
States, because. (1) pasturage can
bo had there for a few cents an
acre, and (2) the climate there Is
suo.i that substantially no winter
feeding is required. The same is
true of South America."
We are even assured by tho same
high authority that "wool growers
should at the first practical moment
demand gradually annually Increasing
duties on all classes of wools just as
our increasing flocks can supply in
creasing demands." A modest de
mand! They offer no hope of reduc
tion. In discussing protection our
friends are in the habit of claiming ev
erything possible. Why, tho gentle
man froa Maine (Mrs Dingley) stated
to us seriously that the tariff on wool
had made more pounds of wool grow
on a sheep's back.
That is in the Record, that protec
tion is responsible for the fact that
the sheep today produce more wool
than they- used to. I have often
thought how perplexed the sheep must
Lave been after the passage of the last
bill when they got together and con
sulted among themselves as to how
they wero going to increase the
amount of their wool now that the
tariff had. made it necessary. But no
body, Mr. Chairman, has said to this
house that protection would reduce the
price of pasturage in this country, nor
has anybody claimed that it would so
moderate the climate as to do away
with the necessity for winter feeding.
The theory, Mr. Chairman, upon which
this is justified might as well be met
here as anywhere; and I want to state,
as emphatically as words can state it,
that I consider it as false in economy
and vicious in policy to attempt to
raise at a high price in this country
that which we can purchase abroad
at a low price in exchange for the
products of our toil.
It was said by a gentleman who ap
peared before the committee I think
at the last congressthat wool conld
be raised in Australia for 6 cents a
pound, and that it could not bo raised
in this country for less than 15 cents;
and we are told that ft la a wise pol
icy to so tax imported wool as to en
able our people to raiso wool at IS
cents a pound instead of buying it at
6 cents a pound; that we save money
and give employment to labor. If that
principle is true, then it is wise to
raise wool at 15 cents a pound instead
of buying at 3 cents, because wo save
more in labor. If it is wise: to raise
it at 15 cents a pound instead of buy
ing it at 3, it is still Wiser to raise it
at 15 cents rather than have somebody
give it to us.
Taat is what it load to; and tho
gentlemen who maintain that position
are fit companions for the people who
are supposed by Bastiat to have peti
tioned the French legislature to find
soma way of preventing the sun from
shining, because it interfered with the
business of the candle-makers. If
their theory is true, then the most unwind-
act of the Creator was to send
.
that great orb of day every morning
to chaso away tho shadows of tho
night, flood all the earth with his
brightness, and throw out of employ
ment those who otherwise might bo
making tallow candles to light tho
world.
It was said by a French writer that
Robinson Crusoe was a protectionist;
that when he was on tho island all
alono ho started to mako a canoo by
hollowing out a log with a broken
stone. Just about the time he com
menced, some boards floated up to the
shore, and the thought came to him,
"I will take these boards and mako
myself a. canoe out of them;" but the
protective idea camo to him, and ho
said, "No; If I do that I will loso tho
labor I put into tho log." So he kicked
the boards away from tho shore, and
went on hacking at the log with tho
broken stone. A little Jater, when he
and Friday were together, they spent
four hours in tho morning gathering
fruiW and four hours in tho afternoon
catching game; some one camo up from
another island and said, "Oh our isl
and wo have, lots of game but no fruit;
we will bring you all the game you
can eaten in four hours for tho fruit
you can gather in two hours." '"Let
us do it," sold Friday. "Oh, no," says
Crusoe, "If we do that, what will we do
with the other two hours of labor?"
And that is the theory of our friends.
When we buy something, we buy with
the results of our toil; and they tell
us that we must not so arrange tho
laws of this country that wo can buy
a great deal, but that we must so ar
range them as to mako us work just as
long as possible upon every piece of
work we undertake. It is the old
theory, "the maximum of toil and
minimum of product" If this Is tho
true principle, then discard your rid
ing cultivators, go back to the crooked
stick, and let us plow In such a way
that all the people of this country ca.n
find employment in plowing alone.
I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, denounce
as fallacious, as unworthy of consid
eration, tho only reason that can bo
given in support of tho tariff on wool,
as a protective tariff and for protective
purposes.
I desire now, Mr. Chairman, to call
tne attention of this committee to an
other bill, known as the "binding
twine bill." This bill places upon the
free list the various kinds of binding
twine. The majority and minority of
tho committee agree upon some of the
facts. Wo agreo that there were con
sumed in this country last year about
100.000,000 pounds of binding twine.
We agreev that if a tariff of seven
tenths of 1 per cent I3 added to tho
price of the binding twine it costs the
people of this country $700,000 because
of that tariff.
We agree also that no twine was
imported and that no revenue was re
ceived by the government from this
source. Therefore, if this was a tax
upon tho consumer, it was a tax of
$700,000 taken out of the people's
pocket, not one cent of which reached
the treasury. According to the repub
lican idea, that is an ideal tariff; it
embraces t e maximum of burden with
the minimum of revenue. Follow out
that principle, arrange your schedules
upon that plan, and there will not bo
a dollar derived for the support of
government from a tariff upon Imports,
because you will have no Imports, and
yon must find some- other source of
revenue. I want to ask the gentlemen
who represent the minority if they are
in favor of applying this principle to
the other schedules; if they are in
favor of so adjusting the tariff as to
prevent imports and yet enable the
protected manufacturer here to take
tho money out of the people's pockets?
I desire to call attention briefly to
what this principle involves. It & sup-
posed that a tariff is levied because
we need revenue. 1 neara tne gentle
man who led the majority in the last
congress in the tariff discussion, Mr..
iMcKinley, in a speech which he made
at Ottumwa, la., say that wero it not
for tho necessity for revenue there
would bo no justification for a tariff
upon imports. Therefore, tho idea is
that you levy thctariff to collect rev
enue to support your government
Now, how ought it to bo dono? Sup
pose you should apply this prlnciplo
in collecting the taxes for your coun
ties and your towns. It Is estimated
that on an average for overy dollar
brought into tho treasury by import
duties $i go Into tho pockets of tho
protected Industries. What docs that
mean? It means that 80 per cent of
tho taxes paid by tho peoplo for tho
support of tho general government be
cause of import duties goes into tho
pockets of the protected Interests, and
only 20 per cent goes into the public
treasury, 80 per cent being absorbed
in collecting the tax. Try that In your
counties.
IJow many of your counties would
permit the collection, by direct taxa
tion, of $100,000 in taxes when only
$20,000 wero needed for revenue? How
many of you would pay $80,000 to
some man to collect tho $20,000 that
you wanted to use? And yet, Mr.
Chairman, according to the principle
involved In this particular item, wo
pay not 80, but 100 per cent for col
lection! Seven hundred thousand dol
lars are collocted from the people in
this case if it is a tax, not one cent of
which getfl into the troasury. Aro tho
gentlemen who represent the minority
going to justify that? I am anxious
to hear upon what principle that can
be defended.
But the minority say:
"So that, if this assumption wero
true, the entire additional cost
would only amount to 1 cent per
acre, or less than 1 mill per bushel
of grain, and yet tho saving of
this trifling sum is tho excuse giv
en by the majority," etc.
We had a report from one of the
manufacturers of binding twine that
thero aro thirty-five binding twine
factories In the United States (there
aro possibly a fow more). If that is
true, then $700,000 a year means $20,
000 to every one of these binding
twine factories. Is that a trifling con
sideration? It is trifling to tho farmer
to be taxed 1 cent an acre, but it 1b
a matter of some Importance (which
the minority seems to think of more
consideration) that it means $20,000
a year to every binding twine manufac
turer in this country. This tax Is a
small matter, Mr. Chairman; 1 cent an
acre Is trivial; the total sum is not
great; but if you concede the right of
government to collect from tho farmer
1 cent an acre in order that a bind
ing twine factory may make $20 0'
a year more, you concede tho right
of government to collect from that
farmer 1 cent "an acre on each of two
hundred additional items for the "pro
tection" of other industries, until you
have absorbed every cent of his in
come from his farm. They told us tho
other day that thero aro twenty-five
hundred articles upon the tariff list
Now, if there are twenty-five hun
dred articles upon that list, and you
can take one at a time and deal with
it upon this principle, imposing a tax
of 1 cent an acre upon the farmer
for each article, then you can. impose
an aggregate tax of $25 an. acre upon
the farmer for the benefit of some
body else. This binding twine tax is
a trifling consideration, but the farm
ers of this country who have been
oppressed, who have been made to
bleed at every pore by your Infamous
system, will welcome even a trivial
advantage as an earnest of that com
plete relief which will come when, it
is In our power to give it
But, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call
attention now to two inconsistent sen
tences that lie side by side In the re
port of ha minority. I call attention
to them mot because inconsistent sen
tences are at all rare In arguments in
defense of protection. Tou cannot take
an hour's speech in defense of a pro- J
tcctlvo tariff without finding there
contradictions standing faco to face
But I call attention to these incon
sistencies for tho purposo merely of
showing tho confusion into which
those arc led who attoinpt to prove ,
that you can boncflt one man by leg
islation without taking something from ,
somebody cloo. IJero Is tho first sen
tence: It Is ovfdont, however, from tho
roport of uio bureau of statistics
that nothing has been added to tho
prico during tho past year on ac
count of this duty.
And hero is tho next scntenco;
It is nlso evident from tho cir
cular of tho Belfast Ropo com
pany, limited, that to remove tho
tariff Is to transfer tho ontlro In
dustry to other, countries.
Horo aro two estranged products ot
ono mental effort yearning for recon
ciliation. Nov, if the first statement
is true, that no part of this duty was
added to tho prico, then how Is tho
last part true that tho removal of tho
duty Is going to transfer all this In
dustry to somo other country? Thero
can be no reconciliation of thoso pro
positions, bccauRO tho onjy way in
vhich you can drlvo out the manu
facturing industry from this country
is to so reduce tho prico of tho articlo
competing from abroad that manufac
turers In tnls country cannot afford to
mako it; and If you say that the tariff
was not added to tho price, you say
that tho price was just as low as with
out tho tariff; and when you say that
the price was just as low with tho
tariff as without tho tariff, then you
Ray It makes no difference to the man
ufacturer In this country whothcr he
has a tariff or not.
But I want to call attention to the
alarm on the part of the minority of t
the committee. . ' , v
There was a circular sent by some
twine manufacturing entablishment to
the bureau of statistics and by it nent
to us in the committee room; and this
circular offering to sell twlno Is made
to excuse In this minority report for t
retaining a tax of $700,000 on tho
farmers of this country. I suppose
that If some other man had sent a cir
cular If we had two circulars instead
of ono tho minority of tho commit
tee would have wanted to double tho
tariff and to collect $1,400,000 from tho
farmers. This shows how readily they
becomo alarmed when tho interests
of a manufacturer aro at stake, and
how slow they aro to become alarmed
when tho interests of the great conr
sumlng masses of this country arc at
stake.
Another thing. In this report thoy,
say '
If It Is true, as stated In a report
of tho majority, that tho senate in
1890 voted to place this articlo on
tho free list
"If it is. true?" Thoy will not be
lieve tho records of congress. If it is
true, then they say:
it was induced largely by tho
assumption that the price was then
regulated by a trust .and combina
tion formed with a view to force 'up -tho
price; but this condition ot
affairs which, was then proven
never to have existed Is certainly
impossible under present competi
tion. Thoy tell you that the vote in the
senate was taken upon a false assump
tionthe assumption of a condition
which did not then exist and which
is Impossible and yet the minority
of this committee hare in their pos
session a letter of Edwin H. Fitler fc
Co., saying that twenty-nine out of
thirty-five of these factories are con
trolled by the National Cordage com
pany, and that this company controls
r,n ner cent of the total output Yet in
spite of the fact that they know of the
company, its- name ana loauion, ww
the number of factories which it con
trols, they tell you to thfe report that
that vote was taken upon a supposed
condition which not only did not exist,
i i.
-tv
'
