The Commoner,
Sept. 19, 190a
3 The Tariff Question
In response to numerous requests (or copl
Speech of Mr. Bryan In the
House of Representatives, Wed
of tills Speech, it Is published In The Cem
moner. The principles then discussed are
ytt vital ones
nesday, flarch 16, i892.
The house, being in committee of the whole
on tho state of the union, and having under con
sideratfon the bill (H. R. 6007) to place wool on
the free list and to reduce the duties on woolen
Bryan said:
Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Dingley) put forward to open tho debate by
our friends who occupy the wedge-shaped spaco
on what used to be called the republican sido,
has seen fit to criticise as sporadic the bills so far
reported by the committee. He has also found fault
with the method which has been adopted.
I desire to say tnat I am in hearty sympathy
with the majority of the committoo in its decision
to attack the tariff in detail; and I think that
the bills which have been reported and tho bills
to be reported will fully answer tho argument
of the gentleman that we are maldng only a slight
assault upon the system.
Tho main reason which has led mo to favor
this method of attack is, that it is possible that
eome of the bills reported by tho committee may
pass the senate and receive tho sanctioa of tho
president, and if we can succeed in bringing to tho
people of this country relief in any form, oven to a
small decree, we shall be accomplishing far more
for our country, and, as I believe, doing better for
our party, than if we simply attempt to make a
record by a general bill, with no prospect of its
passage.
Another reason: This will enable us to un
mask some of the republicans of the north and
west, who have insisted to their people that they
believe in reforming the tariff in the interest
of the consumers, and that they were anxious to
give certain relief, but always shield themselves
behind tho extended provisions of a general bill.
If we are thus able to put those people upon a
defense before their constituents, which they are
poorly prepared to make, wo will have done some
thing for our country.
The gentleman from. Maine (Mr. Dingley),
however, in that remarkable plea which ho made
against freo wool when he was discharging the
self-imposed task of defending the agricultural
classes, a spectacle as unexpected as it was absurd,
would have you 'believe that the only cause of
his solicitude was the fear that this bill might
injure the farmer.
But you who listened to him will remember
that the climax was reached when he turned to
this side of the house and with tho most intense
fear depicted upon his features exclaimed that the
policy of tho committee was to 'divide and con
quer." He had perhaps read tho Home Market
Bulletin, where Mr. Draper said that "protection
ists must stand together or fall separately." Ho
had perhaps read in that same Bulletin that the
"wool tariff is tho keystone of tho protective
arch." And we then understood from his mani
festations of anxiety that what he feared was not
so much that the farmer might be injured as that
protection might lose one of its most ardent cham-
That was a confession, Mr. Chairman, that the
protective system cannot stand upon its merits.
It was a confession that they dare not go before
the people and "defend the tariff upon each ar
ticle upon the ground that it is right and needed.
It was a confession that this system is sustained
simply by the co-operation of the beneficiaries of a
tariff, and that they are held together by "tho co
hesive power of plunder." It was a confession that
the loss of one defender might endanger the whole
If, Mr. Chairman, the fears of tho gentleman
from Maine are realized, the committee will find
in that fact complete justification for its course;
renewed ope and encouragement will be given
to that largo proportion of our people who have
felt the burdens of a protective tariff, but have
been unable to obtain relief because of the log
rolling of those who stand behind this bulwark.
I desire to call attention first to the bill now
under consideration, and then to what Is known
as the binding-twine bill, which, though not reg
ularly before tho committee, has been referred to
by our friends on the other side; and then, If the
committee is willing to listen, I should like to go
even further and accept the challenge of the gen
tleman from Maine (Mr. Dingley) to discuss the
principle of protection, I consider myself for
tunate that I am permitted to hear protective doc
trine from its highest source. Out in Nebraska we
ore so far away from tho beneficiaries of a tariff
that tho arguments in justification of protection
in traveling that long distance become somewhat
diluted and ofton polluted, so that I am glad to
be permitted to drink tho water fresh from its
fountains in Maine and Massachusetts, and I will,
assure the gentleman (Mr. Dingley) that thoso of
us who believe in tariff reform are willing to
meet him upon tho principle involved, not only
here, but everywhere.
The bill under consideration provides for ad
mitting freo of duty wool and thoso associated ar
ticles which we know as raw material In tho
woolen industry. It also takes away entirely thoso
specific or compensatory duties which wera added
to tho ad valorem rates to enable tho manufacturer
to transfer to tho back of the consumer the bur
den which a tariff on raw material places upon tho
manufacturer. Wo have also reduced tho ad
valorem rates, leaving tho rates ranging from 25
to 45 per cent, with an average of not qulto 40 per
cent, less than the Mills bill, whereas tho present
rates average over 90 per cent Wo havo loft tho
tariff lowest upon the articles which aro cheapest
and of most necessary use.
The reason why I believe in putting raw ma
terial upon tho free list is because any tax im
posed upon raw material must at last bo taken
from the consumer of tho manufactured article.
You can impose no tax for tho benefit of the pro
ducer of raw material which does not find its way,
through tho various forms of manufactured prod
uct, and at last press with accumulated weight
upon tho person who uses tho finished product
Another reason for believing that raw material
should be upon the free list is because that is the
only method by which one business can bo fav
ored without injury to another. We aro not, in
that case, imposing a tax for tho benefit of tho
manufacturer, but we aro simply saying to the
manufacturer: "Wo will not impose any burden
upon you." When we give to tho manufacture?
freo raw material and freo machinery, wo give
to him, I think, all tho encouragement which a
people acting under a freo government like ours
can legitimately give to an industry.
The reduction which we have made in tho
tariff upon manufactured articles is agreat reduc
tion in existing schedules. It is not as great a
reduction gs might be made. I believe that wo
havo loft far more tariff than can be shown to
be necessary to provide for any difference, if there
be any difference, between the cost of manufac
ture here and abroad. But I am led to agree to
this moderate reduction of the tariff upon manu
factured articles for two reasons; first, because,
in going from a vicious system and I believe that
our present system is a vicious system, created by
the necessities of war and continued by favoritism
because, I say, in going from a vicious to a
correct system the most rapid progress can bo
made by degrees.
Another reason why I am willing to stop at
this point at this time is because all measures
of legislation must be practical rather than ideal.
We are' confronted by a conaiiion. Notwithstand
nlg tho attempt of the people to turn out of power
those who in tho last congress ran riot, the limita
tions of our constitution have prevented us from
obtaining control of more than one of the three
co-ordinate branches of the legislative power. Any
bill to become a law must pass not only this
house, but also tho senate, which is hostile, and
must receive tho approval of a republican presi
dent. Therefore, if we expect success we must
leave room for no objection that a republican can
take advantage of as a justification for standing
in the way of this relief. And I believe in this
bill wo have done that; there is no objection that
the republican party can stand upon in opposition
to this bill and upon which they dare to go be
fore the country. ,,,,
I desire to call attention, Mr. Chairman, to
the advantage which this bill brings to tho people
of this country. Wo are not prepared to say, no
body can affirm positively, what effect the present
tariff on wool has upon the wool-grower. I read
in the address of Judge Lawrence, before tho
Ohio Wool-Growers' association, that in his opin
ion the man in this country who raises sheep re
ceives for his wool the foreign price of wool plus
tho duty upon wool. But there are many who
differ from him. Many sheep-raisers believe that
the farmer does not receive the tariff duty upon
wool which is imposed ostensibly for his benefit,
and they point to the decline in the number of
sheep and In tho price of wool undor protection.
I caro not, for tho nako of tho argument,
which position Is true. Ono of thrco conditions
must exist at this time. Wo havo Imposed a
tariff upon wool; wo havo given a compensatbry
duty, which is oquivalont to that tariff, upon
wool in all its manufactured forms. Tho manu
facturer of wool must, If ho buys foreign wool,
pay this duty. Now, if the farmer goto no In
creased price for his wool becauso of protection,
and tho manufacturer deals honestly with tho peo
ple and does not chargo them anything oxtra,
then tho removal of tho duty will still bring relief
to tho consumors of woolen goods by reducing tho
prlco of imported wool without affecting the price
of tho farmer's homo-grown wool. This is tho
first condition which may exist
It is also possible that tho manufacturer In
this country, having tho advantage of tho com
pensatory duties, does chargo up to tho pcoplo
who buy woolen goods tho amount of tho tariff
as if ho paid it to tho farmer, and yet ho may
not pay It to tho farmer. In that case tho passage
of this bill will still moro largoly reduco tho cost
of goods to tho consumer and not affect tho farmer
who raises sheep.
There may bo a third condition. It may be
that tho manufacturer of woolen goods pays tho
duty upon imported wool and pays & like amount
on home-grown wool and then charges to tho con
sumer just exactly, under tho compensatory duties,
the amount which ho has had to pay as a tariff
upon foreign wool and as fin additional price upon
tho home-grown wool. If that condition exists,
then tho oporation of this bill will bo to bring to
tho pcoplo of this country who consume woolen
goods tho reduction made by tho bill and to pre
vent the grower of wool from collecting from tho
consumer of woolen goods, through his agent tho
manufacturer, tho amount of which he. has been
receiving.
Now, thoso aro tho throo conditions, ono of
which must exist I do not caro, my friends, for
tho sake of argument, which condition exists, I
am in favor of this bill. I am in favor of it in
tho first placo, because it makes a reduction in ad
valorem rates; and in addition thereto, if tho first
condition supposed exists, reduces tho prlco of
woolen goods to tho extent of tho tariff paid, on
imported wool. This is only just, becauso such
necessary articles as woolen goods should not be
made so expensive as they aro to tho groat masses
of our people.
If the socond condition exists, and tho manu
facturer is charging up against us as consumers
that which he does not pay, I am still in favor of
tho bill, and in favor of taking away from him
this unjust and unfair advantage.
If tho third condition exists, and tho manu
facturer collects from us simply what ho pays to
tho farmer who raises sheep, I am still in favor
of this bill, becauso I do not believe we should
make a manufacturer or any ono else an agent to
collect money from one man and pay it into tho
pocket of another man. So you can 'take either
condition you like, and you can frame any de
fense you please, but .1 , am in favor of this bill
from any standpoint and on any condition.
But there is another phase of this question, Mr.
Chairman. The amount of wool produced in this
country is about 4 pounds per capita; tho amount
of wool consumed is about 6 pounds per capita.
Therefore wo consume about 50 per cent moro
than wo produce. Hence, if whatever benefit there
is from a tariff on wool is equally divided among
all the people, then the abolition of this compen
satory duty, not to speak of the reduction In ad
valorem rates, brings to the people of the coun
try about 50 per cent moro of advantage than it
can possibly take away from them.
I find that in the states east of the Mississippi
river we havo now about one-half the number of
sheep that we had when protection took the wool
industry ot the country into Its encouraging em
brace. I find but two states, Michigan and Ohio,
which have ono sheep per capita. Tho average
production is about 6 pounds per sheep. There
fore, in a state that has one sheep per capita the
people of the state would get just as much relief
from this bill as they could possibly lose because
of the repeal of the tariff duties on wool. Maine
has a little less than one sheep per capita, and
therefor she would receive more advantage by a
(Continued on Page 12.)
