' I1, I'M1 i;jim9MPRV
UTOjPprP
nwumnu)iwmiwnwWWF5
4
LV
The Commoner.
VOEUMB-8i- NUMBER 38
. r
' rf '& "Ei" 'j v-"?-
w-
and ask Brother Aldrich to go over them
sixty or seventy in, all, and ask Brother Aldrich to go over tnem
with me and ascertain what the people wanted in each case, and if
M i 4.i. v,;nn Vm1 nnt. ji.lrAn.nv done ex-
there were any cases wuere u uujuuiiuuw - -- ,, --
actlv what the petitioners desired or had not inflexibly passed upon
the question, I could have a hearing before you, but I find in every
instance the action of the Committee, as Mr. Aldrich thinks it kkely
to be, is entirely satisfactory to the interests I represent, with the
exception of one or two, and the papers in regard to those cases I
have handed to Mr. Aldrich." m
Mr. Miles, whom I have before quoted, says, in American Indus
tries of April of this year:
"People asking a government representative for relief on another
schedule were by that representative referred to a New England
manufacturer, the official agreeing to act in accordance with the
protected manufacturer's wishes. Said the manufacturer: 'I
wrote that schedule myself. I did not intend that it should be in
terpreted as severely as it has been, but having been so interpreted,
I will not consent to a modification of it.' And this man's will re
mains the law."
We would not expect a jury to do justice to the defendant if it
was composed entirely of the relatives of the plaintiff; neither can
we expect a congress to do justice to the masses if it is composed of
men who are in sympathy with, and obligated to, the corporations
which have for a generation been enjoying special privileges.
There is no prospect of relief from a Republican President and
Congress. The Democratic party, if entrusted with power, can and
will reduce the tariff.
The Democratic platform not only demands a reduction of the
tariff, but it plainly outlines the course to be pursued in securing
the reduction. It begins by proposing that articles which come into
competition with articles controlled by a trust be placed on the free
list. What better place to begin? Years ago Mr. Havemeyer,the
head of the Sugar Trust, said that the tariff was the mother of
trusts and her children are many. Secretary Taft, in his notifica
tion speech, says that an excessive tariff serves no useful purpose
"but offers & temptation to those who would, monopolize the pro
duction and the sale of such articles in this country, to profit by the
excessive rate."
Now suppose the manufacturers, who have been favored by legist
lation, do conspire against the public and enter into a monopoly,
ixrwt rnnalt.v do the Republicans snicra0)' Wo whatoTor. TJUcac
men are to be consulted about proposed changes, and if the next
Republican tariff is made like former Republican tariffs, nothing
will be done without the unanimous consent of the beneficiaries.
What would be the effect of the remedy proposed by the Demo
cratic platform? Simply this: a law goes into effect at some fixed
date in the future, and if the Democrats pass a law, putting upon
the free list articles coming into competition with those controlled
by a trust, the trust will have until that date to dissolve. If the
trust considers the law too drastic, it can avoid it by giving up its
monopoly.
. Secretary Taft calls this remedy "utterly destructive" and in his
anxiety to prevent it overlooks the fact that the Democratic party
lias other remedies for the trusts. If we can succeed in dissolving
existing trusts, and in preventing the organization of new ones, there
will be no trusts against which to use the remedy of which he com
plains. There is now a law against trusts, but it has not been suffi
ciently enforced to prevent trusts. The Democrats demand its en
forcement; if its enforcement rids the country of trusts, then this
policy which Mr. Taft so much fears will become perfectly harm
less. If the Democrats secure control of both the House and the
Senate, they are pledged to legislation which will make a private
monopoly impossible. If the Republicans retain control of part of
the legislative machinery of the government and refuse to join in
the effort to make a private monopoly impossible, they are not in a
position to complain of tariff legislation aimed at trusts. If they
refuse to assist us in exterminating the principle of private monop
oly, they, cannot well object to legislation necessary to protect the
people from trust extortion. uww
Mr. Taft did not refer to the platform demand that wood pulp,
print paper, lumber, timber and logs be placed upon the free list
Why? Because the President vainly besought Congress to enact a
law embodying part of this demand. It is absurd to complain of the
exhaustion of our forests while we encourage their destruction by
a tariff on the products of foreign forests. But such legislation be
comes not only a folly but a crime when it is remembered that a
handful of men monopolize the benefits flowing from the tariff on
these things while the whole country bears the burden of tfceto
5 &h Pttiew s Dakota, in a speech made in
United States Senate, referred to an important statement, which ap-
' TW wT; w ;irl" r1" "i-wespern lumberman:
l -, v VA scixnumcu irom tne northwest, np Minn.
'There
sota way, in Washington the other day, and they were sitting in
Senator Burrows 's room. An interesting incident occurred there.
Senator Burrows is chairman of the committee. The committee had
not had a meeting for a long time. They happened to be seated in
that room, and one of the gentlemen from Minnesota had an en
velope and lead pencil. He walked around the room and ciphered
up a little bit, and he said:
" 'Mr. Burrows, do you know what 1 a thousand would mean to
this crowd of men in here?'
"There were not as many in the room-as there are here. He said:
" 'An advance of $1 a thousand on lumber would mean $6,125,000
on last year's product.' "
Could more conclusive proof be desired? And the Senator Bur
rows mentioned is the same Senator Burrows who acted as Tempo
rary Chairman of the last Republican National Convention, and
sounded the key-note of the campaign.
How long will the Republican farmers, merchants and laboring
men permit a few men to make the tariff laws for their own pecun
iary advantage and at the expense of the rest of the country?
The second step in the reduction of the tariff is a "material re
duction upon the necessities of life, especially upon goods competing
with such American manufactures as are sold abroad more cheaply
than at home." At present the articles used by the poor bear a
higher rate, ad valorem, than the articles used by the rich. This
statement can be verified by an examination of any of the schedules.
A tax upon consumption, even when laid with absolute impartiality,
bears heaviest upon the poor, because our necessities are much more
uniform than our possessions. People do not eat in proportion to
their income; they do not wear clothing in proportion to their in
come; they do not use taxed goods in proportion to their income.
As all. taxes must come out of one's income, no matter through what
system levied or collected, they are, in effect, income taxes, and taxes
on consumption are really graduated income taxes, the largest per
cent being collected from those with the smallest income and the
smallest per cent from those with the largest income. It is only fair,
therefore, that in an attempt to relieve the people from the iniquities
of a high tariff, the poor, who are over-burdened, should be given
first consideration. Thenr too, a reduction in the tariff on the neces
sities of life brings a benefit to all the people, while a reduction in
the ta& upon luxuries would benefit but a portion of the people.
Surely no one will object to a reduction being made upon articles
which come into competition with American manufactures which
are sold abroad more cheaply than at home. The American manu
facturer who sends his goods to foreign lands and there, without
any protection whatever, competes successfully with the manufac
turers of all the world, does not need a high tariff to meet competi
tion in the home market. And there are enough articles sold abroad
at a low price to assure a large advantage to the American consum
ers through the carrying out of thisone plank.
Mr. Taft, however, finds the greatest alarm in the following clause
in our platform:
"Gradual reductions should be made in such other schedules as
may be necessary to restore the tariff to a revenue basis."
He regards this threatened departure from the protective system
as fatal. We are here brought face to face with the theoretical dif
ference between the positions of the two parties on the subject of
tariff. The Democratic party regards a tariff law as a revenue law,
the protection it gives being incidental; the Republican party re
gards a tariff law as framed primarily for protection, the revenue
being incidental. As the effect of a given rate on a particular article
is the same, whether levied for the purpose of revenue or for the
purpose of protection, it may be well to define, the difference between
a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. A revenue tariff is so framed
as to collect a revenue and you stop when you get enough; a pro
tective tariff may be so framed as to collect but little revenue, and
yet lay a heavy burden upon the people and you never know when
9 SiS& mustrate' a tariff may be made so high as to absolutely
prohibit unportation. If, in such a case, the manufacturers yield to
the temptation mentioned by Mr. Taft and combine to take advan
tage oi the duty, the consumers will be heavily taxed, and yet none
of the money will reach the treasury.
Let us suppose another case: If we import onctenth of a certain
2 rcbandise and produce at home nine-tenths, and the im
ported and domestic articles sell at the same price, theii the treasury
receives duty on the foreign article and the manufacturers collect
nine times as much on the domestic article as the treasury collects
on the one-tentii imported. It becomes matter of great importance,
therefore, to the people at large, whether the tariff is intended to
raise a revenue or is framed in the interest of the manufacturers
and for the purpose of protection. No one would think of employ
ing in a city, a county or a state, a tax system under which the bulk
of the tax would go to the collectors, and yet the Republican leaders
demand the continuance of a system under which tiie protected in
terests receive far more thanialf the money collected from the peo
ple through the operation of a high tariff
-ii kM iMiTrii , ,t,,- . .oi . . . ... ... ... .
'-w.ii n i, tJft,.,flftj "ntjlilt:
.AklUKt!Ai tWMtU.4,iM.
ftAAfc-mJ ,
,at A.-V-L&,jfc- WflJ
HUt-"- jjtag
iH. ,... -etmiTtialsliiftxaMiiittM
