WJW- Tt"r 1 V 'WWBliyrtT'yvy;; Hj.V"fllllt',""CnVW ' W V 'WV'WWPK'W
The Commoner.
. , WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
Ir.
VOL. 9, NO. 20
Lincoln, Nebraska, May 28, 1909
Whole Number 436
" Protectionists
' There are several things to be considered by
the congressman who is called upon to vote on
the tariff question. He is to represent his dis
trict, of course, but before a democrat can
justify ,a vote in favor of a protective tariff he
must "decide, first, that the principle of protec
tion is right, second, that the policy of protec
tion is wise, and third, that the protection asked
for is necessary. If it is not right to tax one
man for the benefit of another, then a protective
tariff can not bo justified, even though the
benefits of the tariff on a particular schedule
might go into a congressman's district. If the
principle of protection is wrong, no democratic
congressman can afford to vote for it. As a
rule the industry which demands protection is
,owned by a comparatively few and the pro
tection given them is not only at the expense
of. other districts, but at the expense of a ma
jority .of the people of their own district. But,
even if a majority of a man's constituents would
be benefited' by a tariff law, that in itself would
not justify the vote if the principle is wrong.
. Can a democrat defend the policy of protec
tion? Sometimes a member of congress deludep
himself with the idea that he can oppose tho
principle of protection, and yet secure for his
district a part-of the benefits of protection. A
number of the congressmen have been led away
by the seductive argument, "I will oppose tho
bill on its final passage, but during its consider
ation I will get all the tariff I can for my dis
trict.1' If the policy of protection is a wise
one, it ought to be dealt with upon broader JUneah
and the protection ought to befttffMffir
-will tlo the nation most 'good tfol ;!lfhere it
Will help the congressman who supports it No
one can logically oppose the principle of pro
tection and then claim a part of its benefits, for
his district, and the reverse is true, that no
one who is claiming a part of the benefits of
protection is likely to make a strong argument
against the protective principle. The democrat
Who tries to get some of the protection for his
district will find that in proportion as he suc
ceeds he is likely to make protectionists out of
the persons benefited, and they will threaten
to defeat the congressman and his party unless
the protection is continued. A congressman who
favors a reduction of only those schedules which
do not affect his district is a crippled soldier
and will be found in the ambulance or hospital
whenever the battle for tariff reform is on.
Even if the principle of protection were ad
mittedly right and the policy admittedly wise, no
effort is made by the protectionists to show that
we need the tariff rates for which they ask.
A large portion of tho value of lumber, for in
stance, Is in the stumpagd, and a reduction of
.the tariff would not reduce the labor cost, but
merely tho .value of tho pine lands. What argu
mcnt can the owner of timber lands make in
support of a law designed to increase tho value
of his land by putting a tax upon all other kinds
of land for it must bo remembered that tho
tax on lumber must bo paid by somebody and
the burden falls upon those who buy lumber.
Aside from tho arguments made against tho
duty on other necessaries of life there is an ad
ditional argument to bo made against tho tariff
on lumber, namely, that it encourages the de
struction of our forests. It is criminal folly
to offer a bounty for the destruction of our
forests at the very time when we are frightened
at the climatic and other evils which follow in
the train of this destruction.
Tho average labor cost Is but a little more
than one-half of tho present tariff, and this
means that tho protectionists, Instead of asking
for a tariff just equal to tho difference in tho
cost of production here and abroad, are de
manding a tariff of more than the entire cost
of production. Tho democrat who votes for
the endorsement of the protective principle may
as well make up his mind to swallow the entire
republican program, for he will soon find that
in order to get tho protection that he wants for
his district, he must agree to protect tho trusts
and to permit predatory wealth to have all it
demands, for the favor-seeking Interests stand
together and make trading material of the legis
lators whom they control.
The only safe position for a democrat to take
is that the tariff should bo levied and collected
for the purpose of raising revenue and not for
the benefit of any particular Interest or industry.
mmmmm&gt
Of in
rolling,
terest's.
wire-pullingand combination
CONTENTS
PROTECTIONISTS
THE VOTING IN CONGRESS
' ' " SENATOR JOHNSON IN ERROR
EDUCATIONAL SERIES TOLSTOY, THE
. APOSTLE OP LOVE'
' - .;'. THE -TARIFF AND THE SENATE
' BAILEY AND JOHNSON '
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN FULL RE
. C ' ' TREAT
IMPORTANCE OF THEORY
PLATFORM PLEDGES
UNEQUIVOCALLY
. ARE RETAILERS THE EXTORTIONISTS '.
. ' COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
" LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE
HOME DEPARTMENT ' "
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
THE VOTING IN CONGRESS
Party platforms are necesearv. It halt been
found by experience that unlets a party formu-t
lates a platform, its representatives in office
can not agree upon a definite policy owing to
the influence brought to bear by favor seeking
corporations. Even wfc,en there are platforms
they are misconstrued unless they are positive
and specific. Sometimes positive and specific
platforms are violated, but a positive and spe
cific platform is not apt to be violated, and
when it is violated the guilt can be fixed and
the guilty punished.'
The trouble with the republican "platform of
last fall was that it was not specific and defi
nite. The tariff plank used the word "revised"
instead of the word "reduced' and now Sen
ator Aldrich and hia crowd construe it to mean
an increase, while some of tho western repub
licans insist it contemplated a decrease in the
rates.
Mr. Taft dodged the question. So far jxa
could bo gathered from his speeches the nearest
he ever came to a construction of the platform
was to declare at one place in 'the west that it
meant an "honest revision," and at another time
.declaring that while some schedules ought to
be raised and some lowered tho revision would
'probably", be downward.
. The republican national convention was at
.fault in not making a specific promise of reduc
tion,, and'.thp republican voters, were at fault in
"accepting so' indefinite, so evasive and so decep
tive a word as 'revision" as a sufficient promise.
The voters 'ought to have known that "the
friends of the tariff" would never give us any
material reduction.
As to the democrats who voted Xor tho im
position of .duties, they have as a rale, defended
their conduct on the ground that the duties
voted for were "revenue duties" and they, have
"not bee.n high duties. Measured on an ad va
lorem basis,' tho rates on lumber and on iron
.oreare but a small portion of the price. The'
democrats who voted for the duty made a mis
take, but they can hardly be put in the same
.class with. the republicans who aro voting for
duties running up to 100 and 200 per cent.
. Tho democratic platform demanded free lum
bor and that platform is binding upon all who
ran upon It, and it ought to have woight with
tho members of tho party who wero elected bo
fore tho platform was adopted.
Those who voted for a duty on lumbor prob
ably did so because of lumber interests in their
districts and states, but in doing so thoy gave
tho preference to a few owners of timber lands
over thoso who buy lumbor. Thoro Is no state
in tho union whore tho consumers of lumber
do not out-number tho persons who profit by
tho tariff on lumber and tho man who votes
for tariff on lumber votes to tax a majority
of tho people of his district and state for the
benefit of a minority of his constituents. The
men who got the benefit of the tax aro more
active in presenting their demands than tho
consumers aro in presenting their protests and
as long as this Is true, tho tax-eaters will have
tho advantage over tho taxpayers.
, If tho taxpayers would take a little more
Interest In tho tariff question and chastise tho
.representatives who, ignoring tho Interests of
(tho consumers, follow tho advico of tho pro
tected interests, relief would corao sooner.
'. As to tho duty on iron ore, tho chief objection
to it Is not that it is a high rate of duty, but
that it helps people who do not need help, and
gives an excuse for higher duties on manufac
tured iron. Tho man who owns a bed of iron
has such an enormous advantage over one who
owns farming land that it Is hardly fair to make
tho farmer pay tribute to tho ore owner.
Every duty placed upon raw material is a
burden upon tho manufacturer unless he Is per
mitted to transfer it to tho consumer. A tariff
on iron ore, therefore, Js sure to bo transferred
.to the consumer. A duty put upon raw ma
terial Increases' ax it proceeds, interest' and
,prots boiqg', added each stop. It growjs like a
snowball In the spring, and is therefore more
objectionable than tho same ad valorem rate
levied upon tho finished product.
In judging the two parties and their repre
sentatives at Washington, it must bo remem
bered that the republican party went before the
country on an ambiguous platform, while tho
democrats presented an emphatic demand for
a reduction, outlining tho course to be pursued.
Our platform was, therefore, superior. A ma
jority of tho republican senators and congress
men favor an increase In the tariff the tariff
reformer In tho republican party being tho ex
ception rather than tho rule. The democrats,
on the contrary, are demanding reductions and
tho democratic member who votes against a
decrease Js the exception rather than the rule.
Even in such cases, the democrats who have
voted against eductions, have voted for a low
rato instead of a high rate, but the democratic
votes against free lumber and free iron ore
are an embarrassment to the party and will b(
used to answer democratic criticism of tho
high tariff republicans.
SENATOR JOHNSON IN ERROR
According to the press reports Senator John
son? p North Dakota "severely criticised Bryan
as having been largely responsible for such a
class (the one giving the Standard Oil company
a tariff as against Russian oil) remaining in the
Wilson bill."
Senator Johnson is in error. Mr. Bryan's at
., tention was never brought to the use that is
'' made of that clause until less than two years
ago. He called attention to It at once and has
ever since then been urging its repeal. It is
probable that most of the republicans who voted
fdr the DIngley bill voted without knowing that
it was a joker put In there for the Standard Oil
company just as most of the democrats voted
for the Wilson bill without knowing It was In
there, for it was there. But now that it Is
known to be a duty levied in the Interest ,o'f
the Standard Oil company, will Senator Johnson
and his republican colleagues insist upon .main
taining It as Speaker Cannon and a large part
of the republicans did?-
Ml
i
n
. I mUMn : ,.-
H rffcvv,-J V