' 7 Tfu''-,'v if ?t jPT- "t ff " "
The Commoner
,
vp 3ew
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 9, NO. 21
Lincoln, Nebraska, June 4, 1909
Whole Number 437
What is Democratic?
The democrats who voted against free lumber
have
Voted to repudiate the national platform of
the democratic party;
Voted to encourage the destruction of our
forests;
Voted to raise the price of one of the chief
necessaries of life;
Voted to tax a material that enters into a
multitude of industries, and thus to place an
unnecessary burden upon these industries;
" Voted to tax the people of the whole country
for the benefit of a comparatively few owners
of. timber lands; and
Voted to tax a majority of their own con
stituents for the benefit of a minority of those
constituents.
To cast such a vote a democrat must have
arguments that have not yet been given to the
public and must be prepared to present these
arguments to his constituents.
The Commoner will give space (up to two
thousand words) to any democratic senator or
member of congress who desires to present an
argument in favor of a duty on lumber, provid
ed he will in his article answer the following
questions:
First, is a platform binding?
Second, is it wise to encourage tlje devasta
tion of our forests?
Third, will the country as a whole bo bene
fited, by a tariff, on lumber, and if so, how?
Fourth, how many of his constituents pro--'duce
lumber, as compared with the number of
his constituents who use lumber?
Fifth, will he give the names of the men who
have by letter 6r in "person" urg"ed him to vote
for the tariff on lumber?
The Commoner also invites brief letters from
constituents who either approve of or condemn
the votes cast by their democratic senators or
congressmen. The Commoner believes that the
democratic senators and members of congress
Who voted against free lumber have greatly
embarrassed the democratic party, greatly
strengthened the republican party, and grievous
ly wronged their constituents. But it is the
desire of The Commoner to do justice to all,
and it thus offers space to both sides that the
readers may judge for themselves after read--lng
the arguments presented.
The democratic platform adopted by unani
mous vote at Denver last July, contains the
following tariff planlc:
"We welcome the belated promise of tariff
reform now offered by the republican party
as a tardy recognition of the righteousness of
the democratic position on this question. But
the people can not. safely entrust the execution
of this important work to a party which Is so
CONTENTS
WHAT IS DEMOCRATIC?
BELATED WRATH
TO DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
EDUCATIONAL SERIES DEMOCRATIC
SENATORS AND IRON ORE
SENATOR DANIEL ON PROTECTION
PRACTICAL TARIFF TALKS
CAN IT BE TRUSTED?
THE TARIFF IN THE SENATE
SENATOR SHIVELY'S MAIDEN SPEECH
COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
THE BAILEY DOCTRINE
THE TAFT ADMINISTRATION
OPPRESSED BY TRUSTS
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
deeply obligated to the highly protected inter
ests as is the republican party. Wo call atten
tion to the significant fact that tho promised
relief is postponed until after the coming elec
tion an election to succeed in which tho re
publican party must have that same support
from tho beneficiaries of the high protective
tariff as it has always heretofore received from
them; and to tho further fact that during years
of uninterrupted power no action whatever has
been taken by the republican congress to cor
rect tho admittedly existing tariff iniquities.
"We favor immediate revision of tho tariff
by the reduction of import duties. Articles en
tering into competition with trust controlled
products should bo placed upon the free list;
material reductions should be made In the tariff
upon the necessaries of life, especially upon
articles competing with such American manu
factures as are sold abroad more cheaply than
at home, and gradual reductions should bo made
in such other schedules as may bo necessary to
restore tho tariff to a revenue basis.
"Existing duties have given the manufactur
ers of paper a shelter behind which they havo
organized combinations to raiBo tho price of
pulp and of paper, thus imposing a tax upon tho
spread of knowledge. Wo demand the imme
diate repeal of tho tariff on wood pulp, print
paper, lumber, timber and logs, and that these
articles be placed upon the free list."
It will be noticed that the last sentence of the
last paragraph of the plank contains a definite
and specific demand for "the immediate repeal
of the tariff on wood pulp, print paper, lumber,
timber and logs, and that these articles bo
placed upon tho free list."
No language could bo more clear; no plat
form promise could be more explicit. - If tho
democratic party is committed to anything, It
is committed to the repeal of the tariff on wood
pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and logs.
In the tariff contest In congress a number of
democrats In the senate and house havo voted
for tariff on lumber, and havo attempted to de
fend their action in so doing. Two questions
are involved, and the democratic party must
bo prepared to meet these questions and an
swer them to the satisfaction of tho country.
First, is a platform promise binding? Wo
are now charging that the republican party is
guilty of breach of promise in not revising the
tariff downward. But how can the democrats
criticise the republicans for construing tho word
"revise" to mean an increase In the tariff if
democratic senators and congressmen deliberate
ly repudiate a plain and unmistakable promise
of free lumber? The democrats who voted
against free lumber will, of course, be called
upon to defend themselves, and to do so they
must deny that national platforms are binding,
or they must insist that the national platform
was not binding upon them. If they say that
platforms are not binding, they attack a well
settled democratic doctrine, -namely, that the
voters can instruct their representatives. A plat
form that is not binding is worse than no plat
form at all, because it misleads the voters. It Is
better for a party to make no promises than to
make a promise and then break It.
If those democrats who have opposed free
lumber opposed it on the ground that, while
platforms are generally binding, this platform
was not binding upon them, it is incumbent upon
them to show either that they were elected be
fore this platform was adopted, or that in 'their
campaign they openly repudiated tho platform
and gave notice of their adherence to a different
doctrine. Even the senators elected before the
platform was adopted might feel justified in
giving some consideration to a platform en
dorsed by so large a vote at the polls. The dera
crat who sets his judgment up against the
declarations of his party assumes the burden
of proof to establish the righteousness of his
own position and the error in the position taken
by his party.
Aside from having to meet the question of
platform, the anti-free-lumber democrats will
nave to be prepared to defend their votes upon
the merits of the question. Will they insist
that as a national proposition a tariff on lum
ber is desirable? Or will they defend their
action on tho ground that thoy apeak for the
in to rests of their states or districts? Even If
thoy attempt to justify a tariff on lumber as a
national proposition, and without rogard to local
interests, It will probably bo found that the
national argument only has weight with those
who represent constituencies whero thoro Is a
local sentiment In favor of a tariff on lumbor,
and tho public will doubtless weigh tho local
Interest In deciding upon the motive of the
senator or congressman in voting against free
lumbor.
There Is nothing more necessary to tho wel
fare of all the people tht.n lumber, and it ought
to bo as cheap as possible. To put a tariff on
lumber is llko putting a tax on salt, and the
salt tax has even been considered a hardship,
and it has always been resorted to by despots,
for no ono can escape such a' tax.
But lumbor is not only a necessity, but it Is
a vanishing product, and a tariff upon It simply
stimulates further destruction. If there is any
ono product that ought to go on tho free list,
it is lumber.
Not only is lumbor one of tho necessaries of
life not only do our timber lands noed such
protection as can bo furnished them by tho freot
importation of lumbor but a tax on lumber
imposes a heavy burden upon all the people
for tho benefit of a very small percentage of
tho people. What proportion of the American
people can possibly bo benefited by a tariff on
lumber? Tho percentage is exceedingly small.
Even in the states whero thoro are lumber In
terests, tho majority of the people, ar. buyers
of lumbor rather than producers.
pm
si
t'.
BELATED WRATH
'
Tn n.n nrHtnrfnl nntlfcled "Ponulnr Fenlfnar and
Tariff Bunco," tho St. Paul PJonoor-Prearjfk
republican paper, says; ' " "'$
"The most wholesome thing for congress to
do at this juncture would be to adjourn for a
few weeks and distribute Itself among Its con
stituents. It would learn something to Its ulti
mate advantage, and to tho advantage of the
country. It would got in touch with the practi
cally universal exasperation and disgust of tho
voters with tho Payne bill, the Aldrich mons
trosity, and the cheap skullduggery and chicane
which have characterized tho framing of the
house and senate measures. But there Is not
the slightest hope that congress will consult its
constituents. Tho tariff framers do not want
to hear from the country. The leaders want
to put their heads in tho sand and imagine that
thero is no trouble in store for their blessed
protected industries. Thoy can't and they won't
seo that unless they grant the just and reason
able demands of consumers for a more moderate
tariff on necessities, and for free raw materials,
particularly for free lumber, free wood pulp, free
hides, free iron ore" and free coal, there will be
a storm that is not unlikely to put an end for
good and all to the republican party as at pres
ent constituted, or at least to the domination
of tho standpatter and reactionary, and to ex
treme protection for any industry whether it
needs it or not.
"Let congress commit the crime it threatens
to commit and by a llttlo judicious leadership
on the part of the democratic party, by sloughing
off free trade, free silver and other popullstic
excrescences, that party would be likely to carry,
four years hence, almost every state in the Mis
sissippi valley. To elect a republican president
against a sound and sensible democratic candi
date standing on a platform of common sense,
thero would not only have to be a republican
candidate and platform unequivocally pledged
to a definite tariff policy, but a complete change
in the feeling that now exists.
"It is probably not exaggerating to say that
millions of voters west of Ohio are ready today
to rebuke congress for its evident Intentions in
a way that will disturb the gall even of that
hoary old sinner, Aldrich. For tho rank and
file of the republican party is mad, and mad
clean through. They are not only exasperated
at the 'gold brick' which it is the purpose of
Aldrich and his followers to hand them; they are
'V
J .. v ., vAagSiMfc-wn