JUNE i, 1003
The Commoner.
3
EDUCATIONAL SERIES
Democratic Senators and Iron Ore
In the United States senate, May 25, Senator
Stone of Missouri made a statement in which
all democrats and Americans generally will bo
interested. Senator Stone spoke on the vote
of certain democratic senators in favor of a
tariff on iron ore. Because The Commoner will
have considerable to say on this subject, Com
moner readers will be interested in Senator
Stone's statement.
As that statement appears in the Congres
sional Record of Tuesday, May 25, it follows:
DUTY ON IRON ORB
Mr. Stone: Mr. President, a day or two since,
Colonel William J. Bryan was Interviewed at
Toledo, Ohio, and the interview has been re
ported through the Associated Press. I will
read a brief extract from that interview, printed
in the Washington Herald:
"As to the democrats who voted for the im
position of duties, they have, as a rule, defended
their conduct on the ground that the duties
voted for were revenue duties, and they have
not been high duties. Measured on an ad va
lorem basis, the duty on lumber and on iron
ore are but a small portion of the price. I think
that the democrats who voted for the duty made
a mistake."
Mr. President, I have had the honor and pleas
ure of sustaining cordial and rather intimate
relations with Mr. Bryan for a good many years,
and' those relations still exist. I can speak,
therefore, in a feeling of respect and kindliness
regafding him. And at this point I might say
that it has become a habit for our friends on
the other side of the chamber to speak dispar
agingly and sometimes almost sneerlngly of Mr.
Bryan. That is not a difficult or dangerous thing
to do from this place of security. It does not
require much courage to attack under such cir
cumstances. I doubt whether senators who
speak in this tone would adopt It if Mr. Bryan
had a seat in this body and could reply for
himself.
I do not hesitate to say indeed, I take pride
in saying that I entertain for Mr. Bryan not
only a high respect, but an affectionate regaTd.
I believe that he is one of the most masterful
and commanding intellectualities who has ap
peared in American public life during this gen
eration. Moreover, there is none -to question the en
tire integrity of his opinions, the honesty of
the man, his high character, or his sincerity.
But, Mr. President, all men are fallible, all men
make mistakes, and Mr Bryan makes mistakes
like other men. I have not always agreed with
him, but I have never doubted his sincerity. I
thiiik in this matter he is mistaken, honestly so;
and when he says he thinks that the democrats
who voted against free iron ore made a mistake
I do not agree with him.
Mr. President, I am one of the eighteen dem
ocrats who voted to put a duty of 25 cents per
ton on iron ore. The eighteen democrats who
voted that way are Messrs. Bacon, Bailey, Bank
head, Chamberlain, Clay, Daniel, Fletcher, Fos
ter, Frazier, Johnston of Alabama', McBnery,
Martin, Paynter, Simmons, Stone, Taliaferro,
Taylor and Tillman. Ten democrats voted to
put iron ore on the free list, viz., Messrs. Clarke
of Arkansas, Culberson, Gore, Hughes, New
lands, Overman, Rayner, Shlvely, Smith of
Maryland and Smith of South Carolina. How
the five democrats who were absent or paired,
and therefore are not recorded, would have
voted, I do not know. Up to this time there
aTe only two questions upon which democratic
senators have divided to any appreciable extent
on iron ore and lumber; in fact, as a rule
they have voted together and the same way.
Mr. President, when the question of putting a
duty on iron ore was before the senate, I waa
hesitant and somewhat uncertain as to what
was the right and proper thing to do; but In
the end the best judgment of which I am
capable, not only as a party man, but as one
desirous of promoting the best policy for the
public welfare, I conceived it to be my duty to
vote as I did. I believe in the doctrine of a
revenue tariff, and .this whether considered trom
the standpoint of the constitutional power vest
ed in congress to levy tariffs or from the stand
point of economic policy. I believe that tariffs
should be levied with the primary object of pro
ducing a needed public revenue, and that the
duties should bo afc widely distributed and laid
upon as many articles as possible always, of
course, having in view tho needs of the govern
ment; and I hold that tho burden should bo
made lightest upon articles of common use and
heaviest upon others.
Under present circumstances I doubt tho wis
dom, or I might more properly say tho feasi
bility, of an extended free list; but at tho samo
time, having in view the needs of tho treasury,
I favor admitting free of duty as many articles
of common necessity as possible where tho art
icles are controlled by a :nonopoly. I do not
as a general proposition subscribe to tho notion
advocated by some of free raw m'atorlals to
those who manufacture them, and at tho samo
time allow protective duties on tho manufac
tured products. Succinctly stated that Is my
view of the democratic position on tho tariff
question. Now, in applying this view to the case
of iron ore, the first fact confronting mo was
that the duty of 25 cents per ton was a purely
revenue duty, and In no sense a protective duty.
Twenty-five cents per ton on ore is equivalent
to about 10 per cent ad valorem. That means
that under that rate all ores coming from the
outside Into this country for consumption, ex
cept that coming from Cuba, would pay a duty
of approximately 10 per cent. Under our reci
procity agreement with Cuba, ores from that
island would come in under a reduced rate,
and would pay 20 per cent less than ores from
other foreign mines. In other words, placing
the rate at 25 cents per ton, while foreign ores
generally would pay 10 per cent ad valorem,
Cuban ores would pay 8 per cent. Whether In
the one case or tho other manifestly the duty
Is very low.
Mr. President, every since wo have had tariff
laws, and wo 'have had them for more than a
century, there has been a duty on iron ore. In
all our tariff laws up to this time, whether made
by democrats, republicans, or others, a duty has
been laid on these ores.
The duty of 25 cents per ton, for which I
voted, is the lowest duty over Imposed upon
iron ore in any tariff bill ever onacted by the
American congress. Even the Walker bill, that
wisest, best arranged, and most celebrated of
democratic tariff measures, laid a duty on these
ores almost double that provided In tho bill be
fore the senate; and a duty of 40 per cent was
laid on those ores In the Wilson bill. And so,
Mr. President, at the very inception of my in
vestigation and consideration of this subject,
I was confronted with this situation and with
these facts. Therefore, it seemed to me, un
less some excellent reason could be given to tho
contrary, that I ought to vote to impose this
low revenue tax, and I felt that in doing so I
was following not only democratic policy, but
democratic precedent. Of course, this was a
question about which democrats might well and
consistently differ. The question was whether
Iron ore should go on the free list, or be subject
to a low revenue duty. Whenever that question
as related to any article Is presented to a demo
cratic legislator it is one he is at liberty to de
cide according to his own judgment according
to his own view of the whole situation and
this he can do without in any degree violating
his party obligation or ignoring his party policy.
Hence, when ten democrats voted for free ore,
and ten democrats, too, who have the confidence
and respect not only of this body, but also of
the entire membership of the democratic party
throughout tho country, so far from criticising
what they did, it tended rather to accentuate
tho doubt In my mind as to the correctness of
my own conclusion. But, Mr. President, I lis
tened attentively to what was said on both sides
of the chamber during the debate, and gave such
time as I could to a personal examination of the
matter. The chief arguments against the tax
were two in number. The first was that Iron
is a natural resource of the United States and
that it ought to be conserved as far as pos
sible. It was argued that If outside ore, mined
with cheaper labor, could be admitted free, that
It would be used in much larger quantities, and
that to the extent that the use of foreign ore
was increased to that extent the use and absorp
tion of domestic ore would decrease, or relatively
so, and In that way, it was said, our own supply
would be husbanded. This contention, however,
seemed to me so remote In Its possibility that
it did not appeal to me strongly; and then
against that contention it was urged, it seemed
to mo with groat forco, that an almost nominal
revenue tax of 8 to 10 per cent would not hav
tho effect of materially limiting Importation,
but that, on tho contrary, substantially aa great
a quantity would como in undor that tax aa
would como If tho ores were free.
Thoro was a wido differenco expressed In de
bate as to the amount of Iron oro in the United
States. Somo placed tho amount so low that
it was said that, at tho present rato of annual
consumption, tho supply would bo exhausted In
fifty years, while others placed It so high that
it was said that, at tho samo rato of absorption,
it would requiro hundreds and even thousands
of years to exhaust it. I think there woro ex
treme statements mado upon both sides; but,
taking it all In all, I have no doubt that tho
known and available supply of Iron oro In tho
Unitod States Is sufficient, at tho presont rato
of consumption, to last probably for several
centuries. It did not seem to mo, thoroforo,
that there was much forco in tho contention that
oro should bo admitted free in order to conserve
our resources.
The second argumont against tho tax waa
predicated upon tho assertion that tho United
States steel corporation, known aa tho "steel
trust, favored tho imposition of a tariff duty on
iron oro. It was assorted that this great cor
poration had acquired possession and control,
through ownership and leaseholds of enormous
areas of land containing iron oro, and that in
consequence that corporation practically hold a
monopoly of the American supply. One senator,
at least, and perhaps others, assorted that the
trust controlled about 85 per cent of the Iron
oro area of tho United States. Assuming theso
almost Incredible statements to bo truo, it waa
urged that foreign oro should bo admitted free
in the Interest of Independent manufacturers of
iron and steel. Now, Mr. President, It is un
doubtedly truo that tho "steel truBt," so called,
has obtained possession and control of a largo
acreage of oro bearing land, but to say that
tho trust controls 85 per cent, or oven 50 per
cent, of these lands is, to my mind, a gross ex
aggeration. Tho senator from Alabama (Mr.
Johnston) says that tho trust and its allied In
terests do not in any way control as much aa 50
per cent of tho oro lands and mines of his state,
and tho senator from Michigan (Mr. Smith) 'dor
Clares, as a mattor of personal knowledgo, that
tho trust does not control as much as 50 por
cent of the oro lands ot life state.
Tho same is declared to bo truo as to tho
lands and mines of other states. In fact, It la
affirmed that In somo of tho states, as in Vir
ginia, where great quantities of iron oro exist
and are mined, tho trust hp no property In
terests whatever. Mr. PresP 3nt, to my mind
it Is perfectly evident and clear that if we should
exclude and shut out every acre of ore landa
owned or controlled by the trust there would
still bo left vastly moro than could be used by
all the iron and steel Industries of the country,
including the trust, for a century. Of course;
I may bo wrong as to this, but I do not believe
so. I have the utmost confidence that my esti
mate In this behalf Is at least approximately cor
rect. If this be so, then tho independent man
ufacturers of steel and iron, if indeed there
really are any such, can obtain their domestic
supply on equal terms with tho trust; and if
that be true, then of what peculiar advantage
would free ore bo to tho "independents?" If
foreign ore should bo made free, tho trust could
go out Into the world and buy and import as
well as the "independents," and at least upon
equal terms with them. One would hold no
advantage over the other.
But It has been asserted that tho steel trust
magnates favored a duty on Iron ore. The
junior senator from Maryland (Mr. Smith) stat
ed that some person, I do not know whom, who
in somo way represented the trust, I do not
know how, had said to him that tho trust favored
a tariff duty on ore. As for myself, I have no
acquaintance, so far as I have knowledge, with
any person connected with the steel trust in any
capacity whatever. I am sure I have never at
any time received any advices, suggestions, or
information from any such person not that I
would have been unwilling to have heard what
they might have had to say, if they had any
thing to say, but, as a matter of fact, I hav
never been in any way communicated with by
anyone connected with the trust as to Its posi
tion. I am frank to say that In my view of th
situation, as I have stated it, I am unable to
perceive how the imposition of this duty can
possibly work to the advantage of the trust, or
how free ore would contribute to its dlaadvan-
tage. I must have clearer, more definite, and
certain evidence than has been submitted to con
vince mo to the contrary. I can not Ignore what
v
y
5
".
Vtl
u
&'
