Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 4, 1909)
""wwu "iwipyvn'yrrTg -"-"H(r irrt N .V -i " t ' JUNE 4, 1909 . 5 rric'i "; WirW Practical Tariff Talks TIDE DUTY ON HIDES Senator Aldrich was of tho opinion, when com piling his tariff bill, that the house was in error in placing hides upon the free list. He put them hack in the protected collection. Two theories may be advanced. One is that the senator de sired to protect the packers, who are the largest tanners in the country. The other is that ho put it in to bo either traded out or in. The Dingley bill placed a 15 per cent duty upon hides. The result of this was to increase tho first cost of leather by just that amount. This increase, when passed along until it reached the consumer, had grown to about 50 cents on each pair of $3.50 shoes. - The packers, by reason of their beef slaughter ing, control the production of tho raw material in this country. When tho Dingley law was passed the big tanners were their patrons and, their competition made prices fairly remunera tive. It soon dawned upon them that if they did the tanning themselves they might keep two profits. Within the last seven years they have built thirty tanneries, they fix absolutely the price of hides and being in the tanning business they also dominate the leather market. There is one large source of supply outside of the packers. This is in Argentina. But to land the hides inside our ports the producer must either pay the 15 per cent duty or pass it on to the manufacturer. Usually the ultimate consumer pays the duty, but sometimes the mar ket has been so manipulated that the Argentine" hides are diverted to other ports, and in fact many of them do go elsewhere to be made up by foreign workers. The result of this diversion of the hide supply is that tanneries and shoe manufactories are closed three or four months a year and their employes, whom protection is supposed to primarily benefit, are thrown out of work fojr that period. A. H. Lockwood, editor of Hide and Leather, asserts that if the tariff on the raw material were removed, these fac tories could be kept running all the year, the number of employes substantially increased and the export of shoes, now only $11,000,000 a year, could be increased so as to give the shoe manufacturer the control of the world's market. That the intent of the hide tariff is to benefit the packers is made plain by another fact. While hides, the raw material, are kept at the same tariff, the Payne bill and the Aldrich sub stitute both reduce the duty on shoes 40 per cent -and on sole leather 75 per cent. None of the leather schedules in the Dingley tariff law is retained, except' that upon hides. As sole leather includes leather for harness, belting and the like, at first glance this would seem to be a strong concession to the consumer, but there is the usual joker. Keeping his raw material at the same old price by preventing the free competition of Argentine hides, while lowering the duties on what he makes, puts the manu facturer more completely in the hands of the leather producer, the packers. This is equiva lent to government holding his hands while it invites the packer to uee the club with which It has provided the latter. Is this the kind of revision Mr. Taft meant by "genuine," or. does he include it among the "unequivocal" brand? - C. Q. D. THE TARIFF IN THE SENATE A Washington dispatch to the New York World describing the proceedings in the senate May 24 says: An amendment proposed by Senator McCum ber, a member of tho finance committee, placing all dressed lumber on the free list and imposing a duty of only 50 cents a thousand feet on rough lumber, was rejected by the crushing vote of 56 to 25. It astonished even Aldrich, while the progressives were too "dazed for further fighting for the day. Ten democrats and fifteen republicans voted for free lumber, and thirty-nine republicans and seventeen democrats against It. The fifteen republicans voting for free lumber were Beyerldge, Bristow, Brown, Burkett, Bur ton, Clapp, Crawford, CumminB, Curtis, DuPont, Gamble, Johnson, LaFollette, McCumber and Nelson. The ten democrats were Clay, Culber son, Frazler, Gore, Hughes, Newlands, Paynter, Rayner, Shively and Stone. The seventeen democrats who voted with the republicans for protection on lumber were Bacon, Bailey, Bankhead, Chamberlain, Daniel, Fletcher, Foster, Johnston, McEnery, Martin, The Commoner Money, Overman, Simmons, Smith of Maryland, Taliaferro, Taylor and Tillman. Senator Dixon read tho tariff plank of tho democratic platform, whoreupon Mr. Bailoy said that ho refused to bo bound by & declaration that was not sound democratic doctrine. It was tho duty of a national convention, he said, to enunciate principles and nominato candidates. It was not its province to leglslato. That work should be left to democratic senators and repre sentatives. They should determine tho details. It must bo so in his caso, ho said, or tho people of Texas could elect another senator. Continuing, Mr. Bailoy raid ho had been in public life eighteen years and ho did not be lieve the great metropolitan newspapers had told the truth about him eighteen times. "When did the doctrine of free raw material cease to be sound democratic faith?" asked Mr. Aldrich. "When men like myself came into power and controlled the party," replied Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey said ho drew the platform of 1896, and the doctrine of free raw materials was then abandoned. "Grover Cleveland was still living at that time," said Mr. Aldrich. Mr. Bailey retorted that Mr. Cleveland undid the democratic party. But he would not criti cise him now, as ho had accounted elsewhere for the sins committed in the body. Mr. Aldrich remarked that Bryan came to congress as an advocate of free raw material. Mr. Bailey reluctantly admitted that the demo cratic party at that time favored free raw ma terial, but it was a matter of expediency and not of principle. The south had yielded its judg ment as a matter of necessity. It was a sole cism in politics. It was as indefensible then as it is now. Senator Shively of Indiana, addressed the sen ate and sought to show that under the proposed tariff bill the prevailing rates would be those imposed by the maximum schedules. Senator Beveridge quoted from President Taft's speeches to show Mr. Taft is for substan tial revision downward. Senator LaFollette introduced a resolution calling on the state department for a document of the German government as to wages paid in that country. In the senate May 26, Senator McEnery of Louisiana (dem.) dealt with tho attitude of southern democrats and southern states toward protection. He said: "That there is a change of sentiment going on in the south in relation to protection was shown recently and I hope senators from the south who have supported protection on every industry in tho state may extend tho vision of their horizon and accord protection to the great national interests." Mr. McEnery spoke specially of the need of a protective tariff on lumber, which industry he said employed 35,000 men,' producing lumber worth $44,000,000 annually. If the sugar trust, he said, had violated tho law, the guilty men should be put in tho peni tentiary, "But why crucify the people to bring down vengeance on the sugar trust?" he asked. "What we need," said Mr. McEnery, "is some settled policy in regard- to this industry. Cap ital is easily frightened and every time there is a revenue bill coupled, with a demand for free sugar conditions are unsettled." In the senate May 27, Senator Bailey of Texas read an article printed in the New York Times which article charged that Bailey had introduced his income tax amendment solely for the purpose of defeating an inheritance tax and assisting Senator Aldrich. Senator Bailey called the writer "an infamous liar" and made a speech in explanation of his advocacy of an income tax. Later in the senate press gallery Senator Bai ley and W. S. Manning, Washington correspon dent for the New York Times, exchanged blows. They were separated by other senators and news paper men. By a vote of fifty to thirty-three the senate decided to postpone consideration of the income tax until June 10. The Associated Press report says: "Republicans voting against postpone ment were Senators Borah, Bristow, Clapp, Cum mins, Dolliver and LaFollette. Senator Mc Enery was the only democrat who voted with the republicans for postponement." On May 28, Senator Bristow of Kansas led the fight on the sugar tariff, and created some thing of a sensation, by making this statement: "I desire to make the statement that yester day afternoon, immediately following the vote in this body by which the standard of sugar testing was retained, stock in the American Sugar Refining company went up five points on the market. I call attention to this incident be- canao It is illuminating as to tho question of who is interested in and would bo affected by tho dropping of tho Dutch standard." Tho Associated Press roport of tho day's pro ceedings says: Senator Bristow thon sent to tho desk an nrticlo which ho asked to havo read concerning tho capitalization of tho American SugaT Refin ing company, tho trust. It sot forth tho facts as to tho present capital and traced It from a modest boginnlng. Tho senator next sent up an article from tho Wall Street Journal and had it read. Tho articlo sot forth that tho recont cus tom houso frauds in sugar in Now York present a situation in which it is absolutoly necessary that determination bo reached as to tho idontity and responsibility of tho men higher up. It was sot forth that thoro aro still in tho director ate of tho American Sugar Refining company five men who woro diroctors during all or part of tho time when these custom houso frauds were in progress. It declared that it is Inconceivable that this elaborate schemo to defraud tho government for tho benefit of tho trust was organized and skil fully carried out for many years, by more under lings who could not have received oven tho poor pittanco which was given them for their part in tho fraud without the knowledge and approval of somebody higher up. It urged that if theso fivo directors aro innocent of all knowledge and responsibility they should bo tho first mou to como forward and Insist on a hearing and vindi cation; and If they do not do this, then pro ceedings should bo talcon by the govornmont to determine tho real responsibility and1 to pun ish the ultimato wrongdoers no mattor how high up. CAN IT BE TRUSTED? Tho democratic national platform last year contained these sentences: "We welcome tho belated promise of tariff reform now affected by tho republican party, but tho people can not safely trunt tho execution of this Important work to a party which Is so deeply obligated to the highly pro tected interests. We favor immediate re vision of tho tariff by the reduction of import duties. Articles entering .into competition with trust-controlled products should bo placed upon tho free list. Wo demand tho Immediate repeal of the tariff on pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and logs." v In the house of representatives a month ago forty democrats voted against free lumber. In tho senate this week seventeen democrats did the same. Thus a specific demand of tho demo cratic platform was defeated by democratic votes. Democratic votes also defeated free hides and free Iron. For the first time In fifty years democrats this spring have had an opportunity, with the aid of progressive republicans, to glvo effect to their pretense of principle. This shame ful record shows how basely they have acquitted themselves. In their platform the democrats say that re publicans can not be trusted; who now will trust tho democrats? They say they favor immediate reduction of taxation; within tho last sixty days 102 of the 171 democrats in the houso havo voted repeatedly against reducing taxes and sev enteen of thirty-two democrats In the senato havo done likewise. They say they favor tho free list for articles entering Into competition with trust-controlled products; lumber, hides and iron aro all controlled by trusts. They specifically demand the immediate repeal of tho tariff on lumber and they make haste only to fasten that odious steal upon the country for another decade. These are political sins for which punishment is certain. They affront decency and good faith. They reveal a degradation in our political lifo which almost passes belief. They put the demo cratic party on trial net for its principles but for its honesty. Errors of judgment may bo de fended and excused, but perfidy finds no apolo gist anywhere. A political party that is false to itself is false also to the people, and the judg ments which they Inflict aro final. New York World. SENATOR SHIVELY'S MAIDEN SPEECH Senator Shively, of Indiana, delivered his maiden speech the other day and he made good use of his time. He argued that under tho maximum and minimum provision of that bill the real tariff is likely to be 25 per cent higher than the schedules which are now being dis cussed. If that is true the republicans will havo more to answer for than was at first supposed. n yc,& 'Vi 4 ,