Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 11, 1909)
( Vf -w fl'-Oi--i "ssr- M The Commoner. WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR VOL. 9, NO. 22 Lincoln, Nebraska, June 11, 1909 Whole Number 438 IRON ORE The speech delivered by Senator Stone of Missouri was published in full in last week's Commoner. The readers of this paper will re member that Senator Stone began by referring to his friendly relations with Mr. Bryan and to his personal regard for him. Mr. Bryan heartily reciprocates the expressions of good will, and records whis confidence in Senator Stone's sincerity and honesty of purpose, but he owes it to his readers to say that he does not consider Senator Stone's argument a suffi cient defense for the vote cast by him and seven teen other democratic senators against free iron ore. Senator Stone gives the names of the eighteen democrats who voted for a duty of twenty-five cents a ton on iron ore, and the names of the ten democrats who voted to put iron ore on the free list. There are four propositions which the readers must consider in deciding whether to approve or condemn 'the position taken by the demo cratic senators who voted against free iron ore. First, What is the democratic position upon the subject of free raw material? Those demo crats who attempt to justify their support of the duty of twenty-five cents a ton did so on the ground that it was a revenue duty and that, as a general proposition, they are opposed to putting raw material on the free list. What is the democratic position upon this subject? As suming that the democratic, party favors a tariff for revenue only, does that mean that a tariff must be laid upon ALL articles,,Jnclu4injKJCa .material, if such a tariff will produce a revenue i Senator Bailey asserts, or at least was reported in the papers as asserting, that a change had taken place in the policy of the party on this 'subject and that the party is now , opposed to free raw material. The democratic party favored free iron ore in 1894, and the Wilson bill, as it passed the house, contained a provision put ting iron ore upon the free list. In the senate, however, a duty was levied on iron ore, and the house was compelled to agree to this in order to secure the passage of the bill, but it must be remembered that the Wilson tariff bill as it came back from the house did not repre sent the sentiment of the party, but the demands of those who were in position to coerce the party into the acceptance of such schedules as they desired. If, as Senator Bailey says, the doctrine of free raw material has been abandoned, and that the democratic party now stands for a tariff on raw . material, it is unfortunate that the democrats of the senate were not more unani mous in their position upon the subject. To have eighteen voting for a tariff on iron ore, CONTENTS IRON ORB ' . ALDRICH'S EASY TASK EDUCATIONAL SERIES JESUS AS AN "."" ORATOR THE TARIFF IN THE SENATE ..-'..' PRACTICAL TARIFF TALKS THE MULE AT HOME PAYING POLITICAL DEBTS EAGER FOR INDEPENDENCE ' CLAUDE KITCHEN DEMOCRAT BRITAIN'S RAILWAY PROBLEM HOME DEPARTMENT WHETHER COMMON OR NOT NEWS OF THE WEEK and ton voting against it leaves the question still in doubt, especially when six of the eigh teen come from states which together produce something more than ten per cent of the total annual product of iron ore in this country, while the ten democratic senators who voted In tho negative came from states which together do not produce one-half of one per cent. (The figures are taken from tho production of 1907 as given by Senator Burrows in tho Congres sional Record of May 13.) The fact that nearly all tho democratic senators from tho states that produce ore in any considerable quantity voted for the tariff on ore, while the votes against the tariff on ore came from tho states that produced no ore, or only produced in very small quantities, suggests that tho question of protection MAY have entered into the ques tion. It is not conclusive proof that any dem ocratic senator was Influenced in his vote by tLe desire to protect an industry in his state, but it Is a coincidence that is to bo considered "together with all of tho facts in tho case." The fact that 7.81 per cent of the ore produced in 1907 was produced in Alabama may possibly have unconsciously influenced the votes of the senators from Alabama on the subject of free iron ore not necessarily, but possibly. Tho fact that li57 per cent of tho output of iron ore in 1907 came from Tennessoe and 1.52 por cent from Virginia may have unconsciously affected tho opinions of the democratic senators from those states. If there had been no iron ore produced in Alabama, Tennessee and Vir ginia, and if, in the absence of the production of,, iron ore in those states, the six democratic senators from those states had voted for free UL9Zu$ vould, Ji ave ,mada. tho vota,AS.ix.teen, ior iree iron ore to twelve against, several 'of the democratic senators who voted for a tariff on, iron ore came from states in which there Is no iron ore, and it Is possible that tho six senators from Alabama, Tennessee and Virginia might have voted as they did even if there were no iron org in their states, but tho fact that there is pre in those states may fairly be taken Into consideration in deciding whether their votes can be construed as a declaration of a fundamental democratic principle. It is going to be difficult to get the country to accept a democratic policy until it is definitely known what that democratic policy is, and the action of the democrats in tho senate tends to confuse the public mind as to the party's posi tion on free raw material. The Commoner believes that raw material should, as a rule, be admitted free of duty. It has already pointed out the fallacy embodied in the doctrine of those who Insist that "If we are to have protection it ought to be uniform and give all sections an equal share of tho benefits." Protection can not give all sectidns an equal share of the benefits. Protection Is naturally and necessarily unfair. A democratic senator or congressman may deceive himself with the argument that he is helping' his section when ho insists that raw material produced in his section shall be taxed, but he can not deceive those who have studied the tariff ques tion. Raw material is not produced bv states or by districts; it is produced by individuals, and the taxation of raw material is not for the benefit of all of the state or all of the district In which it is produced. Take the case of iron ore, for instance. Alabama is credited with, nearly eight per cent of the total quantity of Iron ore produced In the United States in 1907. But who produced the iron ore in Alabama? All of the people? Not by any means. Not one per cent of the voters of Alabama own iron mines. A tariff on iron ore necessarily implies a compensatory' duty on manufactured iron. As soon as iron ore is taxed, the manufacturer demands that he shall be permitted to transfer the duty to the consumer of the manufactured products, and the argument will always be accepted as sufficient reason for putting a tariff upon the manufactured product. Is there a democratic senator who voted for a tariff on iron ore who would vote to put manufactured iron on the free list? To vote for a tariff on iron ore is, therefore, to vote for a higher tariff on manufactured iron than would other wise be nocossary In othor wordB, It Is a voto to fix a larger ultimate burdon upon tho con sumers of manufactured iron than would bo necessary with free iron oro. It is posslblo that a democrat (in a republican sonato) might voto for a tariff on iron -ore and thon voto against a compensatory tariff on manufactured iron, but If tho domocrats wore framing a tariff bill, thoy would recognize tho justice of tho domAnd that tho manufacturer bo permitted to collect from tho consumer a tariff equal to tho tariff loviod upon his raw material plus such a tariff as would bo given him If thcro woro no tariff on raw material. Tho domocrats who voted for a tariff on Iron oro voted, therefore, to commit tho party to a higher tariff on manufactured than would bo necessary if thero were no tariff on the raw material. Second, It Is argued by Senator Stone that the tariff on iron oro Is a rovonuo tariff, and should bo retained on that account. It is truo that according to the importations of last year tho government would derive a revenue of something like $250,000 at twenty-five cents a ton some have estimated tho revenue at less than that, but Senator Stone estimates a largor importation under tho reduced rate, and thinks ' that tho treasury may derive considerable more than a quarter of a million upon this item. It Is truo that tho rate on iron oro is very low and would not bo considered excessive from a revenue standpoint, but in considering this question it must be remembered that if tho duty is added to tho price of domestic raw material, it will mean a very much largor tax upon the . consumer a &s,Xy-h$xs9en not go into the treasury at all, but into tho pockets of tho own ers of tho domestic product. If, for instance, tho importation is put at a million tons, and "brings $250,000, twonty-flvo cents tf'tbn" on tho more than forty million tons taken from tho Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin ralnos would be $10,000,000. Is it wise economy to tax tho people forty times as much on this item as tho treasury receives, and then call it a tariff levied for tho purposo of raising a revonue? Can a democrat justify such a tariff as a revenue tariff? Third, Tho most serldus question to consider in connection with the duty on iron ore. Is whether the duty would help tho steel trust or hurt it. The democratic platform of last year contained tho following as a part of the tariff plank: "Wo favor immediate revision of tho tariff by tho reduction of import duties. Articles entering into competition with trust controlled articles should bo placed upon the free list," etc. Now tho question arises, does Iron oro come Into competition "with trust controlled products?" If so, it should, according to the platform, bo placed upon the free list. If a democrat re gards that platform as binding, and further believes that iron ore Is controlled by a trust, then he should vote to put iron ore on the free list. Senator Stone discusses this question and takes the position that iron ore is not controlled by the trust. He says, "Now, Mr. President, it is undoubtedly true that the 'steel trust,' so called, has obtained possession and control of a large acreage of ore-bearing lands, but to say that the trust controls 85 per cent, or even 50 per cent, of these lands is, to my mind a gross exaggeration." He then quotes Senator John ston, of Alabama, as saying that the steel trust does not control as much as 50 per cent of the ore lands and mines of his state; and he quotes Senator Smith, of Michigan, as making the same declaration in regard to iron ore in Michi gan. But this is not conclusive. According to the table which Senator Burrows placed In the Record, Minnesota is credited with 56 per cent of the total production in 1907. Suppose the steel trust did not control more than half of the Michigan and Alabama product. Michigan and Alabama together produced only about 30 per cent of the output at 1907. The steel trust might have controlled more than half of tho total product of the United States WITHOUT CONTROLLING ANY of the iron mines in Mich igan and Alabama. Senator' Culberson, in a mi . Wma: . v. .J-A--'