r
VOLUME 9 NUMBER 22
2
speech recorded in tlio Congressional Record of
May 13, quotes from the testimony given by
Judge Gary, president of tho steel trust, before
tlio ways and means committco last December.
Iloro aro tho questions and answers:
"Mr. Cockran. You practically do control the
oro supply of the country?
"Mr. Gary. No; not now; not for tho imme
diate future. ,
"Mr. Cockran. Well, tho ultimate supply?
"Mr. Gary. Yes, I think so that is, pretty
nearly. It is not absoluto control."
When the stool trust absorbed the Tennesseo
Coal and Iron company It secured a practical
monopoly of tho iron oro of the United States
Mr. Gary admits that they havo "pretty nearly
a monopoly of tho ultimate supply. Their con
trol has boon estimated at from 62 por cent
to 85 por cent, but if tho steel trust only con
trolled 50 por cent, tho democrats would have
been justified in voting for free iron ore, for
putting tho total production at forty millions,
niwi Mm imnortation at one million, If tho steel
trust owned half of tho domestic production,
or twenty millions, and added tho tariff on iron
oro to tho price, it would make $5,000,000 out
of tho 25 por cent duty, while the treasury would
collect but $250,000. While it may not bo pos
sible to prove to a mathematical certainty that
tho steel trust asked for tho tariff on iron oro,
thero is enough evidence to put a democrat on
Inquiry. For instanco, Sonator Smith, of Mary
land, states that a person representing tho trust
told him that the trust favored a tariff on iron
oro. Senator Stone declares that no representa
tive of tho trust over communicated with him,
but that does not, overthrow Senator Smith's
testimony. If every other sonator testified that
no representative of the trust had expressed an
opinion in his presence, u would not answer
the statement made by the senator from Mary
land that a representative of the trust DID
express such an opinion in his presence. If a
representative of the trust had told Senator
Stone that the steel trust was opposed to the
tariff, the statement might be advanced to rq
futo tho statement made ' y the senator from
Maryland, but tho answer made, by Senator Stone
would not be accepted in ourt as an answer,,
especially as he declares that he has no acquain
tance with representatives of the trust. But
the testimony of Senator Smith of Maryland is,
hardly necessary tq raise tho presumption that
tho steel trust docs' want a tariff on iro'n oro.
Such a tariff Is not only a direct pecuniary bene
fit to the steel trust, but it assists it, in its effort
to control the Iron industry.
Senator Culberson gives as his reason for
voting for free Iron oro his belief that It "might
well havo a tendency to shut out competition on
tho part of whatever independent industries
thero may be." Because he believes that a tariff
of oven 25 cents a ton will have "a tendency
to increase the value of the property of
this combination (the steel trust) and
havo a tendency to ilx its monopolistic
powers upon the American people and to
deny to the independent iron people the
power to compete with this existing monopoly,"
he voted for free iron ore, although he declared
that "as a general rule" he favored "a revenue
tariff practically upon" everything that may come
Into tho United States." Ho considers the ques
tion of iron ore as an exception to the rule,
"because of the control already obtained by this
corporation of tho ultimate supply of Iron ore
In, this country."
The advocates of a tariff on iron ore felt the
force of Sonator Culberson's argument and at
tempted to answer it by declaring that Mr
Schwab owned some Iron mines in Cuba and
would get tho benefit of free iron ore. This is
not an argument that a democrat can make
A republican who believes that the FOREIGNER
pays the tariff might make such an argument
and insist that Mr. Schwab, as the owner of
foreign iron ore, would get the benefit of any
reduction in the tariff on ore, but a democrat
who believes that tho CONSUMER pays tho tariff
must insist that the American consumer would
get the benefit of free iron ore. But even if
Mr. Schwab could make a profit of 25 cents a
ton out of free iron ore, the profit made by
him on tho small amount imported would bo
inconsiderable compared with the amount that
will be made by tho steel trust on tho domestic
product, assuming that the domestic product
will sell for the foreign price plus the tariff.
Or will the advocates of nrotectlon snv Hmf -m
Schwab would raise tho price under free iron
ore and collect for himself what might be col
lected by the government through a 25 cent
tariff, -but that the steel trust will at the same
The Commoner.
timo reduce Its price 25 cents a ton in order
to avoid making a profit of 25 cents a ton out
f SMatorulberBon gave as an additional rea
son for voting for free iron ore his desire to
protect iron o?o as a raw material and postpone
ts exhaustion. Ho quoted from tho President s
message of January 22, 1909, to the effect that
"the known supply of high-grade iron ores in
xt. ttu,w1 afofa nnnrnvimateS 3.840,000,OUU
tons, which at tho present increasing rate of
consumption can not be expected to last beyond
the middle of tho present century." While the
president's position has been disputed by those
who favor a duty on iron ore, still Senator oui
berson was justified in giving weight to the
president's warning, especially when in doing
so ho struck a blow at the greatest trust that
thero is in this country.
It will be necessary for those democrats who
voted for the tariff on iron ore to become de
fenders of the steel trust and to Insist that it is
not a trust or that it at least has not a monop
oly of iron ore where it is necessary to make .this
defense of the steel trust in order to defend their
own votes. It is a pity that we must lose the
aid of these democrats in bur fight against the
steel trust.
Fourth, But there is another fact that the
democrat must take into consideration in de
ciding upon the wisdom of a democratic vote
for a tariff on iron ore. We ate engaged in a
great struggle between a revenue tariff and a
protection tariff. The republicans stand for a
protective tariff, and under the pretense that
they are levying a tariff only sufficient to cover
the difference in the cost of production here
and abroad "with a reasonable profit to the
manufacturer," they are levying duties that can
not be justified on principle, on policy, or on
necessity. The democrats are endeavoring to
inform the country as to the iniquities of a
high tariff. In thid effort they are handicapped
by the fact that nearly all of the papers of
prominence are republicari. In the- contested
states at least four out of five bf the papers
lean to the republican side. ' Some of these
papers are advocating a reduction of the tariff,
but'they are' doing it f rom 'tho'republi'can sta'titt-1
point and with the expectation of'ejaiming for"
the-republican party whatever' credit may come
from reduction, if it is secured. Several repub-
lican senators havo Showri symptoms of tariff'
reform. They' have not' been consistent tariff
reformers, for their efforts at' reduction ' have
been spasmodic and sporadic, but they are being
lionized b those republican papers which favor
reduction. When these tariff reform republicans
voted for free lumber, -while a number' 6f demo
crats' voted to put a tariff on lumber, the fact
was heralded throughout 'the country as an' evi
dence that democrats were opposing tariff re
duction, while prominent republicans 'were at
tempting to secure reductions in the interest of
the public. When these same' tariff reform re
publicans demanded free iron ore, and eighteen
democrats -voted for a tariff on iron1 ore, it was
again announced that the democrats were dp
posing tariff reduction, and the steel trust was
credited with exerting an influence upon demo
cratic leaders. In vain will the eighteen demo
crats who voted for a tariff on iron ore insist
that they were not influenced by the steel trust
th,eir protest will never reach the voters; in
vain will they insist that the democratic party
stands for a tariff on raw materials there are
enough democratic votes to contradict it; in
vain will they contend that the duty which they
voted for was merely a revenue duty it benefits
a trust. Their power to assist the democratic
party is weakened, and their effectiveness upon
the stump materially lessene'd. When one of
them attempts to denounce the Iniquities of
a high tariff, he will be met -with the questipn,
"Did you not vote for a tariff on iron ore. when
a number of republicans tried id put iron ore
on the free list?" and thejn he will need the
rest of tho timo to explain why ho did so. He
will be asked to explain why ten democrats
voted for free iron ore while he voted against
it. He will also be asked to explain what per
centage of the iron ore of the country is con
trolled by the steel trust, and 'to figure out
how much the steel trust will make out of
the tariff on iron' ore. And then, if he has any
timo left, he 'will probably be devoting it to
explaining why the democratic party adopts a
platform, if the platform, is not binding upon
those who represent the party.
The democrats of the rank' and file have a
right to expect that their' representatives will
consider the. effect of their votes.' in strengthen
ing or weakening public confidence in the party.
Can democratic senators who voted for a" tariff
on iron ore imagine for a moment that they
havo strengthened the party's position? if
democratic senators justify their votes for free
iron ore on the ground that they are not willing
to strengthen the death grip of the steel trust
upon the iron industry of the country, are re
publican papers and. speakers likely to overlook
such an argument in attempting to explain tho
failure of the republican party to reduce the
tariff.
The republican party was in an embarrassing
position; the republican platform was inten
tionally so vritten as to permit the leaders to
practice a deliberate deception upon the public.
The protected interests furnishing the campaign
fund demanded, as might have been expected,
tho maintenance of tariff rates. The democratic
party was in position to make a great deal of
capital out of the republican dilemma. Never
in recent years havo we had such an opportunity
to strike the republican party in a vital spot,
but the party has been unable to take advantage
of tho situation because democratic members
and senators are continually helping the repub
licans out in their embarrassment. When
Speaker Cannon -was about to be rebuked
twenty-three democrats went over and saved
him from humiliation and at the time prevented
the democrats from carrying out the plank of
their platform demanding the reformation of
the rules of the house. When there seemed to
be a chance to put lumber upon the. free list
and carry out a plank of the , democratic plat7
form, a number of members and senators joined
with the republicans and prevented it. When
there seemed to be" a chance to put iron ore
on the free list and strike' a blow at the steel
trust, a number of ' democratic members and
senators found reasons for voting for a tariff
on iron ore. How can the democratic party
hope to make a successful fight with this divi
sion in its ranks on important principles and
on important schedules?
No matter how honest these democrats may
have been they have put their party on the
defensive and brpught rejoicing into .the repub
lican camp.1 , '
Senator Stone closes his .speech in the follow
ing1 language: ,( ' - ' ',,t y '
'"Tdo'not hold ffl'ie'cipm.r.oi,
any source, and' I do not object tp criticism when
fairly made; and so In this instance, I (Jo' not'
protest' against Colonel Bryan 'expressing his'
dpinion, but I'thinlc we understand the situa
tion here better' than he does, and. that we under
stand these ' questions' fully as well as he does,
and hence the confidence I have in the correct
ness of my vote has not been shaken by the ex
pressed view 'of my distinguished friend."
The Commoner can return the compliment
and 'say that Mr. Bryan recognizes the fallibility
of human opinion and admits his liability to.
errr, but he believes that Senator Stone and
those who voted with him erred and erred to
the' great injury of the party and the country,
and his confidence in his position on this sub
ject is not shaken by the expressed views of his,
distinguished friend, Senator Stone, , ,
The Commoner will be glad to publish brief,
communications on both sides' of this question.
ATjDRICH'S EASY TASK
Some of the republican papers are giving Mr.'
Aldrich credit for great ability in the manage
ment of the tariff discussion, but it must be
remembered that Mr. Aldrfch's task is made easy
by the fact that he is the representative of "tho
system" and has all the assistants that he needs.'
If the readers will pardon the illustration, Mr.
Aldrich's position is something like the position
of the shepherd on the western plains who has
a number of sheep-dogs to assist liim. The
dogs round up any sheep that show signs ' of
waywardness, and thus 'save the shepherd many
steps. So with Mr. Aldrin. The trust repre
sentatives, are his ( faithful assistants and line
up 'such senator "and congressmen as are re
sponsive to the call of the-' trusts. The votes
that have been cast in congress indicate that the
trust representatives have been neither asleep
nor inactive; The "pressure" that they bring;
to bear 'on the legislators .relieves Mr. Aldrich',
upon his argument or UliOn personal influence,
he yould not get very far in the tariff fight
but vit,h the trusts behind him to threaten
obstreperous congressmen and to hold out
promises of influence an'tf campaign funds, n.e,
is able to' continue his .march toward a h'igfy
tariff victory. When the people decide to send
senators and- members Wh6 will guard the in-,
terests of ALL the people instead of .listening,
to the' demands of a few; Mr. Aldrich wjll ,be
as powerless as the tari'ff reformers are now.
T, 'W
, tf
J.ljrf,, tflS--i" --- -
-V "-
iw5-t3,Aivfii ..., i ,i.ji
iHiji-jti. i
