Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (July 30, 1909)
r v ?, "9b PULY 30, 1901 5 on tho freo list, and then the republican shout jers will declaim, as they are declaiming now, that the party has kept its pledges and reduced the tariff taxes. Free oil probably would mean more than any other of the four, since the price of oil for fuel and light might be affected. Tho chances are many to one that there will bo no free oil. Bach of the three other proposi tions bear almost wholly upon the interests of manufacturers. The shoe men think tho free hides would relieve them from the beef trust's control of the general leather Industry. The free coal fight is almost entirely an affair of the desire in certain sections of the United Btates for reciprocal relations with Canada. New England wants to use Nova Scotia coal. Ohio and Pennsylvania' desire to sell their coal in the Ontario manufacturing district. Free iron ore Is needed by the Schwab and other In dependent steel people, whose plants are on the 'Atlantic coast, and who use Cuban ore. The tariff taxes at present on any one of the four are hardly enough to make any appreciable 'difference in the cost of everyday articles in the retail market. The hullabaloo about free raw material is being used palpably to obscure the main question which is present in the big sched ules fixing duties which in turn fix the prices of clothing, household articles and food. A valiant effort is being made and newspaper brgans, which are subservient to the purpose of Senator Aldrich, are assisting, to show that something is being done for the "common peo ple." Great stress is laid upon the action of the conference committee yesterday in reducing the duty on woolens and woolen cloth. This reduction merely cut the ad valorem part of tho duty from 40 to 36 per cent. But this 'duty, in common with those prescribed through out the woolen schedule, consists of" an ad va lorem tax added to a specific and accumulative duty. The tariff import on these same women's and children's woolens is really 104 per cent. It is 104 and a fraction. The cut in the ad valorem amounts only to a 2 per cent reduction of the whole. In view of the certain enactment of the corporation tax, even this 2 per cent can hardly result in lower market prices anywhere. The one remaining chance for a really popu lar reduction lies In the cotton schedule. If reports from the conference were accurate, Aid rich is determined to preserve the rates select ed for cotton by debate. It may be that some jocular decreases, like that upon women's wool, will be allowed in cotton. But as for a genuine reduction no chance. SENATOR CULBERSON'S STATEMENT When the senate held a brief session July 23, Senator Culberson asked for the printing of a series of tables showing the votes of the demo cratic members on all the more important ques tions before the senate in connection with the tariff, and in doing so made a brief explana tion: "An impression seems to have been cre ated in some quarters that In their action on the tariff bill, which Is now in conference, the demo crats of the senate have been commonly and seriously divided among themselves, and have often voted with the protectionist majority," said the Texas senator. Continuing, Mr. Cul berson said: "With the exception of the vote on Iron ore, coal, lumber and hides, the democratic vote was practically a unit and on hides it was an unit when coupled with the proposition that leather, boots and shoes should also be placed on the free list. On the income tax amendment to the bill, the democratic vote was unanimous, and on oil, tea and coffee, print paper and wood pulp, it was substantially so. "Still more significant and more important on all subjects of the bill which particularly and more directly affect the consuming masses and the cost of living, such as crockery, cutlery, glassware, sugar, household goods generally, ag ricultural implements, blankets, flannels and hats and leather, boots and shoes, cotton man ufactures, wool and manufactures on wool, in fact all articles affected by the tariff which en ter into the daily needs of the people, tho demo cratic vote was In effect unanimous and was for much lower duties than those which were adopted. "It was jpon democratic initiative, moreover, that sulphate of ammonia, Paris green and Lon don purple, and cotton bagging were placed on the free list in the senate bill, which are the principal benefits to farmers and fruit growers in the bill; and it was also due to democratic initiative that the tax ,on tea and coffee was stricken from the maximum provision of the senate measure." The Commoner. HOW DEMOCRATIC SENATORS STOOD. ON THE TARIFF ' (From tho New York World.) Washington, July 10. The position of tho various democratic senators on tariff legislation is shown by the following analysis of thoir ac tion during the consideration of tho tariff bill Just passed by tho senator Senators who opposed all high tariff rates Gore, Oklahoma; Shiveley, Indiana; Raynor, Maryland; Nowlands, Nevada; Davis, Arkansas. Senator Davis was absent most of tho session, but ho spoke against tho protective tariff theory. Senator Clark, of Arkansas, took little part In the debate or in tho voting on tho bill. Simon-pure democratic protectionists Mc Enery, Louisiana; Foster, Louisiana; Taliaferro and Fletcher, Florida. Protectionists in spots Bacon, Georgia; Bai ley, Texas; Bankhead, Alabama; Chamberlain, Oregon; Clay, Georgia; Daniel, Virginia; Fra zier, Tennessee; Johnston, Alabama; Martin, Virginia; Simmons, North Carolina; Stone, Mis souri; Taylor, Tennessee; Tillman, South Car olina; Money, Mississippi; Smith, Maryland; Overland, North Carolina; Hughes, Colorado; Culberson, Texas; Owen, Oklahoma; McLaurln, Mississippi. Democratic senators who made protection speeches Simmons, Daniel, Tillman, Taliaferro and Fletcher. Protection arguments were also made by Bacon, Bailey and Foster, but wore predicated on the theory of a tariff for revenue. Protection claims supported by democratic senators Hides, Iron ore, lead, zinc, wool and woolens, print paper, pineapples, cotton cloth, tea, lumber, petroleum and many others. Only democrat to vote for tho bill McEnory, of Louisiana. Only democrat to vote for a duty on petroleum ' Owen, Oklahoma. Both Owen and McEnery voted for the Curtis restoration of tho counter vailing duty on petroleum products. Reasoning of democratic senators on the tariff questions The point of view Senators who voted to put a 25 cents a ton duty on Iron ore Bacon, Bailey, Bankhead, Chamberlain, Clay, Daniel, Fletcher, Foster, Frazier, Johnson of Alabama, McEnery, Martin, Simmons, Stone, Taliaferro, Taylor, Tillman. Senators who voted for a ,tax of 10 cents a pound on tea Tillman, Bailey. Democrats who voted against free lumber Bacon, Bailey, Bankhead, Chamberlajn, Money, Smith of Maryland, Daniel, Fletcher, Foster, Johnson of Alabama; McEnery, Martin, Over man, Simmons, Taliaferro, Taylor, Tillman. Democratic senator who voted against Dolliver woolen reductions McEnery. Democrat who opposed free print paper Bailey. Ho explained his vote by saying he was for a tariff for revenue. Senators who helped raise the duty on pine apples In the Interest of the Florida growers Bailey, Chamberlain, Clay, Fletcher, Foster, Mc Enery, Tillman, Taliaferro, Taylor. Democrats who helped to keep up the rates on cotton cloth Foster, McEnery. Democratic absentees from that vote Bankhead, Chamber lain, Clark of Arkansas, Daniel, Davis, Mc Laurln. Rayner, Smith of South Carolina, Talia ferro, Taylor. CENTRALIZATION THREATENED Beware of an attempt at national Incorpora tion. Attorney General Wickersham is recom mending it in his speeches. Both Ex-President Roosevelt and President Taft have advocated it. Its object is to deprive the states of their power to regulate. It Is a step backward not a step forward. We do not need national fncorpora tlon. Federal remedies should be ADDED TO not SUBSTITUTED FOR state remedies. COLD BLOODED For cold-blooded selfishness commend us to the banker who first goes into a corporation and limits his own liability, then requires all bor rowers to give security and finally refuses to give security to his depositors. He ought to be ashamed to ask for deposits. THE DEAL CONFESSED In an editorial entitled "The Deal Confessed," the Indianapolis News says: We have had something to say of the argu ments used by the twenty-three representatives who oppose free raw materials to bring the president to their way of thinking. It has also been pointed out that Aldrich consented to duties on iron ore, coal, etc., in order to get votes for his cotton and woolen schedules, But It has romainod for Mr. Langloy, of Kontucky, to givo tho exact torms of tho bargain. Hero Is his statement: "When Speakor Cannon was facing a largo ulzod Insurrection, and whon it looked as though ho could not got votes enough to put through tho rulo for tho passago of tho tariff bill in tho houso, I received a summons to tho speaker's room. There I found tho speaker, Ex-Ropro-sontativo Jim Watson and Representative Dwlght, tho whip of tho houso. At that tlmo a number of us wero 'off tho reservation' be cause wo did not liko tho provisions of tho Payno bill for freo coal, freo iron oro, free hides and $1 lumber. Mr. Dwlght promised mo with an emphatic oath, In tho presonco of tho speaker and Mr. Watson, who assented, that if wo would withdraw our opposition and voto for tho rulo tho tariff on theso items would bo re stored In tho senato and would remain restored in conference. Tho agreement included $1.50 lumber Instead of $1 lumber. As a result of this promise, which I accepted as a hard and fast bargain, I withdrew my opposition and called a meeting of tho insurgents, who did likewise, and tho rulo was adopted. Without our votes it never could havo been put through. When I told President Taft of thiB agreement ho merely said that ho was not a party to It and could not consent to bo bound by it." Hero wo havo a flood of light thrown on tho business of tariff making. Tho duties in ques tion were fixed, or to bo fixed, through a deal which wns construed as "a hard and fast bar gain." Tho bargain was made, and tho prico paid. Naturally tho men who, for a considera tion, withdrew their opposition to tho rule, fool that they ought to got tho consideration. They rendered an Important service on the assurance that they would bo paid by tho imposition of taxes satisfactory to them. Now, aftor having carried out their part of tho agreement, they are told that they are not to get what they bar gained for. Hero, of course, is a conflict be tween two obligations tho obligation to tho men who permitted tho voto on tho tariff bill In tho houso, and tho obligation to tho American people. Precisely as Langley and tho rest were prom ised that certain duties "would bo restored in tho senate and would remain restored In con ference," so tho people wero promised that tho tariff should be revised downward. Precisely as Langloy and thp rest, on tho strength of tho assurances given to them, permitted tho bill to be brought to a vote, so tho people on tho strength of the assurance that the tariff was to bo lowered voted for Mr. Taft, and returned a republican majority to the houso of represent atives. So the question is whether Langley and his associates or tho American people shall receive the chief consideration. In our opinion tho people have the superior claim. But the really Interesting and significant thing In the Langley statement is tho frank confession of the truth of the charges made by the enemies of protection namely, that the whole business is an affair of bargain and sale. Here wo havo what Langley calls "a hard and fast bargain." (Confirmed by "an emphatic oath.") Certain men had the power to hold up the tariff bill and they consented not to use that power in re turn for concessions made to their districts. Tho question with those who mado the agreement was, not whether tho duties on raw material wero right and proper, but whether by granting them they could get the bill through, could maintain other rates at the high level fixed in tho hill. There was no thought, and no pretense of any thought, of the welfare of the people, or the good of the country as a whole. It was simply a trade, a deal in taxes which were to be paid by the people. Undoubtedly there are many such bargains, as there always ore and they are likely to prove most embarrassing. The president, of course, is not bound by them, but the men who made them may think that they are bound. To repudiate the agreements might have the effect of upsetting everything, might even havo the effect of defeating tho tariff bill. Such is the situation. It is still further complicated by the fear of Langley and his associates that if they do not get the duties on raw materials they may be defeated for re election. Such are the perils involved in gov ernment by privilege. We commend Langley's words to those who talk so solemnly about "honest" protection and "scientific" tariffs. The bitterest enemy of tho whole system could not have framed a moro formidable indictment against it than that framed all unconsciously of course by Lang ley. Indianapolis News. I til ; '. i'i j, i . 11 i ' ! ; l