'; T iTT1?
u
1
2
The Commoner.
K.
I
r
W"
?
ft-
F
Apon liquor and tobacco, Bhould bo reduced
one-twentieth each year until a 25 per cent
rate is reached, the purpose being to reduce the
tariff gradually to a revenue basis and there
after to collect tariff for roveriuo only.
A platform drawn upbn those lines presonts
an issue, and if wo can elect a majority of tho
members of congress on such a platform, tho
house can pass tho tariff reduction measure and
send it to the sonata; if tho senate rejects it
the issuo can then be presented to the country
in 1912. If, however, our democrats can not
agree upon a tariff measure we will bo worse
off with a majority in congress than without
one, for a failure to agree upon a tariff meas
ure would Insure our party's defeat in advance,
if tho tariff question is a prominent issuo in
tho coming presidential campaign.
While the platform which I have read to you
embodies what I think should be in tho tariff
planlc I recognize that there will be differences
of opinion, and that somo may not be willing
to go aB far as I have in the way of tariff re
duction, while others may desire to go further.
But if each democratic candidate will state his
position tho voters can select a representative
who will give expression to their views, and I
am much more anxious that tho representative
shall reflect the wishes of his constituents than
I am that ho shall agree with me in opinion;
but tho advocates of tariff reduction ought to
havo a representative in each 'district, for it is
only when tho different views are presented
that tho voters have a chance for a choice and
for the expression of their opinions.
As the tariff plank which I havo suggested
Is built upon the theory that the principal raw
materials should be admitted free of duty, I
desire to present some arguments in support of
tho position.
First, a tariff upon raw material is a hin
drance, to the export of the .manufactured., ar
ticle; if the American manufacturer muB,t com
pete in foreign markets with a manufacturer
who has free raw material, tho, American man
ufacturer is handicapped to that extent., If he
pan compete now with that handicap ho could
complete still , better, wlftipujt ij:. We can not
hope tor a wide extension5 Vof ,qui export trade
without free raw material. The only way to
reliove anrAmefican manufacturer of the handi
cap placed upon him by a1 tax on raw materials
t8 tti glvo fiitn a vobhto on Importol row ma
terial when such material is usod in articles
raado for export; but a rebate not only con
templates tho sale of tho American article
abroad more cheaply than at home, but it dis
courages the purchase of American raw ma
terial by manufacturers who export.
It has been urged that free raw material is
an indirect form of protection to manufacturers.
It is true that free raw material is a benefit to
the manufacturer who is engaged in exporting,
but when an American manufacturer sells at
home he always has a compensatory duty on
tho manufactured product. When a tax is im
posed upon his raw material the manufacturer
is given a corresponding duty on his manufac
tured product, so that he transfers the tax to
tho consumer. It would be of no advantage
to the manufacturer to give him free raw ma
terial if a corresponding reduction is made in
the tariff upon the manufactured product and
such a reduction 1s always contemplated, wheth
er made at the time or at some future time. I
will give you an illustration of this:
Tho free wool bill passed by congress in 1892
provided not only for free wool, but for a largo
reduction in the tariff on woolen manufactures
and in the platform which I have suggested the
demand for free, wool is accompanied by a de
mand for the abolition of the compensatory duty
on woolen goods, and in addition to that it de
mands a substantial reduction of the ad valorem
rate on woolens.
I call your attention also to tho fact that when
hides wore put upon the free list a reduction
was made in the tariff on leather, harness, boots
and shoes. It is not fair, therefore, 'to say
that free raw materials aro asked for in the
interests of the manufacturers.
The second point I desire to make has al
ready been foreshadowed in what I havo just
said, viz: That a tax upon raw materials Im
plies a tax upon manufactured products and a
greater tax than would be imposed with- free
raw material.
When a man votes for a tariff on raw ma
terial, therefore, he understands that there will
be a corresponding increase in the tariff on the
manufactured -product, and if he votes intelli
gently he knows that the .benefits which he gives
to tho producer of raw material will be collected
At last from the man who uses the finished pro-
duct. If the advocate of a tax on raw ma
terials has studied the tariff question ho knows
that the compensatory duty placed upon the
manufactured product is usually more than the
tax on raw material. Let mo give you an illus
tration of this: The Aldrlch law, or the Payne
law, or tho Aldrich-Payne or Payne-Aldrich law
whatever you wIbIi to call it provides for
a duty of 11 cents to 12 cents a pound on wool,
11 cents on some kinds and 12 cents on others.
Section 378 provides that "The duty on
clothes, knit fabrics and all manufactures of
every description, made wholly or in part of
wool, not srecially provided' for in this section,
valued at not more than 40 cents per pound,
the duty par pound shall be three times the
duty imposed by this section on a pound of
unwashed wool of the first class; valued at
above 40 cents per pound, and not above 70
cents per pound, the duty per pound -shall bo
four times tho duty imposed by this section on
one pound of unwashed wool of the first class;
and in addition thereto upon all the foregoing,
50 per cent ad valorem; valued at over 70 cents
per pound, the duty per pound shall be four
times the duty imposed by this section on one
pound of unwashed wool of the first class and
65 per cent ad"valorem."
I have quoted this section in full that you
may see the manner in which the compensatory
duty is levied. The section covering clothing
ready-made and articles or wearing apparel of
every description, etc., is substantially the same,
except that 'the ad valorem duty is a little higher..
The compensatory duty Is four times the duty
on unwashed wool and 60 per cent ad valorem.
You will notice that it is assumed that it
takes four pounds of unwashed wool to mako
a pound of cloth or clothing. This Is probably
an exaggerated estimate. You will also notice
that this duty Is Imposed, whether the cloth
and clothing are made wholly or in part of
wool. If only a part is of wool tho duty is im
posed just the same as if the whole was of
wool. The manufacturer, therefore, under the
pretense that he is getting a compensation, for
the 'tariff lmp6sed Upon the' raw material, se
cures, v'a much larger tariff on the manufactured
prb'chict than he could secure if there were no
duty oii raw material.
When a man votes' for a tariff on wool for
the benefit of the wool grower he votes to im
noae an udditinnal tax unon those who uoawooi
en goods, and the tax which the consumer pays
because of the duty on wool is much greater
than the "amount which the wool grower re
ceives. Your Texas platform of 1896 was written up
on the theory that the agricultural and pastoral
Interests were being discriminated against in the
interest of the "rich -manufacturers," but it
must be remembered that the tariff which is
demanded on raw materials Is not demanded in
the interest of all of the people of the state,
but in the interest of comparatively a few of
the state. Take, for Instance, the duty on wool.
Texas is counted one of the wool-growing states,
and yet the number in the state Is less than
one-third of one sheep per capita. If one per
son in one hundred owned sheep tho herds
would not average more than thirty sheep for
each owner.
Probably not one voter in ten owns sheep,
and a large percentage of the entire number
of sheep Is owned by a comparatively few who
own large flocks. When you put a tariff on
wool, therefore, for the benefit of the wool
growers, you are not taxing all the rest of the
country for the benefit of Texas, but you are
taxing the cotton growers of Texas and tho
other citizens who do not grow wool, for tho
benefit of the wool growers, and you are mak
ing the people who do not raise sheep pay a
great deal more to the manufacturers of woolen
goods than the manufacturers pay to the wool
growers because of the tax on wool.
But the proportion is not aearly so great
The total number of sheep rendered for taxa
tion in the state of Texas for the year 1908
was 1,534,000, owned by 1,107 men. Probably
fifty men own 1,000,000 of these sheep and 1,
150,000 are owned in thirty counties of west
Texas. At tho same time there are thirty counties
In the state in which no .heep at all aro ren
dered for taxation.
Estimating one-third of a sheep to tho inhabi
tant, and estimating tho wool product at 6
pounds to the sheep , and the tariff at 12 cents
a pound, the duty on wool would bring less
than one million dollars Into Texas if tho
money were broughtfrom the outside, but as a
matter of fact the money is not brought from
the outside. The less than one million dollars
collected by the sheep raisers of Texas would
VOLUME 9, NUMBER 37
be collected from the rest of the people of Texas
and in addition to this tho people of Texas
would pay the manufacturers a considerable
profit besides, because of tho tariff on wool.
, The cotton crop of Texas amounts to $183 -000,000,
while the wool crop could not pro
duce more than $2,000,000 per year for the same
territory. The cotton crop then is nearly ono
hundred times as valuable to the people of tho
state.
The same Is true of the tariff-on hides. Somo
of the people of Texas might derive a benefit
from the duty on hides, but comparatively few
would be benefited to any great extent. A few
big cattle companies or .cattle owners might
make a profit but the most of the people would
pay more in the increased duty on leather, har
ness, boots and shoes thanv they would mako
from tho duty on hides.
A duty which would not hurt any "one would
be of no benefit to anybody. If the amount each
one pays out because of protection were col
lected back through protection the protective
system would not benefit any one. It is be
cause the masses pay, each a little, that the few
can collect in large quantities. Any attempt to
make a protective tariff equitable will therefore
fail. The security of the masses is to be found
not in trying to get a tariff that will benefit
them, but in reducing the tariff to the lowest
possible point. The masses of the people must
not expect to get their hands into other people's
pockets; their efforts must be to keep other
people's hands out of their pockets.
Tho third argument which I desire to present
in favor of free raw material is that that tax
is generally the lightest which is imposed upon
the product at the most advanced stage. If the
tax increases the price of the product and it
can be of no benefit to a protected industry un
less it does increase the price that increase
grows every time it passes through a' new stage
of manufacture. Each one who handles the
product exacts a profit, not only upon the origi
nal price, but upon the tariff, and the tax growp
like a snowball. The consumer, therefore, finds
that, other tl ings being equal, the tax is cheap
est when it is levied upon th,e, finished product
only, because it is fev'le,d bui'.pnce.. ,
Fourth, From a ' political' standpoint the
strongest argument in favor, of free- raw ma
terial Is that It will sound! the death, knell of
cue protective system by alienating a large num
ber of people whp now favor the protective sys
tem because they think they are getting a bene
fit from it.
During the recent sessio'n of congress Senator
Warren of Wyoming warned the republican lead
ers that free raw material would be destructive
of the protective system, because the people of
the west would not favor tariff on manufac
tured products If, they were not allowed a tariff
upon their raw materials. He said that free
raw materials would sound the death knell of
protection.
A similar statement was made by the oppo
nents of the Springer bill, providing for free
wool. The representatives of the wool growers
warned the manufacturers that they could not
expect to retain a high tariff on woolen goods
if the sheep growers were not protected. The
wool growers, who are insisting upon a tariff
on wool, are not doing anything to reduce the
tariff on woolen goods; they understand that
the protected interests must stand together;
every time a new Industry is brought under
the protective system the number of advocates
of that system Is Increased, and the contrary
will be true whenever the tariff is taken off of
raw material; the producers of raw material
will then join the ranks of the tariff reformers.
We have a practical Illustration of this in
the demand made for free harness, free boots
and free shoes by those who fqvored a tariff
on hides. Some of those who voted for a duty
on hides insisted that they would vote for free
hides provided the tariff was taken off of leath
er, harness, boots and shoes, but they insisted
that the tariff should be kept on hides until it
was taken off of the finished product. Now
that the tariff has been taken off of hides we
may expect those Interested in the production
of this raw material to join with us and de
mand free leather, free harness, free boots and
free shoes.
When we get the tariff off of wool we may
expect the sheep growers to join with us in re
ducing tho tariff on woolen manufactures, for
they will no longer have a pecuniary Interest
in supporting a protective system. Why should
any democrat be in favor of a tariff on raw ma
terial, if such a tariff strengthens the protec
tive system? If free raw material will strike a
blow at the protective system, why Bhould demo-
1 ?iV
&'4&
