I TH "-
vtim jf -V w?0f
"( wnyBn -
f
The Commoner.
2
.
' r 7
c
ho also discusses whother I should have been
bound by "a plank of a national platform mad
after my nomination for congress a' plank
which I repudiated before the election, but he
does not discuss whether an official haa a right
to repudiate a platform upon which he himself
was elected, and which he, himself, defended
during the campaign. If he will examine my
speech, ho will see that I presented a sample
platform for a congressional district and insist
ed that a candidate for congress should announce
his belief in the binding force of a platform,
and then set forth his platform, so that his
constituents could tell whether he reflected
their sentiments or not. The question present
ed -is: Is an offlclal bound by a platform pledge
or is he free to act as lie- pleases, regardless
of promises made in the platform? I affirm that
an official is bound by his platform, but Senator
Bailey, if I read his speech aright, does not ex
press an opinion on this subject.
He attempts to create the Impression that the
free raw material policy Js intended to benefit
the manufacturer. While in his speech he read
the free wool plank of the platform which I
proposed, ho proceeded to make an argument
that Ignored a vital part of the plank. We
ask not only for free wool but for two other
things: First, the abolition of compensatory
duties- and second, a substantial reduction In
the ad valorem rate. This would not be a favor
to the manufacturer, for the abolition of the
compensatory duties would' more than offset the
benefit which he would derive from free raw
material, and "a substantial reduction in the
ad valorem rate" would bring a still greater
advantage to the consumer Our plan would
give to the Texas consumers of woolen-goods
frpni Ave to ten times as much in reduced1 prices
as it would give to the-eastern purchasers of
wool in a reduction in the price of wool, while
his, plan compels the Texas consumer, of woolens
to pay the eastern manufacturers many dollars
for every dollar that a tariff on wool collects
from the eastern manufacturers. No one but
a wool grower will accept his argument on this
subject when it is understood- and not all of
them. , - 2
,ii!he main portion of Senator Bailey's speech' lis
devoted to an attempt to' answer the argument
that a duty on raw material Is always trans
ferred to the consumer. He recognizes that
he must overcome that argument or confess that
his policy would put a higher tax upon the con
sumer than the consumer would have to pay
under our policy. He labors to prove that a
tax on raw material would not be transferred
under his policy, but he inadvertently uses one
sentence that establishes my position. He1 says:
"If the manufacturer transfers the tax on his
raw material to his consumer, then I will tell
. you how to prevent him from doing so. It is
as simple as the alphabet. Let us take the
tax off the finished product and then he can
not transfer his tax on his raw material." Yes,
that is more than simple, It is absurd, His
plan is to put a tax of 40 per cent on wool for
.the benefit of the sheep owners (that is the
duty today), and, by so doing, increase to that
extent the cost of the manufacturers' raw ma
terial; but if the manufacturer attempts to add
that increased cost to the price of the product
his product is to be put on the free list. See
how easy it is? That is the way and the only
way to prevent the transfer of the tax, but,
as that method never has been employed and
never would be employed, my proposition stands,
namely, that a tax on raw material is transferred
to the finished product and paid by the con
sumer. The man who favors a tax upon raw
material must know this if he understands the
tariff question, and he must -Intend It when he
favors the tax. A tax on raw material, there
fore, means the protection of a few producers
of raw material at the expense of a largo num
ber of consumers, and, as the tax grows, as
productions pass through different hands, a
small tax levied on raw material generally
- means a heavy tax on the consumer of the fin
ished product. The best way to relieve the
consumer is to remove the tax on raw material
and, 'at the same time, make a still greater re
duction in the tax on the manufactured article.
In this way you will help the consumer with
out helping the manufacturer. There are many
cases in which the finished product should be
put on the free list, as in the case of leather
harness, boots and shoes, but it is not logical
to say that there must bo no tax upon a finished
product unless there is also a tax upon the raw
material used in the manufacture of that
. product..
Senator Bailey's speech proves what I said in
my- speech in Dallas, namely, that taxation of
raw (matorial could not be -defended as a na-
tional policy, but must be defended, if at all;
purely as a sectional doctrine. It can not. be
advanced for the benefit of the whole people, but
must be advanced, If advanced at all, for- the
benefit of a few special interests, and it must
be defended, If defended at all, upon the same
ground that other protective duties are de
fended. No matter how patriotic the purpose with
which the tax on raw material is proposed, it
can not bo defended without resort to argu
ments that are employed by the protected in
terests, and a protective policy can not be adopt
ed without three results, which follow as a mat
ter of necessity: First, the many are taxed for
the benefit of the few; second, the men who
get the benefit will attempt to corrupt politics
In order to retain that benefit; and, third, the
greater the number of those who believe that
they are benefited by protection, the more diffi
cult will we find it to secure tariff reform, for
the protective interests will stand together, and
a few people, well-organizej and pecuniarily in
terested in a bad system, are often more than
a match for a' larger number, unorganized and
bearing each one but a small portion of the
burden.
I need not discuss the application of the prin
ciple of free raw material to the questions which
were before congress. I can safely leave Sen
ator Culberson to defend free iron ore, and I
can leave him and nearly all the congressmen
from Texas to defend the policy of free lumber.
I have devoted my time largely to wool, be
cause wool is the keystone of the protective
arch, and because the question was not before
congress in such a form' as Jto determine the
position of senators and members of congress
on the subject.
- MR BRYAN'S TARIFJ? PLANKS
In The Commoner of September 24 a mis
placed lino resulted in an absurd error in the
the publication of the tariff planks suggested by
Mr. Bryan.
The planks as suggested by Mr. Bryan are as
follows': k ; '
1. A platform is a pledge), given by the' can
didate to" the voters', and when' l ratified rAt ' the
polls becomes a contract between the official
and his constituents. To violate it, in letter or
in spirit, is not only undemocratic, but repug
nant to the principles of representative govern
ment, and constitutes an embezzlement of power.
2. We denounce the despotism known as
Cannonism and favor such an amendment to the
rules of the national house of representatives as
will restore popular government in that body
and insure the rule of the majority on every
question.
3. We endorse the tariff plank of the last
national democratic platform and believe that
the measure carrying out the promise of that
platform should, among other things, provide
for:
Free wool, the abolition of the compensatory
duties on woolens and a substantial reduction
in the ad valorem rate on woolens.
Free lumber, free wood pulp and free paper.
Free hides, leather, harness, boots and shoes."
Free oil and products of oil.
Free iron ore, free coal and low duties on all
manufactures of iron and steel.
Free binding twine, cotton ties and cotton
bagging.
Material reductions in the cotton schedules
and in the tariff upon all other necessaries of
life, especially upon articles sold abroad more
cheaply than at home, the aim being to put the
lowest duty on articles of necessity and the
highest on articles of luxury. Articles coming
into competition with trust-made articles should
be placed on the free list.
No tariff rate should be above 50 per cent
ad valorem, except upon liquor and tobacco, and
all rates above 25 per cent, excepting those
upon liquor and tobacco, should be 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 revenue only.
DROPPING THE MASK
In his speech at Dallas Mr. Bryan said that
the men who fought for a tariff on raw materials
would be compelled to do it as protectionists
and not behind the mask of a revenue tariff.
The San Antonio Express seems disposed to drop
the mask and make the fight on the New Eng
land basis. It says:
"Perhaps, such a platform as Mr. Bryan sug
gests might be acceptable to some east Texas
VOLUME 9; NUMBER 3
congressional districts, but such a platform and
the candidate seeking election on it would bo
overwhelmingly rejected by a west or south
west Texas constituency, even though it might
be ad6pted by the national convention of the
party. It is doubtful if such a platform would
find-favor in a convention made up of delegates
from the state at large. If it should be, the
representatives from those congressional dis
tricts which have distinctly declared against the
free raw material heresy would consider the plat
form of no-binding force insofar as they are
concerned and would make no pretense of abid
ing by it."
The men who want protection for protection's
sake care nothing about parties or platforms.
With the protectionists it is money that governs
and they are ready to bolt any party or platform
that attempts to pull their hands out of the
pockets of the people. Thanks to the Express
for making clear the purpose of the protection
ists of southwest Texas, but is it sure that the
less than twelve hundred owners of a million
and a half of sheep can control that section of
the state? .May not the people, who pay 89
per cent duty on woolen goods, decide to take
an interest in politics? The special interests
are always active, but they become powerless
when the taxpayers arouse themselves.
CONSTRUCTION
A few of the Texas democrats are trying to
construe the phrase "Such duties (tariff) to be
so adjusted as to operate equally throughout
the country and not discriminate between class
or sections," to be a declaration in favor of a
tax on raw material. Well, if they were repub
licans they would probably construe "revise"
to mean an increase in the tariff.
THE DEMOCRATIC TARDFF POLICY
The Kansas City Star, a 'newspaper that gaye
ardent support to Mr. Taft, prints in its issue
of September 17 the following editorial:
, The Star 'wishes to call special attention ,to
,the tariff policy .suggesCedc iyt Tr4. W, J.' Bryan
to the democratic party as published 'this "morn
ing. It is submitted that in grasping 'and" pre
senting a preat national issue, in recognizing
the shortcomings as well as the opportunities of
the democracy in relation to that issue, in com
prehending the national gravity as well as the
moral and political significance of the public
state of mind, Mr. Bryan has, in this statement,
surpassed his whole previous record.
The importance of this utterance is enhanced
by the fact thot it is given to the country just
at the time when President Taft, the leader
of the republican party, is about to discuss the
tariff from the standpoint of the new law and
the amendments needed to that law.
Mr. Bryan frankly admits, by implication,
that the democratic party is facing the same
internal problem that the republican party must
solve the problem of making the elected repre
sentatives of the people respect the platforms
on which they are chosen. He does not defend
those democrats who repeatedly voted for up
ward revision any more than he would defend
those republicans who ignored the promise of
their platform for downward revision.
First of all, he would attempt to make plat
forms more binding, by explicit mandate, on
representatives of the democratic party. To
make evasion more difficult and to make prom
ises more impressive, he wouTd have the demo
cratic party put into its platform certain specific
reductions in the tariff, together with such gen
eral limitations of duties as would eliminate
from the tariff system the worst instances of
extortion. The tentative platform presented is
not radical.' It is reasonable, especially when
considered from the democratic standpoint, for
it recognizes the fact that great as the tariff
evils are, they can not be eliminated by a single
process nor in a single year.
Knowing full well that party pledges are like
ly to be evaded or misconstrued by those dis
posed to be disloyal, Mr. Bryan would go farther
and demand of every candidate for, congress a
clear, unmistakable declaration of his tariff pol
icy. This policy would give a two-fold advan
tage. It would enable the people to know the
kind of support they -would have in the election
of their candidates, and it would give candidates
thus elected better security in carrying out the
party's pledges and their own.
In short, Mr. Bryan has come to the conclu
sion that tariff revision is really a matter of
ffietiYtbJftT; unless" candidafe'rare pledged Jndi-
tatw , . . .,xm, Ui 4tM
