"T?V,1'TwlprV
OCTOBER 8, 1909'
The Commoner.
3"?
narv twst- Vt""WKf" ""T'
rail but could carry a ground chunk. When
tho men found a fence corner that needed to
be raised, they would put ono end of a rail under
tho fence corner and then they would call to
mo to bring a ground chunk. I would select
tho biggest one that I could carry or drag and
put it under tho rail. Then they would bear
down on the end of tho rail and the fence cor
ner would go up.
Now I never boasted that I was a1 precocious
child or bragged about how early I began to
know things, but I hope you will not consider
mo egotistical when I say that, young as I was,
I had sense enough to know that thero was some
pressure on the ground chunk when that fence
corner was raised.
This illustrates the operation of a protective
tariff. You can raise a fence corner with a rail
if you have a ground chunk to. put under tho
rail, but you can not do it without putting a
pressure upon the ground chunk. And so you
can raise an industry with a protective tariff
law but you must have a consumer to act as a
fulcrum. " The consumer is the ground chunk,
and there is a pressuro on him when an indus
try is raised by means of a protectlvo tariff.
You have about four million and a half of peo
ple in Toxas, and you have to make ground
chunks out of them when you raise the price
of lumber by means of a protective tariff.
I speak of the Kirby Lumber company be
cause I understand it is tho largest lumber
company in Texas. If you have any other lum
ber company that profits more by a protective
tariff than tho Kirby Lumber company, give mo
its name, and I will use it as an illustration
next time. I believe that a protective tariff Is
robbery under a form of law. The beneficiaries
of protection put up the campaign funds, and
they expect that those whom they elect will
return the money in the form of legislation
which will permit them to keep their larcenous
hands in the pockets of the people.
I do not know how much I may be able to
do for the benefit of my country. I am not
anxious to leave a large fortune to my. children,
but I desire to leave them something better than
a fortune. I deslro to leavo them a good gov
ernment which will protect all citizens in tho
enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness and guarantee to them a fair share
of the proceeds, of their own toil. With such
a' government I am willing that my children
shall take their chances with other people's
children. I want to leavo tho avenue of ad
vance open to tho children of tho humblest
In this land. I want it so that any man who
aspires to office can have a chance to secure
the support of those who believe In the things
that he stands for. God forbid that the policy
of protection shall so spread over this land that
an aspirant for office must get down1 on his
knees and ask the beneficiaries of protection
for the privilege of becoming a candidate for
office before the people,
When I go east I recognize that wealth is
more concentrated there and that the average
man does not have as good a chance as he has
In tho west and south. I believe that the pro
tective system is largely to blame for this. I
have fought tho policy of protection in Nebraska,
and I am fighting it everywhere, and I mistake
the Intelligence and patriotism of the people of
this state if they can be induced to endorse this
doctrine. I oppose it here and everywhere as an
abominable system under which the few profit
at the expense of tho many and then corrupt
politics and government that they may continuo
to profit.
I appreciate the attendance hero this after
noon; I appreciate the cordial reception you havo
accorded me and the endorsement you havo
given to the arguments presented, and I ap
preciate the support which you have vgiven
in the past. I stand for the doctrine that thero
should be no tax for the purpose of protecting
special interests whether in Texas or elsewhere,
and I shall rejoice if, when you meet in con
vention, you decide to stand in harmony with
the democracy of the nation on this subject.
If you turn against our party's position, I shall
mourn until you come back, but I know that
your hearts are right and that fn time you will
stand with us for the Jeffersonian doctrine of
equal rights to all and special privileges to none.
j ONLY ECHO ANSWERS
The question is: "Is an official bound by
the platform pledge, or is ho free to act as
he pleases, regardless of promises made in tfie
platform?" That is tho question Mr. Bryan
propounds to Senator Bailey, and only echo
answers. Dallas (Texas) News.
lexans Fight for Free Raw Material
Tho newspapors of Soptombor 29 printed this
Associated Press dispatch:
Atlanta, Ga., September 28. A joint debate
on tho tariff bill by William J. Bryan and Son
ator Joseph W. Bailey of Texas at Atlanta is
assured, tho meeting to bo hold some timo next
month in the new auditorium hero.
Today Senator Bailey wired his acceptance of
tho formal invitation oxtondod by tho Young
Men's Democratic League of Atlanta for tho de
bate. While no reply to tho invitation has been
roturnod from Mr. Bryan, advices from Fort
Worth, Texas, are to the effect that Mr. Bailey
wired Mr. Bryan of his acceptance of the Invi
tation, incorporating In his message to the
former democratic standard boaror a personal
request that ho, too, accept and fix tho date of
tho meeting.
Mr. Bryan will arrivo at his homo, Lincoln,
Neb., tomorrow and is expected to formally ac
cept tho invitation and suggest a suitablo date.
Tho democratic convention of Texas opposed
tho plank in tho national democratic platform
declaring for free raw material, and Senator
Bailey attacked that feature of the party's plat
form on the floor of tho senate. Mr. Bryan
went to Texas about two weeks ago, and, In a
number of speeches, assailed tho attitudo of Mr.
Bailey on this subject, tho latter defending his
position- from platforms in various parts of tho
state.
Following is an Associated Press dispatch:
Atlanta, Ga., September 29. With regard to
tho joint debate on tho tariff between himself
and W. J. Bryan at the auditorium hero, Sen
ator Joseph W. Bailey of Texas today sent tho
following telegram to tho Atlanta Young Men's
Democratic League:
"I authorized my friends at El Paso to ar
range a joint discussion between Mr. Bryan and
myself and they undertook to do so, but ho ob
jected on the ground that it would militate
against democratic success In tho next congres
sional election. In view of that statement by
him I am not willing to put myself in the posi
tion of urging him to do what ho thinks would,
be against tho interests of our party, but if ho
should change his mind about the matter and
consent to the arrangement you propose It would
please me very much to discuss tho question of
raw material with him at Atlanta whenever it
may suit his convenience."
The following telegram was received here to
night from Mr. Bryan at Lincoln:
"Engagements are made for my time until
November, but I shall bo glad to make a tariff
speech In Atlanta some timo in November or
December. I consider a debate objectionable,
however, for reasons which I will communicate
by letter."
Tho following letter explains Itself:
September 30, 1909. Hon. Clark Howell,
Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Ga. My Dear
Mr. Howell: I wired you last night that I would
communicate with you by etter my reasons for
believing a debate inadvisable. When a joint
meeting was Suggested at El Paso, Texas, I re
plied to the effect that I am trying to aid in
the election of a democratic majority in the next
congress; that to that end I have suggested a
brief but specific tariff plank which I ask demo
cratic candidates to accept, reject or amend and
that, believing a debate would tend to turn at
tention from the Isbuo to Individuals, I would
not consider the proposition unless it came as a
personal request. I might add tho further rea
son that a debate between two democrats would
accentuate the tariff differences that havo em
barrassed our party in congress and give the
republican newspapers a chance to dwell upon
democratic dissensions instead of devoting their
time to tho contest now being waged between
tho progressive republicans and the standpatters.
A debate might bo pleasing to tho participants
and entertaining to the audience, but I think
that the subject which I am endeavoring to pre
sent is worthy of calm and serious consideration.
Very truly yours,
W. J. BRYAN.
SENATOR BAILEY ON PARTY FEALTY
In order that there may be no possibility of a
misunderstanding as to Senator Bailey'a views
regarding party fealty, tho Chronicle repro
duces his two most famous utterances on this
point.
From Senator Bailey's famous "hate" speech
dolivcrod at Austin boforc the legislature, Feb
ruary 27, 1907:
"This legislature ought-not to adjourn until
It has amonded section 121 of that election law
ho as to mako It Impossible for a man over again
to accept tho people's office and then violate tho
pooplo'a instruction."
From Senator Bailey's addrons delivered at
Turner hall, In Houston, September 22, 1909:
"Tho platform did command mo to take tho
duty off of four articles and I refused to do It,
and I don't hide behind tho proportion that I
wan not elected on that platform either." Hous
ton Chronicle
AN UNANSWERED QUESTION
The Dallas (Texas) Morning News, reforming
to Sonator Bailey's speech at Houston, says:
Ono question wont unanswered, however?
t was given while Senator Bailey was discussing
his vote on tho tariff on iron ore.
"They say that tho stool trust owns 80 per
cent of the iron ore In tho country," said Son-1
ator Bailey; "as a matter of fact the trust owns
only about HO per cent of it, but admitting for
tho sake of argument that it does own 80 per
cent, it would not hurt the trust any if iron
ore was taxed or camo In free." "
"It would givo independent manufacturers a
chanco to exist if it came in free, wouldn't It?"
said a man near the press tables.
Tho question was evidently not heard by Sen
ator Bailey, aB he continued without hesitation
into a discussion of tho mntter of taxing fin
ished iron articles and tho manufacturer bolng
allowed to securo his raw material duty free.
SOPHISTRY
(Editorial In Dallas, Texas, News)
. "A compensatory duty," Senator Bailey ex-
claims, "Is a thing no democrat over advocated
from tho foundation of tho republic," Neither,
did Mr. Bryan. Tho plain and unmistakable
meaning of what he said was that it has been
tho. practice of tho republicans to compensate
manufacturers for any duty levlod on raw ma
terials, and that, therefore, thoBo who demand
a duty on raw matorials glvo tho republicans an
excuse to advance the duties On tho articles into
which tho3o raw materials are manufactured.
Each of those propositions is Indisputably true
Instances of it are on every pago of protection
Ism's history. It is a notorious fact ,that the
organized sheep growers of Ohio, Wyoming and
Montana worked before tho ways and means
committee In perfect concord with tho lobbyists
of tho woolen manufacturers. Each helped tho
other to get what it wanted; and Senator Bai
ley's course, instead of being one that tends
to bring about justice as among the producers,
tho manufacturer and the consumer, Is one that
must Inevitably result In a partnership between
tho producer and the manufacturer for tho ex
ploitation of the consumer. Indeed, so devious
is his logic that he Is not able to maintain con
sistency between different parts of the samo
speech; for after accusing Mr. Bryan of advo
cating compensatory duties, ho says, in tho next
column but ono, that Mr. Bryan proposes "tho
abolition of the compensatory duty" on woolens,
and ho plumes himself on having predicted that
ho must. There are few men, we Imagine, who
care to make their Inconsistencies the occasion
of a boast.
Although It Is a repetition, and therefore
lacks novelty, Senator Bailey's proposition that
tho price of a manufactured article Is not gov
erned by the coot of the raw material Is per
haps the most resplendent absurdity of the whole
speech. As a discovery in tho realm of political
economy, that Is quito as remarkable as any
geographical that has been made in the region
of the north polo.
Senator Bailey says that as you raise the
tariff rates on raw material you reduce tho man
ufacturer's nrpflt, and that as you , lower tho
tariff rate on raw material you increase his
profit. Consistently with that unique theory, he
declares that the consumer Is not affected ono
way or the other by the tariff rate on the raw
material. "You don't buy wool," is the Irre
sistible argument he hurls at you. The manu
facturer's selling price, he says, Is governed by
the tariff rate on the manufactured article.
If it were true that the manufacturer's profit
Is reduced by advancing the tariff rate on his
raw material, then to put a trust out of busi
ness we should merely baveto elevate the duty
m
