-4T
v t , , vim"""" ?wT r&SfWri' ' "-ar".
'"T,'TTmj"i t-
jj -
f'WlWffW " v '"
The Commoner
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 9, NO. 40
Lincoln, Nebraska, October 15, 1909
Whole Number 456
Real Tariff Reform
The editor of the Houston Post Is in distress.
He is deeply grieved, as well as sorely disap
pointed, at Mr. Bryan's refusal to allow
"friends" to arrange a debate between Senator
Bailey and himself.
Mr. Bryan has given his reasons for believing
that a joint discussion is inadvisable, but tho
Post is disconsolate. It says: "The Post does
not impute a lack of courage to Mr. Bryan, as
some do," (many thanks) "but it does doubt
tho soundness of the reason he gives for avoid
ing the debate."
There are several other reasons which the
Post may discover if it searches diligently. For
instance: It may find that it would be a re
flection upon Mr. Bailey's opponents in Texas
to assume that there is no one there competent
to represent those who differ from him. Arid
again, the Post, but for its infatuation, might
.suspect that Senator Bailey does not represent
all the people of Texas, on the question of free
lumber. What reason has tho Post for believ
ing that thr democratic congressmen of Texas
(all but one voted for free lumber) misrepre
sent their constituents?
The Post espouses the tax on lumber as if
It reflected a unanimous sentiment. Is there
any reason to believe that, as a rule, a senator
is more likely than a congressman to voice the
wishes of constituents? Is not the presumption
with the Texas congressmen?
And on tho subject of frep iron ore: "Why
does -the i?oct not .suggest a, joint debate between
Senator Culberson and Senator Bailey? Sen
ator Culberson not only voted for free iron ore
but he made a speech in favor of it. Senator
Bailey has never answered Senator Culberson's
arguments. Here is a1 chance for "friends" to
arrange ... joint 'discussion. Why not give the
people of Texas a chance to hear these two dis
tinguished gentlemen debate a question which
divided the democracy of the senate, but would
not, it might be added, be apt to divide the
democracy anywhere else?
And what reason has the Post for believing
that Senator Bailey represents anybody but him
self, when he denies the binding force of plat
forms? Does the Post itself dispute the doc
trine laid down in the first plank of the plat
form proposed by Mr. Bryan, viz: "A platform
is a pledge given by the candidate to the voters,
and when ratified at the polls, becomes a con
tract between the official and his constituents.
To violate it, in letter or in spirit, is not only
undemocratic, but repugnant to the principles
of representative government, and constitutes
an embezzlement of power."
If the Post disputes this doctrine let it sub-
CONTENTS
REAL TARIFF REFORM
WHERE CONGRESSMEN STAND
KIRBY LUMBER COMPANY AND TARIFF
ON LUMBER
TEXAS DEMOCRATS AND REAL TARIFF
REFORM
MR. TAFT AND "THE LINE OF EN
FORCEMENT" PRACTICAL TARIFF TALKS
A SPECIAL INTERESTS ADMINISTRATION
THE PRIZE BUNCO GAME OF AMERICAN
HISTORY
PAYING THE REPUBLICAN TAX ON
CLOTHING
EDUCATIONAL' SERIES SHOULD THE
NAVY BE INCREASED
TOM L. JOHNSON'S GOOD FIGHT
CHAIRMAN PARSONS CHARGES SECRET
DEAL
ALDRICH TO GET A CENTRAL BANK
WITH TAFT'S HELP
CURRENT TOPICS
fc HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
m. i
mit tho question to a voto of its own readers, and
report tho result of tho voto.
Ono (of several) troubles with tho Post, is
that it does not fairly meet tho propositions
presented by Mr. Bryan. Tho Commoner calls
its attention to tho fact that tho first plank
reads: "Frco wool, tho abolition of tho com
pensatory duties on woolens and a substantial
reduction in tho ad valorem rato on woolens."
Is tho Post unwilling to givo tho consumer tho
benefit of "tho abolition of tho compensatory
duties on woolens and a substantial reduction
in tho ad valorem rate on woolens," because to
do so would requiro tho admission of free wool?
If the Post insists on a tax on wool merely
because 1107 mon out of tho total population
of Texas raiso sheep, how can it complain if tho
democrats of other states insist on protecting
everything raised in those states?
The second demand of Mr. Bryan's platform
is for "free lumber, free wood pulp and free
paper." Does the Post still demand a tax on
lumber in spite of tho votes cast for free lum
ber by all tho Texas congressmen, except ono?
The third demand of Mr. Bryan's platform is
for "free hides, leather, harness, boots and
shoes." Does tho Post opposo this demand?
Both of tho sonators and all tho congressmen
from Texas have expressed their willingness to
have hides put on the free '1st, providing leather,
harness, boots and shoes are also admitted free,
and that is what Mr. Bryan asks for.
Is tho Post opposed to "free oil and products
of oil?" and if it is in favor of free oil and tho
products of oil, why is it go afraid to put other
things on the free list?
Is the Post opposed to "low duties on tho
manufactures of Iron and steel," if in order
to secure those it must favor "free iron oro
and free coal?"
Is it opposed to "free binding twine, cotton
ties and cotton bagging?"
. Is it opposed to "material reductions" in tho
cotton schedules, and In the tariff upon all other
necessities of life, especially upon articles sold
abroad more cheaply than at home?"
Is it opposed to putting upon tho free list
"articles coming Into competition with trust
made articles?"
Is it opposed to fixing a maximum of 50 per
cent, so that no articles, except liquor and
tobacco, will be taxed more than that?
Is it opposed to a gradual reduction to 25
per cent of all rates above 25 per cent?
Tho Commoner reproduces below the platform
which Mr. Bryan read at Dallas, and which had
been put into an editorial before ho went to
Texas:
1. A platform is a pledge, given by tho can
didate to the voters, and when ratified at the
polls becomes a contract between the official
and his constituents. To violate it, in letter or
in spirit, is nQt only undemocratic, but repug
nant to the principles of representative govern
ment, and constitutes an embezzlement of power.
2. We denounce tho despotism known as
Cannonism and favor such an amendment to tho
rules of tho national house of representatives as
will restore popular government in that body
and insure the. rule of tho majority on every
question.
3. We endorse tho tariff plank of tho 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
backing.
Material reductions In tho 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, tho
highest on articles of luxury. Articles coming
into competition with trust-mado articles should
bo placed on tho frco list.
No tariff rato should bo nbovo GO por cent
ad valorem, oxcopt upon liquor and tobacco, and
all rates abovo 25 por cont, excepting thoso
upon liquor nnd tobacco, should bo reduced
ono-twcntloth each year until a 25 per cont
rato is roached, tho purpose being to roduco tho
tariff gradually to a rovonuo basis and there
after to collect tariff for rovonuo only.
Lot tho Post tako this platform up, plank by
plank, nnd Etato to its readers how much It ap
proves and how much it condemns, and then
its readers will bo ablo to find several reasons
why it is not necessary for Mr. Bryan to cutor
into a joint debate on theBO items with any
democrat.
In favoring real tariff reform and a specific
declaration In favor of tariff reduction, Mr.
Bryan represents tho democrats of Texas and
of tho entire south, as well as tho democrats
of tho north.
On a number of thoso questions, tho demo
cratic congressmen of Texas have nlrcady gono
on rocord, and Mr. Bryan will not asHtuno that
they are misrepresenting their constituents when
they ropudiato tho protective tariff doctrino
urged In behalf of a few Texas people who aro
pecuniarily interested in producing tho raw ma
terials that domand a tariff for tariff's sake. '
MIGHT HAVE III3LI'KI IN CONGRESS
At Fort Worth a few days ago, Senator Bailey
expressed his willingness to help elect demo
cratic conroHnmen In Nebraska. A Toxati demr
ocrat makes' tho very obvious reply that It Sen
ator Bailey had boon anxious to help clecbdeni
ocratio congressmen in Nebraska, ho would havo
shown it by his votes and speeches in tho sonato.
Ho, nnd thoso who voted with him, havo dona
moro to defeat democratic congreHamon In tho
close districts of tho north, than ho could havo
assisted by all tho speeches ho could mako in
that district in ono hundred years.
Tho domocrats of tho north beliovo that a
platform Is binding upon those who run upon
it, and they believe that a platform ought to
state tho party position. They also beliovo that
a tariff should bo made for tho purpose of rais
ing revenue, and not for tho purpose of protect
ing a few wool growers in one section, a few
timber growers in another, etc., etc., through
out tho country.
WHY?
Query: If tho democrats of Texas Insist that
a high tariff shall be collected on wool, because
there aro 1107 sheep owners in Texas, why
should not tho domocrats of Ohio, Indiana, Illi
nois, Pennsylvania, New York and New Eng
land Insist upon a high tariff on everything pro
duced In thoso states, where a much larger per
centage of the population Is connected with
protective Industries? Where can wo expect
tariff reform sontlment if not in Te'xas?
Where Congressmen Stand
Tim nommoncr will be nlcosed to nubllsh
brief letters from congressmen nnd democratic
candidates for congress, giving their opinion
of tho tariff platform suggested by Mr. Bryan.
(It will bo found in another column of this
issue.)
New York, October 6, 1909. Hon. William J.
Bryan, Lincoln, Nob. My Dear Mr. Bryan: I
am with you in your fight for free raw material,
and true tariff reform, and 99 per cent of tho
democrats of tho country will line up under this
banner. It is the best unifying principle tho
democrats havo today.
In my speeches in congress against the Payne-Aldrlch-Cannon-Taft
tariff bill, I came out Jlat
footed and as strongly as I possibly could in
favor of free raw material, which is ono of tho
ancient land marks of democratic policy. On
these lines keep up tho fight. We can carry the
country on the issue in 1912.
With best wishes, believe me, as ever.
Very sincerely, your friend,
WM. SULZER; .
114
-inni(minw.iiiihrft- 'Ifttiifiiimh,