MS.'
"suryw--' 'K"p'rjfWrT" ''S'ws'V,"T"''''PPr'T,'
The Commoner.
? "
VOLUME ,9',rNUMBEIl 40
J
i
f
&
&r&t Lumber Company and Tariff on Lumber
Mr. John II. Kirby, president of the Kirby
Lumber company, of Houston, Texas, has writ
ten to Mr. Bryan and haB caused to bo published
In the daily press a letter in which Mr. Kirby
takes exception to some remarks attributed to
Mr. Bryan at 131 Paso. In this letter Mr. Kirby
says:
"According to the press reports you stated
In your El Paso speech that the Kirby Lumber
company "owned twenty-six mills;" that it had
"4,G00,Q0O wood chunks with which to bring
pressure to bear upon the congress of tho United
States in the tariff matter;" that "it was not
working for a few people on tho Canadian
border when it worked so hard for a tariff on
lumber;" and "that it went after a tariff and
It went hard.' I wish to call your attention to
tho circumstanco that tho Kirby Lumber com
pany owns exactly twelvo mills, no more and
no less. All of these mills are located in the
Btato of Texas. It has no other mills and no
Interest in any other mills. In selling its pro
duct it competes with more than four thousand
other sawmills in the United States and more
than four hundred In Texas, and does a strictly
legitimate business on a strictly competitive
basis. It has never been in congress or before
congress, directly or indirectly, soliciting any
form of legislation, whether about the tariff or
otherwise, and neither it nor any one connected
with it or Interested in a financial way in its
affairs, has written any letters, signed any peti
tions, spoken any word or made any character
of communication, directly or indirectly, to Sen
ator Bailey or to any other senator or repre
sentative in the congress of tho United States
concerning the tariff or concerning any other
question pending before congress.
"In 1907 the product of Texas lumber mills
sold at the average price f. o. b cars at the mill,
of $18 per thousand feet. This was when tho
duty on lumber was $2 per thousand feet. In
1908 and up to July, 1, in 1909,, when the duty,
on lumber- was still $2 per thousand feet, the
product of these ame mill...-sold at an average
price of $11.50.
"You did us grave injustice in your El Paso
speech and regardless of your controversy with
Senator Bailey concerning the question of free
raw material, or concerning the Denver plat
form of 1908, you owe it to me as a private
citizen and to my company as a legitimate enter
prise, to investigate the matters about which
you have spoken so freely, and when you have
made such investigation, correct the misstate
ments you have made."
Mr. Bryan replied to this letter as follows:
Lincoln, Neb., October 0, 1909. Mr. John H.
Kirby, Houston, Texas. Dear Sir: Your favor
of September 28 is at hand. The El Paso speech
was not prepared in advance, and tho only re
port of it which I have seen and that a partial
report is the one given in the Dallas News.
This, report purports to give tho part in which
roferenco is made to, the lumber tariff. If you
- will examine that 'report, you will see, first, that
it differs considerably from tho report from,
which you quote, and, second, that I explain
why I refer to tho Kirby Lumber company. The
Dallas News quotes me as saying, "I only speak
of the Kirby Lumber company because I under
stand it is the largest lumber company in TeXaB."
"While I do not recall the exact words quoted
by you in your letter, I may have used them. I
have direct Information that some of the lumber
companies of Texas did ask for tho retention of
tho tariff on lumber, and I have been informed
that you are an avowed protectionist and that
your company was opposed to free lumber. If
you are an advocate of the policy of protection,
and if you and your company favor a tariff on
lumber, you ought to have so stated in your
letter, or am I to infer from your letter that
you are not in favor of tho general policy of
protection and that your company is not in favor
of a tariff on lumber? Upon tho Information
which I had, I assumed that your company was
one of the lumber companies which asked for a
tariff, and with the understanding that your
company is the largest lumber company in
Texas, I mentioned it by name. I did not men
tion you or any other person, but I am glau to
publish your denial of the charge, and am glad
to be assured by you that you regard the tariff
on lumber as immaterial.
You say that your company has never been
!n congress or before congress directly or in
directly, solicited any form of legislation wheth
er about the tariff or otherwise, and that
neither it nor anyono connected with it or in
terested in a .financial ivay in its financial affairs
has written any letters, signed any petitions,
spoken any word or made any character of com'
munlcatkn directly or in "irectly to Senator
Bailey or to any other senator or representative
in congress in the United States concerning the
tariff or concerning any other question pending
before congress." Your corporation has a capital
stock, I believe, of ten millions, half preferred,
and half common. I do riot know how widely
scattered this stock is, nor do I know in what
proportion the stock is held by different parties,
but your statement is so explicit and so sweep
ing that I must take it for granted that you
have consulted with all of the stockholders and
know whereof you speak when you deny that
anyone "connected with it or interested in a
financial way in its affairs has spoken or writ
ten to any senator or congressman on tho tariff
question." T am glad to publish your denial
that you havo taken any part in asking for the
tariff, and I shall give to your statement as wide
publicity as I can. This is not only due to you
since you have denied the statement made by
me, but I am glad to have the democrats of
Texas know that tho largest lumber company
in Texas does not regard the tariff as necessary
to the industry or even as a benefit to it. Some
of the Texas democrats seem to think that the
advocacy of free lumber is an attack: upon a
Texas industry.
According to your letter your share of the
tariff would be about $375,000 a year if the
tariff is added to the price of the home product.
If, as I understand you to say, that it is not
true in the case of Texas lumber, then the re
moval of the tariff can not injure the lumber
interests of Texas, and the solicitude of those
democrats who have been lying awake at night
for fear injustice would be done to the lumber
interests may feel easy. The point that I tried
to make was this, that a tax on lumber, iff
beneficial to the lumber interests, must be paid
by the consumers, and if paid by the consumers,,
it is a tax upon them for the benefit of the.
lumber Interests. With the understanding that,
the lumber interests of Texas did favor a tariff,
arid knowing that when people favor a pro
tective tariff upon something they produce, it is
because they expect to profit by it, I pointed
out that the. rest of the people of Texas would ,
have to contribute through an increased price
on lumber.
It is immaterial to those who think as I do
whether a tariff on lumber benefits the lumber
interests or not. If it does not, then no argu
ment can be made in favor of the tariff. If it
does benefit the lumber interests, it is at the
expense of the consumer. Your letter, while
relieving your company of the charge that it
favored a tariff or would be benefited by it, re
lieves the advocates of free lumber of the charge
of doing Injustice to the lumber interests of
your state.
Appreciating your courtesy in bringing this
matter to my attention, I am,
Very truly yours,
W. J. BRYAN;
RHODjH island democrats
Tho Rhode Island democrats did well in de
claring for genuine tariff reform, for the elec
tion of senators by popular vote and for a fed
eral income tax. It is becoming more and more
apparent that democrats everywhere intend to
put their best foot foremost and avoid the
perils of a sham battlo.
WHO WOULD ATTEND?
Some of the eastern papers are suggesting a
national conference to outline a policy for the
democratic party, but who would do the Invit
ing? And who would attend?
How could wo get a more representative body
than the last democratic convention? It adopt
ed a platform and outlined a policy which was
endorsed by the democrats of the country. There
were a few democrats who wore not in harmony
with the platform adopted, and some of them
did not support the ticket. They might be in
favor of a conference, but what influence would
such a conference have, except to sound a note
of discord?
The value of a conference depends entirely
upon the representative character of those who
attend it. "What assurance would wo 'aave that
any national conference would be sufficiently
representative of the masses to speak with au
thority? State conferences are much more de
fensible than a '.national conference, because'
state conferences can be more easily attended
by the rank and file than a national conference
Tho people who Would be most apt to attend
a national conference, if it were open to all,
would be the very people who could not go aa
delegates to a representative democratic gather
ing, viz: the men who are pecuniarily interested
in defeating the popular will.
AN OPTIMLST
A writer in the Philadelphia North American
asked for a definition for optimist. Some one
sent in this:
"An Optimist is a man who can make lemon
ado out of the lemons that are handed to him."
The Philadelphia North American ought to
appreciate this definition. Urging its readers
to stand for the public welfare it blindly gave
its support to a political party that derives its
campaign funds from special Interests, then it
expresses surprise that tho special interests have
their way with the party's administration of
public affain. If the Philadelphia North Ameri
can can find solace then, according to the defini
tion, it is an optimist. But if, in the light of all
its experience with tho republican party, that
newspaper continues to give its support to the
party that fights the-predatory interests then any
of the North American's bright newsboys, speak
ing in the parlance of the street, will tell that
great newspaper that it is something more or
less than r.n optimist.
A SIMPLE OLD REPUBLICAN
The Philadelphia North American concludes
a long editorial in these words:
"Despite the seeming prophecy of Lincoln
and the seeming parallel of the presidency of
1859 with the 'presidency of 1909, our devoutest
hope today is that William Howard Taft in the
three years to come will dispel the fears born
of the past six months that after fifty years
history is repeating itself at Washington."
The North American is simple, indeed, if it
does not know that Mr. Taft's conduct (that Is
responsible. for "the fears bom of the past six
months") is in ha-rmpny with the., conditions
under which he was elected to' the, presidency.
The special interests provided .the republican
party with campaign funds arid ','tb the victors
belong the spoils." '
(J
SHOW THIS TO YOUR REPUBLICAN
NEIGHBOR
In the making of a tariff law, one
would naturally suppose that those least
able to bear the burdens of taxation
' would not be discriminated against in
favor of those best able to pay the tax
involved in any tariff levy.
But what are the facts?
Tho man who imports $1,000 worth
of diamonds pays a tax of but $100
10 per cent. If he imported a thousand
shirts worth a dollar -each he would have
to leave at the customs house and tack
onto his selling prices $601.60 60.16
per cent;
If he decided that he would bring in
$1,000 worth of champagne, one of the
items upon which there is a large in-
crease, the tax levied by the tariff is
$500. If he brought in $1,000 worth of
0 blankets he would pay a tariff tax of
$1,645.42.
If he brought in $1,000 worth of paint-
ings and statuary, all he would have to
pay as customs duties would be $200,
but if it were sugar he would pay
$788.70 tax on $1,000 worth.
If he brought in $1,000 worth of jew-
elry he would have to pay $600 tariff
tax, but if he brought in $1,000 worth of
wool dress goods he would pay $1,050.92
tariff. '
If he imported a $5,000 automobile
the tariff takers would relieve him of
$2,250. If it were $5,000 worth of
yarns the tariff tax would be $6,960.
If the importation were $5,000 worth 3
of furs the tariff tax would be $1,650
but if it were $5,000 worth of clothing
that tax would be $4,330.
If some New York millionaire brings
in a $100,000 ocean-going yacht the
tariff would be $35,000, but if the Im-
portation were stockings the tariff col-
lected would be $87,950. .. C. Q. D.
'
'fr' ; g)
v
.v
