.
OCTOBER 22, 190$
The Commoner.
Texans Fighting for Democratic Principles
ml h Bryan and Bailoy controversy resolved
Itself into one of protection and anti-protection
in spite of all sophistry and hair-splitting argu
ments. Bryan recognizes protection as a re
publican doctrine and proposes to fight it all
along the line, attacking its market places first.
Bailey fights the general Idea of protection, but
insists that, as others get protection, that Is, are
allowed to tax the masses for the benefit of a
few, his few constituents who can receive the
benefits of protection shall havo their share of
the graft. Granbury (Texas). News.
The News has not sized up the co.ntroversy
correctly. Bryan wants to raise revenue by tax
ing manufactured products alone and would
place raw materials on the free list. Bailoy in
sists that a low revenue tariff be laid on both
manufactured products and raw materials. Both
Bryan and Bailey admit that even a low tariff
affords some incidental protection to the do
mestic manufacturer or producer. Mr. Bryan's
plan would give all this incidental protection
to the eastern manufacturers, while Mr. Bailey's
plan would distribute it fairly between producers
and manufacturers. If the people must pay a
tax on shoes, why should not the manufacturer
pay a tax on hides? If the wool manufacturer
gets the benefit of the incidental protection of
a revenue duty on woolen goods, why should not
the sheep owner have the benefit of the inciden
tal protection of a revenue duty on wool? Fort
.Worth .(Texas) Record.
The editor of the Granbury News will, of
course, make adequate reply to the editor of
the Fort Worth Record for the Record does
not state Mr. Bryan's position fairly. The plat
form proposed by Mr. Bryan tells its own story.
That platform follows:
1. A platform is a pledge, given by the can
didate to the voters, and when ratified at the
polls becomes a contract between the official
and his constituents. To violate It, in lottor or
m spirit, Is not only undemocratic, but repug
nant to the principles of representative govern
ment, nnd constitutes an ombezzlomcnt of power
2. Wo denounce the despotism known as
Lannonlsra and favor Buch an nmondmont to the
rules of the national house of representatives as
will restore popular government in that body
and insure the rule of tho majority on ovorv
question.
3. We endorse tho tariff plank of tho last
national democratic platform and believe that
the measure carrying out tho promlso of that
platform should, among other things, nrovido
for:
Free wool, tho abolition of tho compensatory
duties on woolens and a substantial reduction
in tho ad valorem rate on woolens.
Free lumber, free wood pujp and froo paper
Free bides, leather, harness, boots and shoos'
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 tho cotton schedules
and in tho tariff upon all other necesscrles of
life, especially upon articles cold abroad more
cheaply than at homo, tho aim being to put tho
lowest duty on articles of necessity "and tho
highest on articles of luxury. Articles coming
into competition with trust-mado articles should
be placed on the free list.
No tariff rate should bo above 50 per cent
ad valorem, except upon liquor and tobacco, and
all rates above 25 per cent, excepting fioso
upon liquor and tobacco, should bo reduced
one-twentieth each year until a 25 per cent
rate is reached, the purpose boing to reduce tho
tariff gradually to a revenue basis and there
after to collect tariff for revonue only.
An Analysis By "An Old Time Democrat"
The Houston, Texas, Chronicle prints this
letter: "
To the Editor of the Chronicle: A few re
marks anent Senator Bailey's tariff speech, and"
especially from the standpoint of the consumer,
might not be amiss from an "old time demo
crat." I was among those who listened to the
senator last night, and am yet far from con
vinced that the strange doctrine he preaches
should be accepted by the democratic party. At
best, his argument is sectional, and could not
In any sense be accepted as outlining a' national
policy.
To those who heard the senator, it was ap
parent that his argument was all from the stand
point of the producer of the raw material and
the manufacturer of the finished product, and
not in any sense from" the standpoint of the
consumer. Ho did not undertako to explain, in
any satisfactory manner, the obviously irresist
ible conclusion that whenever a tariff is placed
on raw material, the manufacturer adds it to
the price of the finished product, thus making
the consumer pay a double tax, being taxed
first on the raw material, and then when the
raw material is made up into the finished pro
duct, then paying a tax on the finished product.
When it is considered that the largest per cent
of the people are consumers, the eloquent plea
of our junior senator for our great lumber kings,
wool growers and manufacturers will carry very
little weight with the great American people,
who pay this tribute. The senator admits that
a tax on raw material is added to tho finished
product, thus making double taxation, when he
says that the best remedy is to take the tax off
of the finished product and leave it on the raw
material. This has never been done, as it
.would not be the best means to obtain revenue,
and furthermore the senator knows that it
never will be done, and therefore he advocates
a fallacy as a cure for the one paramount ob
jection to the wisdom of taxed raw material,
to-wit: That such tax on raw material is added
to the finished product. I can not blame a great
lumber manufacturer, or an opulent wool grow
er, or the owners of iron ore, for thoroughly
agreeing with the senator in his eloquent plea
In behalf of their products, but how a plain
everyday American consumer can get in that
bunch will always remain a mystery to me, and
when you find one doing so, if you raise his hat,
you will find his head is not bigger than a south
y
Texas pecan. You see there are throe classes:
The producer, tho manufacturer and tho con
sumer. The consumer has no place in either
the other two classes, and his chief interest now
is to keep our senator from getting him in be
tween them, and grinding him to death in tariff
tribute to both. The interest of tho consumer
is necessarily diametrically opposed to a taxa
tion for protection of either tho producer or the
manufacturer, and his interest insistently de
mands that he oppose a tax for protection of
both the raw material man and the finished
article man, and he can not hold out long in
trying to protect both, with any regard to his
own interest. The only position for tho con
sumer to take, so long as the government's
revenue is to bo collected through tho customs
house, is to be for a tariff on tho finished pro
duct for revenue only, and, at best, for inciden
tal protection, which means unintended protec
tion. When a consumer gts off of this ground,
and goes to boasting about protecting tho raw
material and the manufacturer, with no regard
to protecting himself and family, he is fit, as our
junior senator would say, for the "witches."
The senator's argument that public servants
are above instructions rt the platform made by
their constituents in convention assembled is a
rather novel one to be made in a representative
form of government, wherein the only method
by which the people who enter into a contract
with their representative obligating him to carry
out their wishes, is by presenting him with a
platform and, asking him will ho accept a nom
ination on such platform and abide by it. Tho
senator seeks Ingenuously to justify his con
duct in repudiating the Denver platform on tho
tariff question, but his argument amounts to no
more than that a public servant can carry out
his own desires in tho matter of legislation with
out regard to the instructions of his paTty and
his constituents. This is a strange argument
from the man who but a couple of years ago,
when brought to the bar of public judgment
before the legislature at Austin, cracked the
party lash with all the force at his command,
and made tho air vocal with a demand that any
democrat who had been elected to tho legisla
ture on a r-latform endorsing Senator BUley
should either vote for Senator Bailey for United
States senator or go home and resign and run
over again, so that the people could determine
whether they would elect him when they knew
ho would ropudlato his platform. Thoy oven
Kot poor Hawkins to resign In northwest Texan
and then dumped onough inonoy in his district
to beat him. How trcachorous Is tho memory
or man whon It 1 convenient to dlsromombor!
Personally, I regret that Senator Bailoy has
taken this now stand as against the people, for
wo can no longer follow him In view of this
now offort to ropubllcanlzo tho democratic party.
Ho may havo a flno head, and Is unquestionably
a man of brilliant parts, but It may bo reason
ably doubted that his heart Is right with tho
people. Mr. Bryan Is a man who, in intellect
J? .V10 equal, If not tho superior, of Sonator
Bailoy, and It can not bo doubted that his heart
beats warmly and truly to tho Interests of tho
great mosses of our country. Granting, thoro
forothat Mr. Bryan and Mr. Bailoy are Intel
lectually a standoff, It yot behooves tho people
to bo with that ono whoso heart Is right. There
fore, let the fight go on; with Sonator Aldrlch
looking after tho protected Interests of tho man
ufacturer of tho north and cant, and with Sen
ator Bailey protecting tho lumber king and tho
cattlornan of tho south and west, tho great body
of consumers of tho American people will be
willing with tho utmost fidelity and trust to rest
their enso In tho hands of their great commoner,
Mr. Bryan, relying on him to do justice to all
sections, without nny endeavor to bestow spe
cial privileges upon ono class as against the
olher- OLD-TIME DEMOCRAT.
A NEW YORK PAPER'S VIEW
It Is an unusual luxury for tho Times to be
ablo to praise tho courso of Mr. Bryan. But
now that that gentleman Is in Texas carrying
on a brisk discussion with Senator Bailoy, in
which tho former pleads for free raw matorlals
and the latter contends tjiat thoy aro a proper
subject for taxation, wo acknowledge tho un
accustomed luxury with gratification.
If this country employed duties on imports
only for tho purposo of obtaining revenue, a
plausible plea' could bo made for the taxation
of certain forms of such materials, but such
taxation would havo to bo regarded frankly a
a burden upon tho Industry of tho country,
which should bo carefully apportioned with a
view to distributing it fairly. And In no case
could, tho rate of taxation justly bo such as
would unnecessarily Increase tho cost of such
matorlals to tho manufacturers for whoso pro
duct they aro requisite. Imported wool, for
example, might, under such a system, bo taxed
to help meet tho needs of tho government, but
it could not bo taxed beyond the rato demanded
for that purposo In order to enable tho domes
tic wool grower to secure higher prices for his
product. The tax, whatever it was, would In
evitably be paid, with additions, by tho wearer
of woolen clothing, and there is no possible
justification for burdening him in tho interest
of tho wool manufacturer.
Wo understand that this simple doctrine is
to tho protectionist a snare and to the fattened
beneficiary of tariff taxation a stumbling block.
But to men of tho democratic party, as Mr.
Bailey pretends to be, It ought to be funda
mentally sound and axlomatlcally clear. To
Mr. Bryan It Is, and In that respect Mr. Bryan
is Infinitely a better democrat than Mr. Bailey.
Of course it is a misfortune for tho party and
for tho country that organized opposition to the
oppressive tariff should bo hampered and weak
ened by the defection of prominent democrat
like Senator Bailey and some other senators.
But that Is an unavoidable Incident In tho pro
gressive demoralization worked by tho use of
tho taxing power of tho nation for private gain
at tho expense of the mass of the people. Once
put tho hands of tho private interests in the
treasury, or, worse, Into tho pockets of their
fellow citizens, and the itching palms will keep
grabbing more and more. Now when this Is
going on all over tho country all the time It Is
impossible to keep tho palms of democratic
politicians pool. Immediate advantage Is to bo
had from joining the tax-eaters, and their sense
of higher duties, broader views, and great prin
ciples is dulled. That Is what has happened
in the case of Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Bryan ia
doing good service In combating his insidious
and injurious Influence. It is true that division
in tho ranks of the party is harmful, but when
it arises from betrayal of tho party principles
tho only remedy is the faithful maintenance of
those principles by those who really believe in
them until the conscience and Intelligence of
the party are rallied. New York Times.
N
i
t M
T
ti
1
t
, n
i.'l
4
ii
;
i
H
fi
:-4l
1
i '1
1 .4
f&H
M.
i.1 . w 1