vmrtfitr .
The Commoner.
-jr
2,
VOLUME ; NUMBER 42
i
MR. HARDY'S SPEECH
Representative Itufus Hardy, representing tho
Sixth Texas district, and whoso home is in Cor
sicapa, .Texas, delivered a tariff speech at Came
ron Texas', on tho evening of October 18. In
this speech Mr. Hardy took tho position that
Mr. Bryan' is right in his position on the tariff
question. Tho text of tho pecch follows:
My Fellow Citizens: ' 1 shall endeavor to dis
cuss, 'as you have requested, the issues raised
by' Mr; Bryan and Mr. Bailey In, their recent
Dallas opeedhes. This will involve a discussion,
of tho Denver convention and platform, the force
arid value of party platforms, tho merits of sev
eral pledges of the Denver platform and tho
question not named or referred to in, that plat
form" whether tho raw material of the manu
facturer should bo admitted free of duty. Tho
convention that met at Denver last year waB a
groat convention. It was composed of many. of,
the most distinguished members of the party
including many United States senators, gov
ernors, exjgovernors and members of congress,
and many who were not officeholders, biit great
leaders of tho party, fresh from the gr,eat body
and heart of the people. Its platfprm committee
was selected and included its ' greatest .men,
among them Alton B. Parker, our standard
bearer in 1904, who was favored, I think, by
Mr. Bailey himself.
This platform committee devoted thrty-six
hours to the discussion and preparation of tho
platform, and notwithstanding Mr. Bailey's at
tack upon it as being incapable of preparing a
platform, of democratic principles w.ojr'thy to
bind him, it needs no defense at my hands. Hav
ing made this attack upon the convention itqolf
in the senate, Mr. Bailey proceeded to attack
thp platform. In bold terms he simply declared,
that .the platform had no binding fopce npon
him or any, pther 'democratic member of tho
house or senate whoselconscience or judgment
differed from it, which means that it had no
value whatever. , In -that declaration, was Mr.
Bailey right? , Especially was he right ,as . to
tMfe twpMiHH?-,& our platform; which de
nounces; first, the demand that -trust-controlled
products be placed on the free lfst, and.-iecbnd,"
tho lumber plank? As fo the first?, Mr. Bailey
was not in the convention when it was adopted,
but the convention had his credentials from the
rexas state convention, containing instructions
a delegate to vote for that plank, and
all the Texas delegates at Denver voted for It.
The second plank included a demand for free
wood pulp and print paper, for which every
democrat in the houso of representatives of tho
Sixtieth congress had declared.
but, my fellow citizens, if Mr. Bailey is., right,
party platforms are absolutely worthless. Tlvey
are either republican platitudes to be twisted
and tortured in construction or democratic false
hoods uttered only to cajole and deceive and to
be spit upon by senators and congressmen who
are bigger than the party.
In 1S94 we had another democrat who was
greater than his party, and the democrats were
in power, They had made a platform and 'given
promises and pledges to tho people, but Senator
Gorman was greater and wiser than his party.
I happened to sit in the senate1 chamber' on the
day after Senator Gore, had made the charge
that Andrew Carnegie, through the kind offices
of Mr. Gorman, was permitted to prepare the
iron and steel schedule of the .Wilson bill. Mr.
Gore submitted with his statement a -magazine
article written by Mr. Carnegie.
APPROVAL OP PARTY
??es.0 tw Plftnks "ad, to the public, every
tllu,0 being aPProved by tho whole party,
ater a strong campaign upon them during which
Wor1 h n Mr Ba"5y di not attend the Port
S? i ?envei; conventions, hIs,closest politi
cal and personal friends did, and thev voted
lhnla murmur for both those platforms! and
S?PhnnlhiCIV?e,I,omo the cl0Best of them all,
perhaps Mr. Ousley of the Fort Worth Record
5 7S? thG DSnver plaUorm M th embodtaSJnt
? i Sd0m, and dGmocracy. This was the atti
S5? In1 Texas and elsewhere while we were
asking the people for their votes, and white I
and many other Texans were making speeches
In a dozen states of tho union urging ournlat
fom and our candidate before the foters D
Yhati,e Platforni8? I want to read you
In i808!tn? d2? thGr an former PlStoiKS
X? 18GLtho democracy concluded its platform
thus: "Upon this platform the democratic nartv
SSK? eV.ry patrIot" 1876 they sa'yT
itlriRA fifr3by S?1 t0 our fe"ow citizens"
In 1S84 they say: "With-this statement of tlie
52?tv' ?LnCiPle? and purpo8 of the Semocra ic
party, the great issue is submitted."
; In like manner every four years we have eiven
for h our platform of promises and pledeS of
policies and principles, and on them askfd for
the people s trust and votes. The doctVine is
certainly strange and modem that the candidate
is sacred and must be supported, but ppfneffleS
and; pledges, policies and pronilses-ou plo
forms are worthless: that tli mn ViU
prlncime, is binding.' In todTnime we
voled for tho man for the sake of the principle
"M e t0Jd1W0 Mt vote for tlie principle!
for,$ie sake of the nominee PS
JSE1??0 thP Platf0nvcan bind .mo to
v8c ?r a dIshonosfc or dishonorable measure,
CARNEGIE ARTICLE
Mr. Bailey addressed the senate, and. in sub-,
stance denied the truth of Mr. Gore's speech,
and Mr. Carnegie's article, and left the impres
sion on my mind that Mr. Gorman .was absolute--ly
free of any, responsibility for any schedule
of the Wilson bill. Mr. Gorman was highly eulo-
gized by Mr, Bailey and the whole credit or
dipcredlt of that part of 'the Jlson bill applying
to iron and steel wad fixed upon the democratic
senate finance committee or sub-committ.ee, in
cluding Roger Q. Mills.
- Tho cleanness of Mr. Mills. was justly held, up.
as guaranty that Mr. Carnegie was not allowed
to' write any schedule for him, and thus &ith
Mills, irreproachable, in charge and Gorman. far t
away, not even Jn touch with the committee, as,'
shpwn oy Mr. Bailey, Mr Carnegie had, only
drearaecj what he wrote. . , "-. ' . .,'
Mr. Aldrlch corroborated, Mr. Bailey, .and to-?
gether they left friend Gore not a peg to hang
UPdh. - . , . ; , , .. , ;:v .
What was my astonishment on my return
home to have shown .me. he. copy of a letter
written-in 1903 and published in the Houston
Post" from ' E. H. Church cashier b -the' First
National bank' of Corslcana driH lifloiig" friend
of Roger Q. Mills, which in part says:
'' AS TO MtlLL$
"Oorsicana, Texas, October 20, 1903. Editor
Po,st: .Noticing a letter from Senator Butler
of South Carolina and ,an editorial in a
recent issue of your paper concerning the part
played by Senator Gorman in changing the Wil.
son bill along protection lines . I beg leave
to submit the following facts which I think can
not be controverted ? and I think the truth
of history demands it. When the Wilson bill
was sent from the house to tho senate, it- was
referred to the senate committee on finance.
That committee referred it to a sub-committee
with instructions to .make a more truly demo
cratic ibill. This committee was made up of
Senators Jones of Arkansas, Vest of Missouri,
and Mills xZ Texas. Mills was not a member
of the committee on finance.1 When he went
from the house to the senate he had been at
once tendered an assignment qn that committee
by a special resolution introduced by Mr. Voor
hees of Indiana but declined owing to
ill health. When, however, tho Wilson bill
came to the senate, he was asked by the demo
cratic senators on the finance committee to act
with them in remodeling the bill along lower
tariff lines, and when he agreed to do this was
made a member of the sub-committee referred
to above. This committee had the bill in hand
several weeks, and reported it back to the fujl
democratic membership of the finance commit
tee. Senator Gorman, becoming acquainted with
the provisions of the bill as framed by Jones,
Vest and Mills, was very mu.ch displeased and
was instrumental in having a caucus of all demo
cratic senators called to consider the bill. At
that time the democrats controlled the senate
by, I think, only two majority. One of these,
Hill of New York, intended to vote against the
bill ori account of the income tax provision
which it contained. Therefore it was necessary
to have such a bill as coujd pommand tho support
of all or it must fail of passage. In tho caucus,
Senator Gorman spoke Xor three days against
the bill, until finally it was seen that the only
thing that could be done was to allow himself
and .those who agreed with, him to make such
changes in its schedules ,aq .w,o,uld cause It to
receive their support.. This ..being done, it was.
turned over to Gorman, Brico. of Ohio, Smith
of New Jersey and. possibly Murphy of New York
and one or two others. Under their charge
more than 600 articles were increased, thus
undoing tho work of Jones, Vest and Mills and
making it w.orsa than the Wilson bill had. been
when 3t. came from the house. - -
CLEVELAND'S ATTITUDE
"This action caused Mr. Cleveland to denounce
it as a measure 'of party perfidy and dishonor
The Congressional Record will show that when
this bill was reported to the senate, Senator
Mills rose in his place and denounced the bill
and said that ft was not -the Wilson bill, but
that it was the Gorman-Brjtae bill and that, ho
intended to. vote against every ope of the amend
ments and to denounce the .republican and pro
tective features injected into "the bill by those
senators who called themselves democrats, but
wanted a' republican protective tariff bill passed.
The letter of Senator Butler of South Carolina
is, of course, written, in the interest of Senator
Gorman's candidacy 'for the presidency.
One who reads Senator Butler's letter can
readily understand why he appearB as counsel
for Senator Gorman. .Berng a protectionist him
self, he naturally desires some one of his' own
faith to lead the party so. that in any event,
whether the democratic or republican party win,
we may have a protectionist president."
The letter continues very forcibly, but I have
given enough of it to show that Mr. Bailey and
Mr. Aldrlch must have been- very much mistaken
when they acquitted Mr. Gorman iu the senate
of having any hand in the mutilation of the
Wilson bill, and enough tb show that Andrew
Carnegie spoke' true in his magazine article
when he said that he was allowed by Mr. Gor
man to prepare the 'iron and steel schedule.
If I remember rightly, Mr. Gorman, before
his death, was Mr. Bailey's first choice for t' e
democratic nomination for the presidency in
1904.' ' .('-
'It' is any wonder that Mr. Bailey,- treading tho
Very paths ttiai Gorman had, shoul'd 'desire his
XiViiilliUblVU
ii-
ln
THE LtJMBER tIANK I' ' .
In- attacking thq lumber plank ,n.t Bquton,
Mr.'Bailejr said:' "What XWeT.next, article?
Print papeA Why?, They, w.ap ted "to bribe the
newspapers and magazines to support the demo
cratic ticket. The bribe didn't work. I .m glad
it didn't; for I pray God the democratic party
may be spared of victory itm.us.t purchase." In
the senate he .said: "Mr. President, .the story
of that cpnvention need not be. told. ' TJiis par
ticular free lumber, prpposftion , was. pirt thero
to carry two or three of the rQrth western states.
It did not carry them, au& I think the considera
tion for the promise, failed." Strange words
from a democrat and strange recognition in its
peculiar way that he was or ought to be bound
by, thq promise unless he could find some excise.
I leave you to construe his words as to what
he was glad of and judge of, the excuse he gives
for violating the promise.
The next attack he, makes is .upon the plank
demanding that trust controlled products be
admitted free.
He says: "Repeal the duty on every article
controlled by a trust and wq rem't $150,000 000
of revenue at one stroke of the pen. Now, let
us be practical men. The remedy, is not to put
trust-controlled articles on the free list but put
trust-controlling magnates In the penitentiary."
And with that, Mr. Bailey demplishes the
strongest tariff demand of the Denver platform
and .of the Port Worth platform. He is going
to solve everything by putting trust magnates
in the penitentiary. The democratic party in
state and nation have been demanding that
trust magnates be put in the penitentiary for
many years, and that is one of the remedies
called for by the. Denver platform. Mr. Bailey
is not original 'in urging it, He is. only original
in urging that we leave all other remedies alone
and seek no other relief, and depend alone on
criminal statutes to protect the people from
oppressive combinations fostered by the tariff
and sustained by the trusts; but the .stubborn
fact remains that no great trust magnate so
far has ever worn a convict'. stripe for violating
an anti-trust criminal statute.
BAILEY'S ARGUMENT
, Mr. Bailey defends the duties he voted for on
the. ground that they were not protective duties,
and were revenue duties both in their rates and
results. I deny this, but if If were, true it would
s,till not1 answer or disprove. the charge of disloyalty-Mr.
Bryan brings,. against hirn. Tho phit-
m
II
, O .5 ,
H- .fktfM&A-
JfAU4
tttfetfltefri
itittita
ftim.