-w-pfv-39rpilpar'r"
tii, irm r -W
i'"i'!i'miui"hi;"ii.i'-wi'wiwi'jiw5;
MMiWiWl
OCTOBER 20, 1001
form demands that all trust-controlled products
and lumber, logs, wood pulp and print papor
bo put on the free list. If Iron ore was a trust
controlled product, the platform demands that
it be put there, and a vote to put a duty on it
by a democrat who believed It to be a trust-controlled
product was a violation of tho platform.
If hides were a trust-controlled product, tho
platform demanded that they bo placed on tho
free list, and a vote to put a duty on them by a
democrat who believed them to bo so controlled
was a violation of tho platform.
I voted for a duty on hides, but I did not bc
lievo there was any trust among tho hide pro
ducers or that there was any trust that controlled
their product. On the contrary, I believed tho
two great trusts, tho packer trust and tho leather
trust were in a sharp struggle over hides, with
tho result of good prices for them to tho cattle
man. If tho platform had9 specifically demanded
that hides bo placed on the free list I would
have so voted, because wo would have gone bo
foro tho people on that pledge.
Mr: Bailey's answer is shrewd, it is catchy,
but does not meet tho charge. It shrewdly mixes
and mingles questions of general policy with tho
question of unequivocal violation of tho platform.
TARIFF FOR REVENUE
No duty that is not a revenue duty is demo
cratic, but not every duty is democratic that is a
revenue duty, and Mr. Bailey knows this and
himself voted for free coffee, though he know
It would bo strictly a revenue duty and that
every dollar of burden borno by tho peoplo
under it would go into the treasury, and that
no profit or benefit or protection would bo given
and no -tribute levied by it on all tho people for
a favored few.
If the democratic convention demands that
some great article of common use and necessity,
like lumber or coffee, be placed on the free list
and I defy that demand, it Is no defense to show
that the duty I vote for is a revenuo duty. If
tho democratic convention demands that a trust
controlled product bo put on the free list and I'
defy it, it is no defense to show that the duty
I vote fpr is a revenue duty.
"With infinite egotism, Mr. Bailey appropriates
tho income tax to himself. "When I get that
Income tax," ho exclaimed at Fort Worth and
his audionco cheered. I think most of them
must not have known that anybody but he was
going to get it for them or had ever advocated
it. They never heard of or had forgotten Mills
and Wilson, whose ideas Mr. Bailey absorbed
and whose income tax bill he only substantially
reintroduced. I refer to this, not merely to
speak of Mr. Bailey's consuming vanity, but to
use it for another purpose. In the senate ho
directly attacked the Denver demand that all
trust products bo placed on tho free list and
the lumber plank together. He said: "Mr.
President, I can not believe tho democratic party
Is serious in commanding us to take the duty
off of lumber and wood pulD and still leave the
duty on steel products, the manufacture of tho
most gigantic trust ever organized in the his
tory of the world. Do you tell me that I am
commanded to raise revenue on steel products
controlled by a trust whose capital aggregates
more than a billion of dollars and whose rival
companies dare not reduce prices for fear of a
price war, that I must leave duties on the com
modities of a trust like that In order to raise
revenue, and yet I must take it off tho news
paper's material?"
Tho very next paragraph he says: "They tell
me we favor the repeal of the duty on every
trust-mado commodity. I know that could not
be applied. Repeal the duty on every article
controlled by a trust and we remit $150,000,000
of revenue at one stroke of the pen."
"CIRCLE" ARGUMENT DESCRTOED
Thus Mr. Bailey tangles himself up. Let tho
democratic convention ask of him to put any
commodity on the free list and he says: "What!
Put that commodity on the free list while the
products of the greatest trust on earth are pro
tected?" and then when he is asked to put those
products on the free list he says: "No, siree! If
"We put one trust-controlled article on the free
list, we must put them all or else we discriminate
as between trusts, and if we put them all on
the free list we remit $150,000,000 revenue."
His circle is complete. You can't please him
with any reason for putting any article on tho
free list. He will put nothing In God's world
on tho free list if he wants to vote for a duty
and he will give the same reason for his vote
that ho gave in the senate for his vote on
lumber.
The Commoner.
My countrymen, if wo loso revonuo by putting
trust-controlled products on tho free list, "hy
? rcJIco ftd replace that revonuo by lowor-
S? n.,nmny ratco that aro now Prohibitive?
Mr. Bailoy has told you that if wo romovo tho
duty on one commodity wo will always have to
i aiso that samo rovonuo from somo othor source,
and leads you to believe you must do so by
placing higher duties on somo othor commodity.
I bat we must raiso tho revenue from somo
other source Is true, but that wo must place
Higher duties on othor commodities is tintruu
and none knows better than Mr. Bailoy that
toro are hundreds of prohibitive duties which
bring Httlo or no revenue into tho treasury, but
Imposo millions of burdens of tributo on tho
peoplo and that the surest way to incroaso our
revenuo is to lower these prohibitive duties,
giving at tho samo tlrao greater rovonuo to tho
government and lighter burdens to tho people.
But, if lower duties should by any possibility
fall to raise all the revenuo needed to roplaco
that lost by putting trust-controlled and certain
other products on tho free list, let us rojoico
still more because then wo will have to adopt
an income tax or somo othor measure by which
wealth will bear its just share of tho expenses of
government.
Over and over again Mr. Bailoy rofuscs to
put somo commodity on tho freo list bocauso
of tho duty on tho products of this stool trust.
The carpenter's hammer and saw are not on tho
freo list, and thoreforo he declares ho won't put
tho producfs of this or that trust on tho freo
list. I know ho did pick out somo commodities
and say ho was willing and anxious to voto to
put them on tho freo list; articles like carpen
ter's tools and farm Implements, and I would
gladly voto with him to put them thoro, but
ho did this when there was not a shadow of
showing to get them there, and then ho used
their not being there to Justify his vote against
putting on the free list another article of com
mon and universal use, logs, timber and lumber,
both raw material and finished product, when,
if all democrats had pulled together wo might
have gotten them on the free list.
PRINT PAPER
In the same way he voted against putting
print paper on the free list because ho said they
didn't put with it letter paper, the merchant's
account book paper, and that this was a dis
crimination. If they had proposed to put letter
paper on tho free list, doubtless, to his mind,
that would have discriminated against print
paper, which Is used for the newspapers and
magazines, that the common peoplo read, and
the school books that nearly 20,000,000 children
study.
All through his speeches you will find this
one thing waiting on the other tho thing wo
might get on the one, or many things wo might
not get.
I am not that way. Whenever I get tho
chanco T will put stockings on tho free list, if
I can't get hats; I will put shirts on tho freo
list, if I can't get coats; I will put hammers
and plows, If I can't get lumber, and I will put
lumber on tho free list from which the farmer
builds his cottage and barn, tho laborer and
employe his modest homo and the poor man
builds his cabin, his cradle and his coffin even
though I can't put the hammer and the nails
there, too.
LUMBER RATE
But that is not all of Mr Bailey on lumber.
He not only voted against free lumber, but he
voted against the lower duty of tho house and
for a higher duty as proposed in the senate.
He tells you at Fort Worth that he voted to
reduce the duty on lumber, from $2 per 1,000
to $1.50 per 1,000. He did not tell you, how
ever, that that $1.50 rate was the rate fixed
by the republican senate committee amendment
to tho lower rate of the republican house bill,
or that he voted against the lower rate of $1
per 1,000 of the house bill, and that the re
publican president claims credit for compelling
the conference committee to place tho rate at
$1.25 per 1,000, .being 25 cents below the rat
for which Mr. Bailey boasts of voting.
You will do well to read all those votes of
Mr. Bailey's very carefully It was certainly
unfortunate for our party that Mr. Bailey spent
too much of his time and great ability In argu
ments against the Denver, platform, justifying
his vote against its only demands that might
have passed with solid democratic support
and In raising a question not presented in that
platform, the question of free raw material,
under the discussion of which the platform. Its
pledges and their violation might bo forgotten;
but I trust In God that wbatovcr may bo our
differences about this now-old question of freo
raw material, wo will not forget those pledges
ana tho righteousness of ovcry one of thorn.
PRICK OF liVMREIt
But I must not forgot Mr. Balloon other argu
ment, that tho duty on lumber docs not incroaso
1 ? Von? l. ,""' u'i mo la,k to 'ou ut mt.
in 1907 boforo a lumber convention Mr. Mc-
Corni ck, a great lumbor king, estimated tho
standing timber of tho United States at thlrtcon
hundred billions of foot, of which California
had two hundred billions, Oregon four hundred
billions, Montana and Idaho one hundred bil
lions, Washington two hundred billions, all tho
southern states two hundred billions and all
tho rc two hundrod billions.
This ostlmato Is very closo to that of the gov
ernment. Mr. McCormlck declared: "Tho tronblo (In
creasing prices) lies not In tho cost of manufac-
W',llut in ,ln. dwindling supplies of timber,
iho fields of timbor ar0 known to bo narrowing
to tho Pacific coast. Within half a dozen to ten
years tho Pacific coast will bo tho only source
of great supply." J
."W?.own8 u,cso Immense fields or timbor?
Mr Skinnor, M. C. and big lumberman, this
fl?.1 a bnluot at the Willard, declared
that 90 por cent of tho timber of tho Pacific
statos Is hold by sawmill operators; big timbor
companies." Mr. Woyerhausor testified that
ho bought in ono deal in 1900 forty billions of
feet at 15 cents per thousand. That timber Is
now said to bo worth $3 por thousand and it Ui
estimated that tho Woyorhausor coinpnrifos own
moro than two hundrod billions or foot equal
to all tho standing timbor of tho southern' states.
How Is It In tho south?
Mr. McCormlck said: "Tho southern pines
aro being destroyed with a rapidity that finds
its parallel only In tho cane of tho northern
white pine. In ton or fifteen years there will
bo a most serious shortago of southern pine."
SOUTHERN TIMBER
In tho south also the timber hat .gone Into
tho hands of big companies and syndicates. It
is estimated that over 70 per cent of the stand
ing timber of tho south is owned by non-real-dents
or corporations controlled by tion-rcul-dent
stockholders.
Tho Amoricari Lumborman, July 5, 1907,
said: "About flvo years ago a change came in
tho yellow pine business. Stumjmgo wont up
in price since it had passed into strong hands.
Mill operators with largo capital and extcnslvo
equipment began to control a largo share of
tho product and naturally asked profitable prices
for It. In the southern fields tho small mills
aro practically eliminated."
These lands in Texas, my friends, were boufght
for a song, and after they got into "strong
hands" wo saw the prices of lumber begin to
jump. When I read In 1900, when 1 was first
discussing this matter with our people somo
of you remember It tho syndicate monthly prico
list Issued from St. Louis and sent to all rotnll
dealers In Texas, giving tho exact and samo
prico at all the big lumbor mills In South Texas,
I knew where tho money for our high-priced
lumber went, and I know where it came from,
for I had been buying little Dills of lumber from
time to time, and 1 knew when Mr. Bailoy said
that only 20 per cent or 30 por cent of tho cost
of buildings was in tho lumber, It was not true
as to the buildings used by tho common peoplo .
by tho farmer, the average man and the poor
man. If It were true, it might mitigate, but
would not justify his voto against the interest
of the great masses and in favor of tho few.
If all tho lumber kings in America swore It,
I could not believe there was no lumber com
bine or co-operation to fix rho price of lumber.
I knew when Mr. JCIrby was taking options
or buying pine land and when ho was said to
have come back with millions of eastern capital
to develop Texas and when he was buying out
mill after mill, and when lumber began to
jump. It Is for these men, syndicates and for
eign stockholders, that wo are asked to indorso
a tariff on lumber to "distribute tho effects of
the tariff."
Oh, but Mr. Bailey says tho tariff will not
affect the price of lumber In Texas. Do you
believe It? Ask any stumpage man or big mill
man in any state of tho union If he will voto
to nominate any man for rongress who favors
free lumber. Mr. Bailey says that freo lumber
would only affect Canadian border states; that
they would get cheaper lumber and our Pacific
states lumber would come further south and
(Continued on Page 10)
ni i
i
tAI
Id
t ,
( '
jel .LimvfJ.MiiJtf
