. $&
n
K
h
f
F-.
JANUMY 7, 1910
take iron ore off the free list voted to nut thn
above named articles all exnenqlvn mJX e
ished manufactured arUdSSoWiSl"
Many of these same senators are ''vocally- clam
orous for free cotton ties, after making ifim"
possible to have free cotton ties VJStlig a tariff
tax on the basic raw material out of which these
ties are manufactured. eG
The Payne bill cut the duty on lumber in
XSf' a,nlalmost tHe entire democratic member
ship of the house voted to place lumbeon the
i1,Bt,"i? c9mPance with the national demo!
cratic platform. When the bill reached the s
'Jhe fflnatlCe , cTmittee creased aU the
house rates on lumber 50 per cent, and these
same senators, or nearly all of them, voted tor
rthq senate, rates, of . increase, on lumber whUe
claiming that .theyare very, much wprricd fo?
aeownwaerd!GI)UbliCanS n0t revIse tariff
; The Payne bill placed hides' on the free list'
and reduced the duty on boots and shoes 40 per
cent,,, and on sole leather to 5 per cent jid
valorem This reduction in the .rati on leather
and on boots and shoes was in consideration of
putting hides, on the free list.
The senate committee restored the Dingloy
rates, of 15 per cent on hides of cattle, and in
the. senate a motion was made to retain hides
on the free list, where the house put them, and
sixteen republicans voted for this motion, and
had all the democrats stood by these sixteen
republicans hides would have remained on the
free list; and no doubt the house reductions on
shoes, boots, and leather would have remained
in the bill; but a sufficient number of our demo
crats voted against keeping hides on the free
list to sustain the committee in placing a duty
of 15 per cent on hides, the present Dlngley
rate. .
Giving this action as his reason, Senator Aid
rich immediately moved to increase the house
rate on sole, leather 100 per cent, and to in
crease the hojise rate on shoes and boots 25 per,
cent, which, motion was adopted. Thus' these
democrats' were the immediate and direct cause
of increasing the burdens of, the consumers of.
boots and shoes, and all other forms of leather
goods by taking hides off the free list.
;-Tt was shown in the debate that the1 beef trust,
ah'd not the cattle growers, gets all the benefit
of the tariff on. hides. The great bulk of the
farmers' cattle are sold on foot, and the hide
goes, at the. sam,e pound-rate price paid for the
steer :in gross. The beef trust controls
both, the price of cattle and the price of
theimeat to the consumer, while he. gets a-tariff-protected
price for the hides of the cattle that
cost him per pound no more than the hoof or
the horns or the hair of the animal.
The total revenue collected on imported hides
for the year 1907, the best year, commercially
speaking, in the history of this country, was
$3105,390. As shown by the government re
ports away back in 1904, the production of boots
and shoes in the United States for that year was,
in round numbers, $316,000,000, not Including
any other forms of leather goods. If no greater
amount of boots and shoes were manufactured
in the year 1907 than in 1904, the reduction
of duty on boots and shoes alone, measured by
the reduction of duty in the house bill, would
have been a saving to the consumers of these
articles the enormous sum of $31,600,000 for
one year. From this sum take the total revenue
collected on hides, $3,105,390, by placing hides
on the free list, and we have as a net gain to
the consumers, by way of reduced prices for
boots and shoes, the enormous sum of $28,444,
610 for one year. With hides on the dutiable
list at the rate fixed by the senate amendment,
the government gets as revenue, in round num
bers, $3,000,000, while. aB a result of the duty
on hides the manufacturer gets by way of com
pensatory duty $31,000,000.
This is a clear demonstration of the evil of
levying a tariff on a crude raw material.
Not satisfied with restoring iron ore and hides
to the dutiable list and increasing the house rates
on lumber 50 per cent, some of these senators
toted to take bituminous coal from the free list,
' where the house bill placed it, and restore it
to the dutiable list at 60 cents a ton, being a
reduction of only seven cents a ton on the pres-
fcnt Dlngley rates. To show the absurdity of
placing a duty of any kind on coal, it is only
necessary to state the facts as to exports and
imports of coal. In the year 1908 the exports of
coal from the United States was 11,853,000 tons,
against imports of only 1,504,000 tons, showing
thut our exports were seven times as great as.
our imports. If we can sell in the open market
of the world seven times as much coal as all the
world sells in our market, does it look as though
The Commoner.
republicans Tml our "anfU protc!t'0l"
democrats" nit !,,, , ttIll'"'rc0 raw material
a5tdtSSfffilln th0 h0U8e votGd -325
In Si? in n?P the c!lmax tho ficc committco
the presen nKrtCd ? duty on olol at
rnfo nl i Dingloy rate, which is a protective
rate, and so intended when put on in the Digioy
saUsfled00 li m rt acmocU senators were not
n ,il . et thIa Publican duty remain, so
a.democratic member of the finance committee
tTeVD,nevanrnetnament,,n thc S3?to S5Sa o
wi?iT B ey rate on Pineapples 128 V. per cent
ff &TMS& Vjt iLreas" 1 5
Does this look like our "anti-free raw mntorinl
republicans falling to revise the taTiff downward?
.But, Mr. Speaker, when the vote camo un to
put a duty of one-half of one cent aTaHon on
crude petroleum, our "anti-free raw materia
democratic" senators, especially those who had
thT,iS?H voc,iferous In their denunciations of
the doctiino of free raw material, flopped right
around, forgot all about their loudly proclaimed
democratic principles' of "anti-free raw ma
terial, and voted against the proposed duty
SSff r3 f PetroJteum- xt was shown beyond dis
pute that the Standard Oil company owned only
11 per cent of the oil wells of the United States,
while tho independent oil producers and re
finers owned 89 per cent. Crude oil is as much
raw material as is iron ore, coal, lumber, or.
hides, and the producing oil wells are not owned
or controlled by a trust, as Is coal, hides, iron
ore, and lumber; but, notwithstanding all these
facts, it was more than our "anti-free raw ma-.
terial democratic" friends could stand, and so
they took the back track, and by their votes
proclaimed their allegiance to. tho good old dem
ocratic doctrine of free raw material. What
I regret most Is that tho vote on oil did not come
up before our democratic senators "got mint"
and declaimed so loudly against any kind of
free raw materials, but I find that consistency
is a jewel rarely worn by a statesman.
I am not criticising our democratic senators
who voted for a duty on Iron ore, lumber, coal,,
and hides, for refusing to give a like vote for
a duty oh crude petroleum, but when some of
us who voted for free raw materials are taunted
with the charge of being out of harmony with
the earlier democratic position, and to that ex
tent not democratic, I want to remind them
that they are not consistent in voting for a
duty on the raw materials of some classes of
manufactures, while permitting the manufac
turers of refined petroleum to have their raw
materials free.
Why did not our "anti-free raw material rev
enue tariff- democrats" propose a small revenue
producing duty on both crude and refined petro
leum and products thereof? At this point I will
read a part of an article by Hon. William J.
Bryan in a late Issue of The Commoner bearing
on the duty on iron ore, and expressing his
position as to free raw materials, and as to
the possibility of giving all sections of our
country an equal share in the so-called "bene
fits of protection:"
Tho Commoner believes that raw material should,
as a rule, bo admitted free of duty. It has already
pointed out tho fallacy embodied ln tho doctrlno
of those who Insist that "if we are to have protec
tion, It ought to be uniform and give all sections
an equal share of the benefits." Protection can
not give all sections an equal share of the bene
fits. Protection Is naturally and necessarily un
fair. A democratic senator or congressman may
deceive himself with the argument that he is help
ing his section when ho insists that raw 'material
produced in his section shall be taxed, but he can
not deceive those who have studied the tariff ques
tion. Raw material is not produced by states or
by districts; it is produced by Individuals, and tho
taxation of raw material Is not for tho benefit of
all of the state or all of the district In which it
is produced. Take the case of iron, for instance.
Alabama Is credited with nearly 8 per cent of tho
total quantity of iron ore produced in the United
States in 1907. But who produced the iron ore in
Alabama? All of tho people? Not by any means.
Not one per cent of the voters of Alabama own
iron mines. A tariff on iron ore necessarily im
plies a compensatory duty on manufactured iron.
As soon as Iron ore Is taxed, the manufacturer de
mands that ho shall be permitted to transfer tho
duty to the consumer of the manufactured pro
ducts, and tho argument will always .be accepted
as sufficient reason for putting a tariff upon tho
manufactured product Is there a democratic sen
ator who voted for a tariff on Iron ore who would
vote to put manufactured iron on the freo list?
To vote for a tariff on Iron ore is, therefore, to
vote for a higher tariff on manufactwred iron than
3
noooHsary with fro J Iron 1 i7 ,l,Bln would bo
a democrat (in a niinhii U l? JHIM that
for a tariff on Iron To imp thiWi mlh vo'
compensatory tariff on tnnn!if?1? nKa,nt
tho dcinocratH w(r trl.VlUIti0iurai1 ,ro". but If
would rocoSnlr.0 ?ho u,Vt&K ? ..trtr,ff nl '. "Y
tho manufact r?r bo m,7nVCum?f,ftUi"1,,om'Jm, '"
consumer a tariff onunl ti ii.l? c?JL,0,ct from o
h8 raw materia 1 1 i , li,0,lft,r'fr '"V1011 uPn
Klvcn him If t orowiro no tnMj? nH wouUl
Tho ilomocruta who votoS Sl7m,Eftw material,
voted, therefore, to commit n.ft uS,ff on ,ron orn
tariff on manuVnctuf?? ? hMl,r,lyl to a Mhw
if there were no tarlffnSe Wma,for?ttar,,ftr3r
tho pSloncy "nqprBUc nomlnoo for .
vl,nJ y of tho dmcrntfl of this conrroflii .
voted to place raw materials on tho free UbL
overv twnaJnr; W. ,n H1.18 hou" t o olected
every two years by a d rect voto of tho nnnnln
while .senators are elected only every flU years'
and then by tho legislatures bt tho BtntpJ7t
s therefore most natural that the mem bora It
this house more nearly reflect tho actufll'WowB
vJ ?Q ,Umn d0 th0 willow; and as wo
voted In tho houso for froo raw mater ale 1-
nine uy tneir votes they were rnlHlnc nn taa,.n
with us that might mean Ct either hoy or wS
must go out of public life. Wo voted flfst and
JlnLCn7d Voted w,th UB' and In "JdotaS
violated no democratic platform pledge, and thus
the' L ro rnU8,U D Vrou,,, on Soilvi!
the party, or on us. But they saw fit to do
otherwise, and they must take tho consequences.
It Is but natural, bollcving that wo represent
the real sentiment of our party, having ; a .hotter
opportunity to know what thc , wmllJSont Si '& -party
Is than they, and knowing 'tfiat wo havo
voted In accord wiHi our.ptirty, as doclarodjn
Its most recent national' platform, wo do not
propose to sit quietly by and permit this pro-,
tectivo sentiment to bo, built up and otrongth-
oned In tho ranks of democracy without a vigor
ous protest. No manufacturer ever wanted a
tariff, tax on his raw materials, and ho only
accepted it because ho knew that by way of a
compensatory duty he could pass this burden to
tho consumer, and because ho knew that
by giving protection to the producers of
raw materials he strengthened and added
to tho ranks of tho protectionists In gen
eral. The converse of this proposition In
also true. The producer of raw materials docs
not want protection on the finished product that
he does not sell, but must buy of tho manufac
turer, but In order to get protection n his raw
materials accepts and votes for a higher duty
on the manufacturers' finished products. Yet
we hear some of our senator friends loudly
proclaiming that they, will never voto to give
the manufacturer his raw materials freo whllo
giving him a high protective duty on what ho
sells made from these materials. Such a state
ment must assume two false premises. One Is
that democrats favor giving tho manufacturer
high protection on his finished products, and
the other Is that tho manufacturer actually pays
the tax on his raw materials. Some loudly de
clare they will not take the burden from tho
manufacturer by making his materials tax freo.
Mr. Speaker, how can we take a burden from
the manufacturer when ho bears no burden by
way of taxed raw materials, and when by way
of successive compensatory duties he passes the
tax on raw materials with a manufacturer's
profits added to tho thus doubly taxed consumer?
The democrat that contends otherwise fools no
body but himself.
Mr. Speaker, if tho tariff tax on raw materials
was not added to the direct tariff tax on tho
finished product, augmented by way of added
manufacturer's profits on the amount of tho tar
paid on the raw material and thus finally all
passed to the consumer, there would not be so
much objection to taxing raw material, although
it would not then be an ideal object of a duty
even for revenue only. Much raw material must
go to waste in process of manufacture, and all
this waste is tariff taxed the same as that part
that finally lodges in the finished article.
Mr. Speaker, the man who desires protection
can not disguise his real purpose by calling it a
I
' m
" -I-'
a
r v
m
J
tfj
'
tt3l
a f-ivvirfiiiimiiT iiji
.
