i'-""5J I
rmjTM- 'W ' ? tfWRWJPMt"'
The Commoner.
7
JANUARY 20, 1911-
-,' "-vr ""
tlon of free raw material has been fairly raised,
either before or since Cleveland' time, the dem
ocratic party has taken a position against it.
Go back and read over tariff history since the
beginning of the government up to the civil
war. You will find but little that will throw
light upon the. question wo are now dlspussing.
Up to 1816 the country "was so sparsoly settled,
the needs of revenue so small, and industries
were so unimportant, the tariff was never made
a political or partisan question. From 1816 to
1846 we had what is regarded as a protection
period, during which time the old republican,
now the democratic party, and the opposition
parties were alternately in control of the gov
ernment. From 1846 up to the civil war we
had what is known as a free trade era. But
during all this time both parties were more or
less vacillating with reference to the tariff ques
tion. Neither had assumed a position with ref
erence thereto so definite and positive as they
have since the war, when the tariff has become
relatively of so much more importance. For
instance, the highly protective act of 1828, car
rying an average of duties amounting to nearly
49 per cent, and which was called the "tariff
of abominations," was prepared and passed by
Jackson democrats, and Jackson himself was
elected president the second time on a protec
tive platform; -while the act of 1857, a very
moderate revenue measure without protective
features, was supported in congress by the re
publicans as well as tho democrats. I cite these
historical facts merely to show that prior to the
civil war the position of the parties with refer
ence to the tariff was not fixed. The fact that
democrats supported the protective tariff of 1828,
that tho democratic party declared for "adequate
protection to American industry" in 1832, and
that the slogan of the Polk campaign in some
parts, of the country was "Polk and the tariff
of 1842," which was "protection run mad,"
does hot prove that prior to the war the demo
cratic party was a protection party. Neither
does the fact that the republican party support
ed the free trade act of 1857 prove that party
to have been an anti-protection party.
Just so the fact that the democrats in the
senate voted down a motion to recommit tho .
tariff bill of 1846 with instructions for free raw
materials does not 'prove .that, the democratic
'party'ah cantWreoaSv. m'ateVia'l p'arty; because
the Very next tariff bill prepared and passed by
the democrats, which was the bill of 1857, pro
vided for free raw material.. As tho incident of
1846, to which I have just alluded, is tho only
instance which has ever been cited to show that
prior to the civil war the democratic party was
against free raw material, I have the right to
assume that tho question was not raised on any
other occasipn and decided favorably to the con
tention of the opponents of free raw material.
This being true, let us examine more particu
larly this single instance and find out just what
tho facte were in regard to it, and how far it
goes toward proving their contention. An ex
amination will show that a great deal more evi
dential effect has been given to it than the real
facts justify. In leading up to the act "of 1846
certain utterances of Calhoun, Sevier, Walker,
and Polk on the act of 1842 aTe frequently
quoted. These utterances denounced the feat
ures of that act which discriminated against the
producers of raw material, but the act of 1842
was a protection measure, and tho utterances of
these men can have no application to a measure
framed only for raising revenue and not for
protection.
Now, as to the motion to recommit the bill
of 1846. The question of free raw material
does not seem to have been raised until tho
bill had passed both house and the, senate. An
examination of tho Record will show that an
opponent of .the bill made the motion to recom
mit, and in doing so openly avowed on the floor
of the senate his purpose to be to defeat the
bill entirely. Only eight days of the session
remained, and all knew, aB the Record expressly
shows, that any effort on the part of the com
mittee to revise the bill in accordance with the
instructions given them would necessarily- ex
tend beyond tho end of the session and kill the
bill. So all the friends of the measure voted
against tho motion to recommit.
McDufllo, one of the leading democratic sen
ators, in discussing the motion to recommit,
gaid that only five per cent had been levied on
those raw materials which came in free under
the act of 1842, and that it was a very small
matter, and he said he would have been almost
as willing to have it out of tho bill as to put
it in. But, of course, we all know that at that
tags of the bill no democratic senator was
grilling to jeopardize its success and assume the
risk of continuing in operation tho protection
act of 3,842.
Secretary Walker, who may bo properly desig
nated as the" father of the act of 1846, himself
said afterwards that that act was susceptiblo
of great Improvement in that it should havo put
tho raw material of manufactures on tho free
list, as was the practice of all enlightened na
tions. Every student of tariff history knows that
while the Walker tariff of 1846 marked tho
abandonment of tho protective policy which had
obtained for many years prior thereto, it was
not entirely free itself from protection. Mr.
Calhoun, who was in that day and time more or
less tainted with protectionism, just as aro some
democratic senators in our day and time, was
able to put more or less protection In "the bill,
to put a tax upon many raw materials, and thud
prevent the measure from being a strictly rev
enue measure, as it became eleven years later
when modified by the axjt of 1857 in accordanco
with tho recommendation of a democratic secre
tary of the treasury.
Mr. Chairman, bo unimportant as a party Issue
was tho tariff prior to tho civil war tho subject
was referred to In only three platforms of tho
democratic paTty, in 1532, 1840 and 1848, and
then only briefly, and no mention was made of
the raw material question. What tho policy of
other manufacturing nations may have been dur
ing that period of our history, I am not in
formed. It may be they had not then adopted
the settled policy of free raw materials as they
havo now come to do, and for that reason, while
our people may have recognized the advantages
of free raw material, they may not havo been
convinced of the absolute necessity of adopting
the free raw material doctrine during our earlier
history. We may pass over the war period, .in
cluding tho years following the surrender, when
the republican party controlled the government
practically without democratic opposition, during
which time the war duties remained on every
import capable of producing revenue. This con
dition existed practically until 1884, and during
this time whatever effort was made to modify
our revenue system was directed to questions
other, than the lowering of protective tariff
duties. Practically nothing was accomplished
toward a reform ofthe tariff, which, most of the
time, was kept in the background v, .
But I assert without the least fear of success
ful contradiction that on every occasion since
the war, when opportunity offered, the demo
cratic party has Invariably stood for free .raw
materials as a necessary feature of its plan to
reduce the tariff to a revenue basis. After ob
talning control of the house of representatives
in 1884, the democrats, through their chairman
of the ways and means committee, Mr. Morrison,
presented a bill which, though unscientific In
character, because it provided for a horizontal
reduction of duties, nevertheless provided for
free iron ore, lumber, coal, and other raw ma
terials. This bill was supported by ah over
whelming majority of the democrats in the
house, but was defeated by republicans. Tho
democratic party, through Mr. Morrison, prer
sented another tariff bill in 1886, which pro
vided for free lumber, salt, wool, hemp, flax,
and other raw material. In reporting tho hill
to the house tho unanimous report of the dem
ocratic members of the committee said:
"The duties intended to bo removed by tho
bill are chiefly those which tax articles used by
our own manufacturers, which subject them to
a. hopeless competition at home and abroad with
the manufacturing nations, none of which taxes
such materials, that our own manufacturers
may successfully compete, both at home and
abroad, with manufacturing nations which do
not tax such materials, thus securing markets
for the products of hands now idle for want of
work to do."
This bill also had tho support of the demo
crats of the house and the opposition of the
republicans. But as every student of tariff his
tory knows, the first great battle for tariff re
form came in this country in 1888, when tho
democratic members of the ways and means
committee, through the Hon. Roger Q. Mills,
presented to the house of representatives a
tariff bill placing hemp, flax, lumber and other
raw materials of manufactures on the free list
and reducing .manufactured products to a rev
enue basis. In reporting this bill to the house
of representative!! on -April 2, 1888, Mr. Mills
speaking for the democrats of the committee
upon the subject of free raw materials, said:
"With the markets of the world open to us,
our manufacturers may run their mills on full
time, give constant employment to their labor
ers with a steadily increasing rato of wages.
With the markets of the world open to tho salo
of their products thoy will creato an actlVo'tvnd
constant demand for all tho raw materials re
quired in manufactures, which will stimula'to.
promote, and reward tho wool growers .and tho
producer of cottoU, hemp, flax, hides, biros, find'
other materials of manufacture. Wo, aro the
largest producers of cotton in tho world, wo, aro
second in the production of wool, wo put', on
tho markets annually quantities of hemp and
flax, and our country is full of ores and coal.'
What wo nedd is manufactures onough to cd.h
sumo all the annual product of theso matcfjafs
and create an active demand for them, so' tha.fr
all our workmon may bo constantly dmp.ibyed
and rocoivo hlglr prices for their labor.
, "To, accomplish this our manufacturers' mus
liavb markets f.or the salo of their wares. ;anrt
theso markets am to be found in foreign coun
tries as well as at home. To take tho fQrpiga
market from the foreign manufacturer wo, must
produce our goods at a lower cost than ho
can. Tho principal elements of cost aro labor,
and material. In many of our manufactures
tho labor cost is lower than In any country In
tho world, and if tho cost of materials wore as
low hero as In foreign countries wo could pro
duce our goods moire cheaply than they, and
largely Increase pur exports to foreign markets.
"The annual product of our manufactories
is now estimated at $7,000,000,000, of which
amount wo export only about ?136,O0Q,00O, or
less than two per cent. If wo could obtain' frea
of duty such raw materials as wo do not pro
duce and can pnly "bo procured in foreign coun
tries, ahd mix with . our homo product in tho
various branches of manufacture, wo could soon
increaso our exports several hundred millions.
With untaxed raw materials we could keep our
millri running oh full" time, our operatives in
.constant employment, and havo an active d&
raandfor our raw materials In our own factories.
If there shQuld bo ho duty on any materials
entering' intp manufactures many articles, now
made abroad would be made at home, , which,
while it would gfyfi inoro employment to 6'ur
own labor, 'would, give a better market to many
articles which we produce and which enter Into
manufactures, such as cotton, wool, hemp, flax;
and others.
"With this end lu view wo have gono as .far
as wo could and dono what we could fn tho
present condition of things to place our manur
factures upon a firm and unshaken foundation,
whore they would havo advantages over all tho
manufacturers of the world. Our manufactur
ers, having the advantage of all others in tho
intelligence skill, . add productive capacity of
their labor, need .only to be placed on the. same
footing- with their rivals in having their ma
terials at the .same cost in the open markets of
the world."
A minority report was made against the Mills
bill, signed by Such' republicans as Kelley,
Browne, Reed, McKinley arid Burrows, attack
ing mainly the free raw material features of
the bill, and upon this issue tho two parties
aligned themselves In the great battlo for tariff
reform upon the floor of the house. When tho
vote was taken every democrat In the hpuso
except four voted for the bill and all the repub
licans against it.
Tho senate at tho time was republican, and
when the bill reached that body tho parties
aligned themselves upon it just as they did in
the house. Tho senate committee substituted
a protection bill, and in reporting it Senator
Aldrich severely criticised the Mills bill for put
ting raw materials for manufactures on tho free
list. Tho democratic members of the commit
tee, composed of such distinguished democrats
as Isham G. Harris, Z. B. Vance, D. W. Voor
hees, J. R. McPhersen, and James B. Beck, stood
by the house bill and especially its free list. On
June 7 follpwlng the democratic party met in
national convention at St. Louis and indorsed
tho position which the democrats in congress
had taken in regard to the tariff, and more
specifically declared its indorsement of the
"views of President Cleveland In his then last
annual message tc congress as tho correct in
terpretation of that platform upon the question
of tariff reduction." Now, let us look to tho
message of Mr. Cleveland, referred to, and see
what he had to say In regard to free raw ma
terial. Here is what he said, leaving no doubt
as to his position upon the question and making
it clear that the national convention meant to
give emphatic indorsement of the doctrine of
free raw material. The message read:.
"The radical reduction of the duties imposed
upon raw material used in manufactures or its
free importation is, of course, an important
factor in any effertfto reduce the prico' of these
necessaries. It would not only relieve them
I .
ito&-
. n
