, fi.t"r;"! !;p5
M
I
i -iK
m
mm '
m
Kl.l
E-
I,
f
'
8
frorii tho IncroaHod cost causod by tho tariff on
Buch material, but tho manufactured product
boing thus chcaponod that part of tho tariff
now laid upon such product, as a compensation
to our manufacturers for tho present price of
raw material, could bo accordingly modiflod.
Such roduction of froo importation would servo
besides to largoly rcduco tho rovonuo. It Is
not apparent how such a cliango can havo any
injurious offoct upon our manufacturers. On
tho contrary, it would appear to givo them a
bettor chanco in foreign rnarkots with tho man
ufacturers of othor countrlos, who cheapen their
wares by froo material. Thus our pooplo might
havo tho opportunity of oxtonding their sales
boyond tho limits of homo consumption, saving
them from tho depression, interruption in busi
ness, and loss caused by a glutted domestic
inarkot, and affording their omployes moro cer
tain and stoady labor, with Its resulting quiet
and contontmont."
Tho noxt groat fight upon tho tariff was in
1800, aftor tho republican party rogalned con
trol of congress and tho presidency. Mr. Mc
Klnloy, who was then tho chairman of tho
ways and moans committee, roportcd a bill
from that commlttoo to tlio houso which com
plotdly revorscd tho policy of the Mills bill and
provided a very high degroo of protection to
both raw materials and manufactures. Against
tills bill tho democratic members of tho com
mlttoo, who wore John Q. Carlisle, Roger Q.
Mills, Bon ton McMUlln, C. R. Dreckinridgo, and
Roswoll P. Flower, mado a minority report.
Thoy took what thoy regarded tho true demo
cratic position, which was that import duties
should bo roducod to a rovonuo basis, and they
pointod out that tho only way this could bo
dorio without injury to any JndiiBtry was to
placo tho raw materials of manufactures upon
tho froo list. In arguing this question these
ominont democrats said In their report:
"If It wero not for tho excessivo cost of pro
duction in this country, causod by tho unneces
sary 'taxation of crude and partially manufac
tured mntorials which aro essential In tho pro
cesses of our industries, wo could export and
Boll evory year largo quantities of tho products
of our shops and factories aftor fully supply
ing tho homo demand at rcasonablo prices.
"Wo boliove, thoreforo, that tho only manner
In which our industries can bo helped by legis
lation at tho present time Is to exempt from
taxation tho matorials they aro compelled to
use and to reduco proportionately tho taxes on
finished products, so that all our farmers, me
chanics, and manufacturers may be able to com
lieto on equal terms with those of othor coun
tries. This is tho policy we advocate and which
wo deslro to boo Inaugurated and completed just
as early and as rapidly as circumstances will
permit. The capitalist who has invested his
money in those Industries, tho laborers ho em
ploys, and tho domestic consumer to whom ho
sells would all bo benefited and nobody will
be Injured. With untaxed matorials it is evi
dont that thoy could afford to pay their labor
ers better wages than now and still sell their
products to consumers at lower prices than aro
now charged.
"Besides this, under such a policy our manu
factured products would not bo confined, as thoy
are now, almost exclusively to tho domestic
market, but would enter all tho markets of the
world and compete successfully with similar
products from other manufacturing countries.
Tho opening of these great markets for the sale
of our goods would, In our opinion, givo con
stant employment not only to the thousands of
laborers now engaged In our manufacturing In
dustries, but would create a demand for many
thousands in addition, and unless wo are great
ly deceived the time would soon come when
there would be no importations of finished ar
ticles into this country, except such as our own
people for climatic reasons could not produce
or do not desire to produce. The only certain
and proper way to stop Importations of such
products is to make them ourselves so cheaply
that no foreign competitor can afford to meet
us In our own markets, and this wo could un
doubtedly do with free materials."
When tho McKinloy bill was passed In the
bouse, after a fight in which tho democrats had
aligned themselves for and tho republicans
agalnBt freo raw materials, It was sent to tho
senate, and that body divided upon it alone
partisan lines, exactly as had been dono In tho
house. So determined wore the democrats In
the position they had taken that when the next
national convention met two years later thor
? rtTd V10! M?Pnley Uriff in their platform
JEL -0uImtatn8 atrocity of class legisla
tion," and expressly Indorsed tho "efforts of tho
The Commoner;
democrats in congress to modify Its most op
pressive features In the direction of freo raw
materials and cheaper manufactured goods.
Upon this platform tho democratic party wont
before tho country and achieved the most over
whelming victory within its history. At the
convening of tho first congress thereafter tho
democrats In congress again took up tho great
fight for tariff reform through tho doctrine of
freo raw material for manufactures. William
L. Nelson, tho democratic chairman of tho ways
and means committee of tho house, presented
a bill, and in his report on behalf of the demo
cratic members of the committeo said:
"Wo havo believed that the first step toward
a reform of the tariff should be a release of
taxes on the materials of industry. There can
bo no substantial and beneficial reduction upon
tho necessary clothing and other comforts of
tho American people, nor any substantial and
beneficial enlargement of 'the" field of American
labor as long as wo tax tho materials and pro
cesses of production. Every tax upon the pro
ducer falls with increased force on the consumer.
Every tax on the producer In this country is a
protection to his competitors in all other coun
trlos and so naTrows his market as to limit tho
number and lessen the wages of those to whom
ho can givo employment. Every cheapening in
tho cost or enlargement of the supply of his
raw materials, while primarily inuring to the
benefit of tho manufacturer himself, passes un
der free competition Immediately and passes
entirely to the consumer, who very soon gets
even moro benefit of it than such reductions
Booms to carry because with the rapid widening
of his market the manufacturer Is able to sell
at a smaller profit. It 1b therefore a very nar
row and short-sighted view which supposes that
wo release the duties on iron ore and coal and
wool and other like articles solely for the ben
efit of those who manufacture our iron, steel,
woolen and other fabrics.
"We are legislating for tho great millions of
consumers beyond them and for the scores of
thousands of laborers to whom they may thus
give steady and well-paid employment. It is
no less a narrow and short-sighted view which
supposes that a removal of the tariff duties on
such necessaries of industry will inflict any real
loss upon those who produce them in our own
country. The enlargement of markets for our
products in othor countries, the increase in tho
internal commerce, and in the carrying trade
of our own country will Insure a growing home
market for all these things that will quickly
outstrip anything they could havo under the
protective system."
The republican members of the committee,
composed of Thomas B. Reed, J. C. Burrows,
Sereno E. Payne, John Dalzell, Albert J. Hop
kins, and John H. Gear, six of the most rabid
protection republicans in congress, in their re
port assailed the Wilson bill and made a most
vigorous attack upon its free raw material pol
icies. And upon this Issue the great tariff
battle of 1894 was fought, an overwhelming
majority of the democrats in the house stand
ing for free raw materials and the republicans
against it Tho Wilson bill provided for freo
coal, free iron ore, free sugar, free lumber, and
freo wool. When it went to the senate' there
wore, unfortunately, a few protection democratic
senators in that body, as there were in the
present congress when the Payne-Aldrich tariff
bill was sent there last year. And these pro
tection senators had to be reckoned with In
order to get any sort of a tariff-reform measure
through. An overwhelming majority of the
democratic senators favored the house bill, and
especially Its free raw material features' but
being forced to a compromise, they consented
to many amendments, including, among others
a transfer of coal and iron oro from the free to
the dutiable list. This behavior on the part
of these protection senators was so shocking to
the democratic conscience of the country that
when the bill went to conference President
Cleveland wrote a letter to Mr. Wilson denounc
ing the senate bill as an act of "party perfidy
and dishonor." In discussing tho action of
democratic senators in putting a duty upon raw
material, Mr. Cleveland said in his letter
"Ono topic will be submitted to the confer
ence which embodies democratic principle so
directly that It cannot be compromised We
have in our platforms and in every way nos
Biblo doclared In favor of the free Importation
of free raw materials. We havo again and
again promised that this should be accorded to
our people and our manufacturers as soon aa tho
democratic party was invested with the power
to determine the tariff policy of the country.
The party now ha that power. Wo are as
VOLUME 11;' NUMBER 2
certain today as we havo ever been of tho
great benefit that would accrue to the country
from the inauguration of this policy, and noth
ing haB occurred to release us from our obliga
tion to secure this advantage to our people.
It must be admitted that no tariff measure can
accord with democratic principles and promises
or wear a genuine democratic badge that does
not provide for free raw materials. In these
circumstances it may well excite our wonder
that democrats are willing to depart from this
the most democratic of all tariff principles, and
that the inconsistent absurdity of such a pro
posed departure should be emphasized by tho
suggestion that the wool of the farmer be put
on the free list and the protection of tariff
taxation be placed around the iron ore and coal
of corporations and capitalists.
"How can we face the people after indulging
in such outrageous discriminations and viola
tions of principles?
"It is quite apparent that this question of free
raw materials does not admit of adjustment on
any middle ground since their subjection to any
rate of taxation, great or small, is alike viola
tive of democratic principle and democratic good
faith."
Mr. Wilson read this letter of the president
to the house, and the Record recites that its
reading was repeatedly interrupted by demon
strations of democratic approval and that at
the conclusion there was prolonged applause
on the democratic side. Mr. Cleveland also
said in the letter that the question presented
to the conference was "whether democratic prin
ciples themselves are to be saved or abandoned."
After an earnest effort in conference to bring
the senate conferees to an acceptance of the
democratic provisions of the house bill, and
after such effort had failed, Mr. Wilson report
ed the disagreement to the house and asked
for a further conference. As showing theex
tent to which the few democratic protection sen
ators had secured control of the situation, Mr.
Wilson said to the house:
"They (meaning the senate members of the
conference) come to us somewhat fettered and
somewhat limited as to any action that they
might agree to upon this bill, either by the
supposed moral obligations of party caucus or
the. apprehension that there were forces in the
senate, however small, yet powerful enough. to
resist successfully the passage of any hill -which
did not make concessions to great corporate and
trust interests that we, representing the house,
did not feel on our part to agree to."
But a further conference availed nothing.
The senate conferees being so "fettered" could
not recede. So the house was thus put in a
situation which required it to yield to the senate
or see all tariff legislation fail. It reluctantly
yielded, but at the same time passed a resolu
tion that separate bills for putting coal and
iron ore on the free list should be taken up 'im
mediately and acted upon.
And In accordance therewith the house did
immediately take up bills for putting coal and
iron ore on the free list and pass them. These
bills were immediately sent over to the senate
and .referred to the finance committee, and the
democratic members thereof forthwith favor
ably reported them back to the senate. Tho
democrats on that committee were Voorhees
McPherson, Isham G. Harris, Zeb Vance, George
Vest and James K. Jones of Arkansas, and
their action in favorably reporting separate
bills to put coal and iron ore on tho free list
immediately after they had voted for an
amendment to tho Wilson bill to impose duties
on those articles shows they did not vote their
true sentiments when they voted for the amend
ment to the Wilson bill, but they were con
trolled, no doubt, by the fact that they knew
they would be unable to secure the passage of
the Wilson bill unless they made concessiona
to the great corporate and trust interests "
ono of which was that coal and iron ore should
not go on the free list. If I may be pardoned
somewhat for a digression here, I want to
say I was never more amazed than when I
heard not long since the vote of Harris, Voor
hees, and other democratic senators for a duty
on iron ore in the Wilson bill cited as a pre
cedent for democratic votes for a duty on iron
ore m the Payne bill. It was called a "par
ticular instance." It could have been very
much more appropriately called a "spurious
instance," because, as I have shown it was a
tub which the democrats were compelled to
n?Z ? co2;Por?te &nl trust whale before
?shlSn?f reform was Permitted to pro
ceed. The citation waB made by a gentleman
who was a member of the house at th tim
(Continued on Page 10)
-Ju
B33ite,'
?'r'Trfai4jte6lje
