' TViffp ri
6
The Commoner.
VOLUME 11, NUMBER 25
v ni-"iw rt
II?
Bad
It
DR
p..
b:
finished product after it was spun; but yet it
was tho raw material of tho weaver, and be
came his finished product when mado into cloth,
but still was tho raw material of tho tailor.
Now, I confess that this has been a confusing
problem to me, and I have been for some tlmo
trying to find out whore this theory originated.
Sinco I had heard distinguished democrats make
this statomont I naturally began to read what
tho great democrats of the past had said and
written upon tho subject, but I failed to find
such a theory advanced by any of them. Then I
began to run down republican authorities on
republican doctrines, and lo, I found where tho
chief high priest of protection for the laBt 30
years in this country had advanced this confus
ing theory.
Listen to tho inspired oracle of this anointed
priest:
Tho doctrlno of froo raw materials, as advocated
by tariff reformers, Is a difllcult ono to onforco In
legislation. In tho usual division of labor, tho
finished produco of ono man becomes the raw ma
terial of his Industrial successor.
Mr. Chairman, this language was used by tho
distinguished oxrsenator from Rhode Island
when ho was slaughtering the Mills bill in tho
sonato in 1888. And I think it would be well
hereafter for democrats, when they make this
argument, to give Mr. Aldrich due credit for
having originated it. (Applause on tho demo
cratic side.) I know If they had done this in
the past they would have saved me considerable
time In looking it up.
Now, my friends, I would say to democrats,
beware of quoting this Aldrich doctrine as
democratic doctrine, for it is not, but, on the
contrary, it is republican doctrine.
Mr. Chairman, if I were writing a tariff bill
I would first place on tho free list all raw ma
terals out of wheh are manufactured tho neces
saries of life in order that tho people could buy
these necessaries cheaper than if the raw ma
terials wore taxed. Why should not tho raw
materials out of which the necessaries of life
aro manufactured bo placed on the free list? I
dare say there is not a member on either side
of this house who would vote for a duty on wool
If wool were not produced In thiB country. If tho
necessity for revenue demanded that a revenue
duty bo placed on any raw materials, I would
place this duty on such raw materials as rubber,
silk and such other raw materials as are not
produced In this country, and for two reasons:
First, because as thoy would be non-competing
articles, whatever the people might pay for tho
privilege of consuming them would go directly
into tho public treasury and not into the pockets
of tho special Interests; second, for the reason
that when It became necessary to either raise
or lower the duties on these articles it would
not disturb the business condition of the country.
I would place tho highest duties on tho luxuries
of life, the next highest on the comforts of
life, and then I would place on the free list just
as many of the necessaries of life as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I think this would have been a
better bill if it had provided for untaxed wool,
for then there would have been greater reduc
tion of duties in the finished products. How
ever, it is a great reduction of the duties as laid
In the Payne-Aldrich law; a reduction from an
average of more than 90 per cent ad valorem
to about 42 per cent ad valorem, which is a
reduction of about 53 per cent. One of the
best things in tills bill is the fact that it
abolishes all specific and compound duties ap
pearing in the woolen schedule In tho present
law and substitutes therefor ad valorem duties.
Under this bill Imported articles of little value
will pay a small duty. Not so In the present law,
where blankets, flannels, and clothing are taxed,
not according to value, but according to weight
or square yard. For example, the Payne-Aldrich
law has a provision like this:
On blankets and flannels for underwear com
posed wholly or In part of wool, valued at not more
than 40 cents per pound, tho duty per pound shall
bo tho samo as tho duty Imposed by this section
on 2 pounds of unwashed wool of tho first class,
or 22 cents, and in addition thereto 30 per cent ad
valorem, otc.
Hero you find a compound duty composed of
r specific and an ad valorem duty combined.
Under a tariff like this tho cheaper blankets
used by the poor are taxed higher than the finer
and more expensive blankets used by the rich.
This discrimination against the poor and in favor
of the rich may bo found throughout tho Payno
Aldrich law.
Mr. Chairman, If any state legislature in this
union should pass a revenue law to raise money
to run the state government by placing a pro
vision in such law to tax all houses in the state
of not more than $20,000 the sum of $100 an
nually, what do you suppose the people of that
Some Interesting Letters to Congressmen
H. Schlichtlng'a Sons, Merchants, Sheyboygan
Falls, Wis. Hon. M. B. Burke, M. C, Washing
ton, D. C. Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your
letter which is a very generous consideration of
my letter of inquiry, anent special interests,
progressive democratic platform pledges, and
free wool. It appears from what you have to
say, particularly tho declaration you quoto from
democratic caucus, that tho twenty per cent ad
valorem duty on raw wool is necessary because
of a deficit caused by republican extravagance,
is tho same nature of argument employed by a
protectionist in defense of his party, his Ameri
can citizenship or any governmental depriva
tion. It further appears that while the democratic
platform does not specifically state or call for
free wool, yet, by your repeated affirmation that
you aro in favor of raw wool on tho free list you
corroborate tliat which I supposed to bo a cardi
nal principle of democrats, past and present,
namely, that raw materials at least be considered
from a free list standpoint. This apparent bi
freo wool acknowledgement leads us to the ques
tion of wisdom of democrats in transgression or
repudiation of tho party's platform pledges ex
pressed or implied, and I assure you, Mr. Burke,
that the sole motive of tho questions I advanced
were absolutely in the Interest of continued har
mony and that the house democrats, God bless
t them, should make no mistake.
Why did not you golden opportunity demo
crats make up the equivalent of twenty per cent,
4f necessary, on the long list of articles or others
which you mentioned as per the 'free list bill
and forever abdicate as far as you were con
cerned, the dangerous and time disturbing doc
trine that a party's platform, a party's tradi
tions wore ever sacred and that the principles
so Implied should be fulfilled? Once divert from
the policy that the party's traditions or its plat
form pledge is binding, the great mass, "the of,
for, and by the people" will not have even a
half loaf but no loaf at all.
The prime or paramount consideration, then,
it seems to me, could have been easily main
tained with less danger to the party's policy,
and with & more certain assurance of a
democratic senate and president to still further
promptings in free-wool and further relief. It
would, indeed, be senseless for a progressive
democrat to ram his head against a stone wall,
but it would be bad, too, and infinitely worse,
for reasonable and honest democrats to con
tinually butt such a fortress covered with raw
materials, especially so if it had any of the
every-day democratic principles inscribed upon
it. Such performances would surely set her
to the four winds and rip her from her moor
ings. Yes, you have done splendid, you have made
a magnificint lead and the people are applaud
ing your virtues, and even should you make
some mistakes, "This path of man," I would still
support you aB against tho special interest re
publicans and indorse the very material and
substantial reductions for which you endeavor.
The supposition you advance as to the republi
can president and senate should have no ter
rors for you brave men, for if they oppose you
in this work they will oppose you in most any
state would think of it? It can readily be seen
that under such a taxing system the man who
owned the $1,000 house would pay annually 10
per cent in state taxes on his investment, while
the man who owned the $20,000 house would
pay only one-half of 1 per cent. I dare say no
political party could put in force any such
statute in any state of the union and remain in
power. Yet this is tho very policy the republi
can party pursues in writing the taTiff revenue
laws of tho country. What is true of blankets
and flannels is also true of woolen clothing.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would
say to those who believe as I do that this bill
does not go quite far enough, be not dismayed,
for we should remember that it took the people
of Great Britain 40 years to rid themselves of
this vicious system of protection. Gentlemen
no doubt remember that the agitation for a
reduction of the tariff in England began in 1820,
when that country was suffering from a highly
protective system. How were the reductions
in England's tariff laws brought about? Not
all at once, but gradually. The first reduction
was accomplished under the leadership of Hus
kisson In the years 1824 to 1827. The agita-
work else how could one star differ from an
other star in glory?
Did not Champ Clark say time and again, that
they, the president, etc., claimed their tariff
bill the best ever placed on the statute books?"
Can you drive a bargain with the "best ever?''
If such three cornered democrats as Mr. Bailey
in the senate will come to our relief, the honest,
progressive, democratic democrats of this coun
try will at least know why.
You state that $21,000,000 would be lost to
the treasury if wool goes free. When would it
cease to be a loss? If this be so, what is con
gress doing by free trade list process whereby
you do not cripple the treasury? You ask, how
are wo to get bills through the senate and past
a republican president with tariff placed on raw
rubber and raw silk? It appears to me, the fact,
not theory, bread is bread and water is water
and that these "best ever" tariff republicans,
when we ask bread (half loaf) might hand us
a stone.
I would be pleased, however, if the assump
tion you advance would bring some relief, to
which tho people are truly entitled, be it ever
so little. How could Mr. Clark, and I make
no apology in speaking "of him, so far' forget
thoughtful democrats in committing them to
apology and explanation. It may command more
than his general quota of Latin, French, or
Spanish pronunciamentos all these are nice in
their way, but how insignificant when counter
to "A little child shall lead them."
Have you read "Democratic Party's Duty," in
The Commoner of Feb. 17, 1911, relative to
keeping the faith?
It is indeed gratifying to have you manifest
such concern against party split, but party ties,
friend Burke, we know hold, constructive har
mony in little ties to the big, not big ties to
the little Mr. Clark and Mr. Underwood not
withstanding. Further, I have no scruples as
to your honesty of action but we can not hold
too high the fundamental, basic principles of
democracy in maintaining the party's tariff
stand, like its platform pledges, absolutely
binding. The recent rebuke to the republican
party was nothing more than the recall in its
inception.
In conclusion I beg to tnank you and trust
when the next national convention convenes I
shall see or hear of you fighting for the same
courageous democratic democrat principles that
the past has known you wanting to do. Wishing
you success and that you may containue long
and faithful in representative service, I am,
yours respectfully, H. SCHLICHTING.
Los Angeles, Cal., June 3, 1911. Hon. W. J.
Bryan, Lincoln, Neb.: Enclosed you will please
find a copy of a letter which I mailed to the
Hon. Mr. Underwood.
I believe that the stand that you are taking
to be strictly democratic and that it would be
a great benefit to the poor American people.
Wishing you success, I beg to remain, yours
very respectfully, E. W. HOWETH.
Los Angeles, Cal., June 1, 1911. Hon. Mr.
Underwood, Member of House of Representa
tives, Washington, D. C: I, in common with the
democrats of this part of California, deplore very
tion for still greater reductions continued, when
in the years 1841, 1842, and 1843, under the
leadership of Sir Robert Peel, a new tariff bill
was passed through parliament making great
reductions In the then tariff law which had been
written by Huskisson in tho years 1824 to 1827.
Tho next step taken by Peel was the repeal of
the protective tariff on corn, or the abolition
of the famous corn laws, that his people might
have cheaper bread in order to sustain life.
Finally, the last stage in the reduction of the
protective system of Great Britain ,was accom
plished under the leadership of that great
English statesman, William E. Gladstone, in the
years 1853 to 1860, when practically free trade
with the world was established in Great Britain.
Hence, It will bo seen that it took more than
40 years under tho leadership of three of Eng
land's greatest and most patriotic statesmen to
destroy the system of graft and special privilege
known as protection.
Mr. Chairman, now that we have begun the
work, I pray God that the people of this coun
try will be able to shake off the shackles of this
monstrous Bystem in a much shorter period.
(Prolonged applause on the democratic side.)
a