r
The Commoner.
3"
JULY 21, 1911
i
,-v.
FREE SUGAR
Representative Warburton of Washington, de
livered two speeches In the house recently, one
on free sugar and one on free wool. In referring
" to these speeches, Mr. Warburton says:
"I devoted most of my time answering tho
argument that members of congress can not vote
In accordance with their conscience on the wool
schedule, or any progressive legislation, be
cause the government can not afford to lose tho
revenue. It was my purpose to show conclu
sively that the question of revenue need not be
of any special concern in revising the tariff or
in enacting any progressive legislation. I think
I have, made it clearly appear that if we were
to restore the tax on tobacco as provided by the
law of 1879, we would have all the revenue the
government would need on any proposed revision
of the tariff. I show that the law of 1879, If
in force, would give us a revenue of $138,000,-
000 as against $58,000,000, the amount we now
obtain. I also call attention to the fact that
the tax provided by the law of 1879 was re
duced for the sole reason that we were obtain
ing too much revenue more revenue than tho
government needed. I also call attention to the
fact that the tax on beer is as high as the high
est point during the civil war, the tax on whisky
is about as high as that of the civil war, and
our duties on cotton and woolen goods about
as high as the civil war, that the tax on tobacco
is only about one-fourth of that of the civil war.
If we should restore the tax on tobacco as pro
vided by the law of 1879, we would then have a
tax on tobacco only equal to one-half of the tax
on tobacco in the civil war. I think that our
tax on sugar is nothing less than criminal, and
1 believe that in transferring the tax from sugar
to tobacco, one of the greatest reforms In
' revenue would result. It would take the tax off
of a necessity of life and place it on a luxury. I
believe that these reforms can be accomplished
the coming winter, if all those friendly to them
push the matter along."
MR.. .WARBURTON SENT TO MR. UNDER-
WOOD THIS LETTER - .
O.
Washington, D. C, Juno 17, 1911. To tho
Ways and Means Committee, Hon. Oscar Under
wood, Chairman, House of Representatives.
Gentlemen: I have introduced a bill which
places sugar on the "free list" and doubles the
tax on all forms of tobacco, trebling it on snuff
and graduating it on cigars so that the higher
priced cigars have a proportionately higher tax.
I am compelled to leave for my home, in
Tacoma, to be gone some three or four weeks,
and -so will have no opportunity in that time
to present the matter in person to the com
mittee. When I return I shall press tho bill for
favorable consideration.
A considerable amount of the data necessary
for a proper comprehension of this bill is con
tained in my speech on "free sugar" and in ray
more recent speech on the "wool schedule"
which. I am sending to each member of the com
mittee under separate cover. The rates of
duties in the bill are the same on smoking and
chewing tobacco as that contained in the law
passed March 1, 1879. The rate on snuff is
8c per pound higher than the law of 1879 and
8o per pound lower than the law of 1875. The
tax on cheroots and nickel cigars is the same as
.the law of 1879. The tax on the 10c
and two-for-a-quarter cigar is $2.00 a thous
and or 2-10 of a cent higher a cigar than
the law of 1879. On the 15c cigar it Is
$6,00 a thousand or 6-10 of a cent higher
on each cigar than the law of 1879. All cigars
above this amounted to $10.00 a thousand or
one cent a cigar higher than the Taw of 1879.
I want to call your attention to the fact that
the law of 1879 was about half and not quite
half of the Internal revenue tax art the close of
the civil war, and that the tax on other luxuries
such as beer is as high as the highest during
the civil war, the tax on whisky about as high
as that of the civil war, and the duties on cot
ton and woolen goods about as high as that of
the civil war.
In the table on the last page of my speech on
"Wool," I show, by figures given me by an
expert in the Internal revenue office, the amount
of tax we would have received for the fiscal
year of 1910 had the law of 1879 been in force.
The amount would have been $138,050,930 as
against $58,113,457 the amount actually re
ceived. So it is easy to see that the revenues
In the proposed bill would have been far in
excess of $80,000,000, or probably over $92,-
000,000. I am informed by tke revenue de
partment that they have no records of tho
amount of 5c, 10c and 15c cigars, etc., consumed
so the excess amount can not be determined
accurately.
If tho bill becomes a law, we would lose about.
$53,000,000 in the revenue on sugar, so the not
gain under tho proposed law would bo about
$40,000,000 and, as I say in my speech on "Freo
Sugar," when we remove tho tariff on sugar,
we will not only save the people of this country
the revenue tax on sugar of $53,000,000, but
in addition thereto, $86000,000 that is now ox
acted of our people most of which goes to tho
sugar trust and to our bland planters. Is this
sum not worth saving? Will any ono object
to taking this tax off of sugar and placing it on
tobacco, when we can save this onormous sum?
No one need use tobacco every ono must uso
sugar.
I can not refrain from quoting from former
Attorney General Wayne MacVeagh, In a let
ter to President Taft, published in the "North
American Review" for February, 1911, in which
ho says, in part:
"1 stated that to my mind, it was not too
harsh a word to call tho existing tax on sugar
infamous, as it extorted as large an actual sum
from every working man barely able to support
himself and family as it extorted from the
richest multimillionaire In the land; and I ven
tured to express the hope which I need not say
was promptly disappointed, that in any revision
of the tariff, sugar at least, would bo placed
upon the free list but no report from
any board, even of angels, could prove that It
is either just or wise for you to continue two
years longer to require every grocery In the
United States to rob the sweated seamstress and
the unskilled workman of the two artificial
prices for the sugar that they must buy if they
are to live. As "you know, ono such artificial
price goes to the treasury by tho tariff the
other as equally well known goes to tho sugar
trust."
I would be glad to have you report this bill
favorably . In my absence,, but in caso you; do
not,, ,L earnestly ask you not to, report adversely
until my return when I may bo given an oppor
tunity for a hearing. -Yours sincerely,
S. WARBURTON.
NEW YORK FOR THE INCOME TAX
Tho New York assembly approved tho incorno
tax, thus bringing New York state into lino
among those states that have ratified the pro
posed federal constitutional amendment. New
York is therefore tho thirty-first state to take
this desirable course.
Governor Dlx is entitled to the hearty con
gratulations of democrats for the strong effort
he put forth in behalf of this reform.
Thirty-five states, or three-fourths are neces
sary for' the success of the proposed amend
ment. Those states which have indorsed the
amendment arc Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana,
Kentucky, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, New York, Nevada, North
Carolina, Missouri," Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina', South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wis
consin. Tho fifteen states which have failed to Indorse
the amendment either through adverse action
or by inactive adjournment are Connecticut
(whose house killed tho proposal following the
lead of the senate), Delaware, Florida, Louisi
ana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Utah, Rhodo Island,
Virginia, Vermont, Wat Virginia and Wyoming.
COLORADO IN MNB
Denver, Colo., July 7, 1911. Editor The
Commoner: A recent Issue of The Commoner
contained a statement from Senator Bourno of
Oregon, giving the list of those states having
the Initiative and referendum. The list was
Interesting, and we are all obliged to The Com
moner for printing this list, but Senator Bourne
left Colorado off the list and Colorado does not
want to be left off the list.
The list of states which have adopted this
great reform Is a roll of honor and Colorado's
name must be added to that roll. The initia
tive and referendum was submtited by a special
session of the legislature called by our sturdy
and courageous governor, John F. Shafroth, for
that particular purpose, and was adopted by a
majority vote In every county in the state in
the November election of 1910. Please add
Colorado to the roll of honor. Very truly,
WAYNE C. WILLIAMS.
MR. LAFOLLETTE AND MIL TAFT
Tho Saturday Evening Post prints an Interest'
Ing interview with Senator Robert M. La Fol
lette. In that interviow Senator La Follotte
said: "No, Taft is not progressive Taft is
reactionary. After his election Mr. Taft began
to throw over his friends tho friends of Roose
velt. Now, desiring re-election, Mr. Taft seems
I say seems to bo throwing over a few of,
his reactionary friends. In other words, ho Is
turning against those- new friends for whom ho
turned against his old friends."
The Interviewer asked Sonator La Folletto this
question: "Senator, I romomber your speech
of Introduction when Mr. Taft visited Madison In
tho campaign of 1908. I can hear your words
as they rang out in tho university gymnasium:
'Taft Is progressive.' Immediately tho corres
pondents telegraphed their paper: 'Put Wis
consin In tho republican column and keop it
there.' Now, senator, has Mr. Taft provod him
self progressive?"
Senator La Follotte replied: "In tho cam
paign I really believed that Taft was progres
sive. That President Roosovolt so believed, no
ono can doubt. Otherwlso ho would not havo
chosen him to carry forward tho progressive
policies that had so signalized tho Roosovolt
administration. Mr. Taft failed from tho outset
though for a long time 1 hoped against hopo,
'suspended judgment' and held up his hands in
every way I could."
There is a plain moral in this for democrats.
It is not to tako anybody's word as to tho
character and disposition of the man who aspires
to tho democratic nomination for the presidency.
Ask tho candidate himself and require a candid
answer beforo you trust him with your vote.
THE NEW LORIMER COMMITTEE
Here is a description of tho now Lorimor
committee:
Members of formor commltteo that reportod
on Lorlmer Investigation who are members of
the present commltteo on privileges and elec
tions Senators Dillingham, Gamble, Hoyburn,
Bailey, Paynter, Johnson, Fletcher 7. " '
Members of present commltteo who served on
sub-committee of Lorlmer investigation Sena
tors Gamble, Ileyburn, Paynter, Johnston,
Fraaler 5.
Members of present committee who, as sena
tors, voted that Lorlmer was duly elected -Senators
Dillingham, Gamble, Iloyburn, Bradley,
Oliver, Bailey, Paynter, Johnston, Fletcher 9.
Total number of senators on present com
mittee 15.
Members of present committee who as sena
tors voted that Lorlmer was not duly elected
Senators Clapp, Sutherland, Jones 3.
Members of present committee who were not
members of the senato when Lorlmer caso was
considered and decided, third session, Sixty-first
congross Senators Konyon, Kern, Lea 3.
KEEPING PARTY PLEDGES ,
Senator Stockwell, of Ohio, Introduced dur
ing the' last session a bill, the purpose of which
was to; provide a method by which candidates'
for the legislature might declare their attitude
toward the principles embodied In tho platfprms
of political parties. It carried out tho idea of
the Oregon plan on the election of senators.
That is, it provided a method by which candi
dates could indorse modify or repudiate platform
pledges before tho election and thus put them
selves in a position whore they could be held
responsible by their constituents. It Is a good
bill. A platform ought to bo binding, and any
legislation is good which compels the candidate
to meet tho issues before tho country and to
deal with them specifically.
"HANGING TOGETHER"
The National Wool Growers' association has a
motto upon its letterhead, "Wo must hang to
gether or wo will hang separately." There is
no doubt that they have been hanging togethor;
they have been willing to join with the manufac
turers to tax the American people as much as
the traffic would bear. Would it not be a good
plan for the consumers of woolen goodB to hang
together a little and thus secure relief from
tho burden that they have borne separately?
FOLK OF MISSOURI
J. W. Dunlop, Dublin, Texas I am sure that
all consistent democrats will indorse your re
cent fight for free wool. Why don't you make
an effort to line the boys up for Folk for presi
dent. He is the logical man, If you are out of
the race.
iM-W