The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, October 11, 1912, Image 1
mr.' W"" i . mum mmimnmawWI'JimWPJHH'T '4" The Commoner. WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR fc VOL. 12f NO. 40 Lincoln, Nebraska, October 11, 1912 Whole Number 612 fU IWWPfPIWPWPpPP A REVENUE TARIFF VS. PROTECTION Both Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt are attempt ing to raise a false isstie, and of the two Mr. Roosevelt, because of the intensity of his na ture, is the more misleading. Instead of discussing the real issue, namely, a revenue tariff vs. a protective tariff, they would have the voters believe that absolute free trade is the only alternative to a protective tariff. There is no party in this country advocating free" trade, and this is well known by those who profess to view any reduction of the tariff as the beginning of a free trade policy. It is worth while, therefore, to present the real issue and to challenge the republicans, both standpatters and progressives, to meet that issue. A twenty-five per cent duty on a given article gives protection, to that extent, to those who manufacture a competing article, whether the twenty-five per cent is collected for protection or for revenue, but it makes a great deal of difference to the public whether the duty is fixed for the purpose of raising a revenue or for the purpose of giving protection, and the dif ference may be stated in this way: A revenue tariff is levied for the purpose of collecting revenue; it is so laid as to raise a revenue, and those who levy the tax for revenue purposes stop when the necessary revenue ia secured, A Drcitectlyeariffj on the' other hand is l:(vildprlmarily'f6r protection, the revenue being incidental; it may be so levied as to lay a heavy burden upon the people without rais ing .any revenue. at all; and those who levy taxes for the purpose of protection never know when to stop. The democratic platform demands a reduc tion in the tariff. It clearly sets forth the party's position when it says: "We declare it to be a fundamental principle of the demo cratic party that the federal government, under the constitution, has no right or power to im pose or collect "tariff duties except for the pur pose of revenue." ' The .party makes its "appeal to the American peopl$ to support us in our demand for a tariff for-revenue only." But this return from a false economic system to a correct one is not to be sudden or abrupt. The platform says: VWe recognize that our system of tariff taxation is intimately connected with the business of the country, and we favor the ultimate attainment of the principles we advocate by legislation that will not injure or destroy legitimate industry." There is to be a RETURN", and the end in view is frankly stated, but the progress toward that end is to be gradual, because industry, relying upon the promises held out by an evil system, has tried to adjust itself to that system. The democratic platform not only states the ultimate purpose and puts limitations upon the speed to be employed in the accomplishment of that purpose, but it specifically states the order in which reductions should be made. First, ma terial reductions should be made speedily in the tariff on the necessaries of life. Second, articles entering into competition with trust controlled articles should be put upon the free list, and to the free list also should be added the articles which are sold abroad more cheaply than at home. Here are three propositions which candor compels our opponents to meet and yet they do not meet them. Will they deny that the first reduction should be made on the neces saries of life? If so, will they meet the issuo boldly and explain to an overburdened people why the present extortionate rates should be collected upon the things the masses must use? What objection will the republicans make to the use of the free list as a means of protect ing the people from the exactions of the trusts? It used to be insisted ithat competition at home would give the peoplettho benefit of low prices, no matter how high ?tfoe tariff might be; but suppose the manufacturers, hiding behind tho tariff wall, combine to take from the people the highest toll possible is there to bo no relief? Must the people endure it without com plaint? And what about American goods sold abroad more cheaply than at homo? Is thero any ox-, cuse for a tariff on such goods? If an Ameri can manufacturer can ship goods across tho ocean and, after paying freight, compote with foreign goods in foreign lauds, Is thero any excuse for a tariff, even upon tho theory of tho protectionist? And can tho American manu facturer consistently ask for a tariff when ho uses it to force a higher price from Americans than ho asks from foreigners? I have stated tho democratic position; if tho republicans can not meet this position, let them confess it. It is not honest for them to ignore our party's position and spend their tlmo light ing a man of straw. The democrats, in as plain languago as can bo commanded, coudomn tho tariff system as it now exists and outline tho tariff system as it should be, while tho republicans not only re fuse to discuss tho democratic position as it really is, but they oven refuse to discuss tho present tariff situation. Both Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt cling to the protective system and the languago which they employ Is the same that has been employed by tho defenders of jtli at 'system for half a genera tion. When tho protective system was first estab lished, it, was defended on tho theory that it was a national necessity; that wo should en courage infant industries Until they got upon their foot, or until they had tlmo to demonstrate their ability to maintain themselves. It was admitted In tho early days by tho most ardent champions of the system that protection should not be continued if, after a sufficient trial, it was found that the industry could not, when established, maintain itself in tho face of open competition with tho world. This was protection when it was first Intro duced and when its original appeal was made to the patriotism of the country. But that was long ago, and we hear nothing more of that kind of protection or protection based upon that theory. Before tho war, the fallacy of protective argu ments was shown up and the system was over thrown. The revenue tariff adopted in the '40s worked so well that tho first republican na tional platform tho platform of 185 G never mentioned protection as a matter worthy of consideration, and the renewal of a high tariff in 1861 was advocated, not upon the theory of protection, but on the ground that more revenue was necessary to carry on the war. - Protection, as wo now havo It, is an entirely different sort of protection; it is a protection based upon tho theory that It Is profitable to tax ourselves permanently to produce at a high price that which we can purchase abroad at a lower price. The weakness of this argument, as an economic proposition, has never been better illustrated than by Bastiat, who has tho manufacturers of candles petitioning for legis lation against the sun, on the ground that the sun furnishes light more cheaply than man can produce It. Of course, the advocates of protection do not dare ask more than "the difference between the cost of production hero and abroad." That Is, they do not dare to ASK more, and yet the In sincerity of their plea is shown by the fact that they are not content with such a tariff. Investi gation shows, for instance, that in tho case of most of our cotton manufactures the cost of production Ib less In this country than abroad, and that a very low rate on cotton goods 'would more than cover any possible difference there may be, where there Is any difference at all, in favor of the foreigner. No prominent advocate of protection for protection's sake, however. Is willing to havo the law' made according to .the theory which tho protectionist advances. Tho theory is advanced in terms as plauslblo as can be framed, but the protection asked is far mors than that. If the leaders of tho republican party were slncore in thoir desire to givo the people such reductions as are possible, accord- Ing to their thoory, thoy would long ago havo investigated tho matter of cost and then framed their laws to meet tho facts as they woro found to exist; hut instead of that they havo shunned information; thoy havo prevented any fair in vestigation, and even where a one-sldod Investi gation has provon tho possibility of largo re ductions, they have refused to mako them. Tho public knows better now than over boforo that the protective system, howovcr honestly believed in by the rank and file of tho republi can party, has been employed by tho republican leaders as a means of collecting largo campaign contributions, and that, in return for thcao con tributions, tho manufacturers have boon per mitted to collect onormouB tribute from tho public. The protective system has been tho most cor rupting forco in American politics; It has led to the subsidizing of newspapers and to tho cultivation of a public opinion that has put a price upon suffrage. Tho advocates of protec tion have unbhushlngly insisted that thono in terested in a protected 'ndustry should uso their ballots, npt to advance tho interests of the country, but to enlarge their Incomes. If a farmer prpducod anything upon which a tariff was laid, no wa3 assured that tho price of hla product was enhanced to the extent of tho tariff, and that to securo or rotain this increaso ho should vote tho republican ticket, rogardless of tho effect of republican policies on tho country. Tho laboring man was Informed that hla wages wero perceptibly increased by a protec tive tariff, and that this increaso should be accurately computed by him and should bo ac cepted as a liquidated sum given him in return for his support of tho republican ticket. Manufacturing communities wero assured that they had a pecuniary interest in tho elec tion of republican presidents, congressmen and senators. In fact, tho country was put upon a commercial basis and each voter was tagged with a card plainly showing tho exact price for which ho sold his voto to tho republican party. It was not, however, a one-prico store, for the prico ranged all tho way from millions given tho larger manufacturers to tho few dollars which tho employo was supposed to receive as his share. And while the farmer and laboring man were being told that they received MORE for their product because of the tariff, they wero being: promised that they could securo what they had to buy at a LOWER price because of tho tariff. In other words, the tariff was offered to tho farmer and laboring man as a system which would raise the prico of what they had to sell and lower tho price of what they had to buy, and the manufacturer was represented as a benevolent person who contributed larto sums to secure legislation which made hlrn pay moro for what he had to buy and then reduced the price of what ho had to sell. No sleight of hand performer ever perfo-raed more mysterious tricks with his hands than pro tectionists have performed with words, but the reign of deception has reached an end. Tho Juggling and the jugglers have been exposed and an indignant people are girding themselves for a great task. Thoy are preparng to take tho government out of the hands of those who havo used it as a private asset in business; they aro ready to restore control of the government to the people to whom tho government belongs. Our tariff laws are no longer to be written by the few who have been the beneficiaries of pro tection, but by tho many who havo been tho victim of high tariff rates, and, with the driving of the exploiters and their lobbyists from tho balls of congress, the country will havo a new birth of political freedom. Patriotism will again 'A 1 v I f 11 ! 4 t I n I il i -ai Wk