IX

THE TARIFF

Delivered at Des Moines, Ia., on the 21st of August, 1908, and setting forth the party's position in the campaign of that year.

I

N my notification speech I stated that, as the campaign progressed, I would discuss the question, "Shall the People Rule," as it applies to the various issues involved in this campaign. I begin with the tariff question, because it is the most lasting of our economic questions and the one upon which the leading parties have most frequently opposed each other. Other questions may come and go, but questions which affect taxation, like Tennyson's "Brook," "go on and on forever." As the Government is not a Lady Bountiful, with unlimited means, but merely an organization which must collect on the one hand what it pays out on the other, the subject of taxation is an ever-present one. We may discuss how much we should collect, what methods we should employ in collecting, and how best to distribute, through appropriations, the money collected, but we are never far removed from the subject of taxation. Iowa has been selected for the presentation of what I desire to say upon this subject. because the Iowa Republicans were pioneers in the effort to secure tariff revision at the hands of the Republican party. I

come among them to define and defend the Democratic position on the tariff question, because I believe it will commend itself to them. That the issue may be clearly stated, I shall read you the Democratic plank on this subject, and then the Republican plank.

The Democratic platform says:

"We welcome the belated promise of tariff reform now offered by the Republican party as a tardy recognition of the righteousness of the Democratic position on this question; but the people cannot safely entrust the execution of this important work to a party which is so deeply obligated to the highly protected interests as is the Republican party. We call attention to the significant fact that the promised relief was postponed until after the coming election-an election to succeed in which the Republican party must have the same support from the beneficiaries of the high protective tariff as it has always heretofore received from them; and to the further fact that during years of uninterrupted power, no action whatever has been taken by the Republican congress to correct the admittedly existing tariff iniquities.

"We favor immediate revision of the tariff by the reduction of import duties. Articles entering into competition with trust-controlled products should be placed upon the free list; material reductions should be made in the tariff upon the necessities of life, especially upon articles competing with such American manufactures as are sold abroad more cheaply than at home; and gradual reductions should be made in such other schedules as may be necessary to restore the tariff to a revenue basis.

"Existing duties have given the manufacturers of paper a shelter behind which they have organized combinations to raise the price of pulp and paper, thus imposing a tax upon the spread of knowledge.

"We demand the immediate repeal of the tariff on wood pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and logs, and that these articles be placed upon the free list."

The Republican platform says:

"The Republican party declares unequivocally for a revision of the tariff by a special session of congress immediately following the inauguration of the next president and commends the steps already taken to this end in the work assigned to the appropriate committees of congress, which are now investigating the operation and effect of existing schedules. In all tariff legislation the true principle of protection is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will equal the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries.

"We favor the establishment of maximum and minimum rates to be administered by the president under limitations fixt in the law, the maximum to be available to meet discriminations by foreign countries against American goods entering their markets and the minimum to represent the normal measure of protection at home; the aim and purpose of the Republican policy being not only to preserve, without excessive duties, that security against foreign competition to which American manufacturers, farmers and producers are entitled, but also to maintain the high standard of living of the wage-earners of this country, who are the most direct beneficiaries of the protective system.

"Between the United States and the Philippines, we believe in a free interchange of products, with such limitations as to sugar and tobacco as will afford adequate protection to domestic interests."

Secretary Taft refers to this subject briefly in his notification speech-only briefly-but as I shall quote such passages from his speech as are pertinent to this discussion, it is not necessary to read his remarks in full.

It will be noticed that the Republican party has abandoned the earlier arguments advanced in support of a high tariff. We hear no more of the "Infant Industries," that must be tenderly cared for "until they can stand upon their feet"; there is no suggestion that the "foreigner pay the tariff,” and nothing about the "home market." These catch phrases have had their day-they are worn out and

cast aside. The Republican leaders are no longer arrogant and insolent; they cannot longer defy tariff reform. Their plan now is to seem to yield without really yielding.

The

I submit that the Democratic platform accurately described the Republican position when it refers to "the belated promise" made by the Republican leaders as "a tardy recognition of the righteousness of the Democratic position on this question. Democratic party in its platforms and through its representatives in Congress has for years pointed out that the tariff schedules are excessively high and ought to be reduced, but the Republicans have, until recently, refused to admit that there was any necessity for reduction. They now confess, through their platform and through their presidential candidate, that the need for revision is so great as to justify the party in declaring "unequivocally for a revision of the tariff" and the need is so urgent that the work is to be undertaken at "a special session of Congress immediately following the inauguration of the next president." The use of the word "unequivocally" indicates that those who wrote the platform recognize that they are under suspicion. They want to distinguish this promise from the unkept promises of the past by adding as emphatic an adjective as could be found in the dictionary. If former Republican promises had been conscientiously fulfilled, it might not have been necessary to thus strengthen the promise made this year. The use of the words "immediately after the inauguration" is evidence that the Republican leaders are conscious that the patience of the public has been

strained to the point of breaking, and it is almost pathetic to note the solicitude which they now feel about doing a thing which, but for wilful neglect, might have been done at any time during the last ten years.

Are we not justified in saying that "the people' cannot safely entrust the execution of this important work to a party which is so deeply obligated to the highly protected interests as is the Republican party"? The "fat-frying" process has become familiar to the American people. Pressure has been brought to bear upon the protected interests every four years-and to a less extent in the congressional campaigns between presidential elections to compel contributions to the campaign fund in return for former favors and in anticipation of favors yet to come. It is difficult to overestimate the corrupting influences introduced into the political life of the nation by this partnership between the Government and the favored industries. The literature circulated in support of a protective tariff has studiously cultivated the idea that suffrage should be employed to secure pecuniary returns, and the appeal made by the Republican leaders has come to be more and more a selfish one. Every man engaged in a protected industry has been approached with the proposition that it is dollars in his pocket to maintain the system, while those who could not possibly trace any tangible benefits to themselves have been beguiled with the assurance that it was all a matter of public spirit and that they ought to support the system out of patriotic love of country. If attention was called.