The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-03-09
LETTER FROM cULBERS0N.
NJ the pemocracy d Texas:

any comment from me; but inasmuch as
he undertakes to place me In opposition to
| the democracy on one feature OF the tariff
question, brief notice is not inappropri
ate or indicate.
/ In my announcement no reference what
| ever was made to the attitude OF Senator
Mills on any public question. In his reply,
though l had stated my position on the
tariff in the very language Of the State
and National platforms be attarlsd u and
afterward charged that | was engaged IL
an effort to commit the democratic party CT
Texas TO the doctrine OF protection In his
withdrawal the same course is pursued
With afnplification and ate nlptcd detail.
Passing by his motive for this aud his at
tack on the tariff plank OF the Chicago
platform In his speech in the senate last
year, in consonance with his opposition 10
the financial plank, as well ss the Jisas
trrus effect Of his vote against all amend
nents to the act repeating the purchasing
clause of the Sherman law. my fealty to
n democratic tariff will appear plain from
simple restatement CT my position on
this question rs IT. appeared in my formal
announcement for the ceuate, as follows:
l. a free trader In principle aud Us far
as practicable
. As absolute free trade Is inpracti
cable because the government must be
largely supported by tariff duties. these
6uties should he for revenue only, levied
first on Injuries ard last on the necessa-
lies of life.
tive duties, either on raw material, whether |
used in manufacturing or otherwise, or on |
manufactured articles.
Z. Subject to the foregoing general prtn-
clples. l believe in sbe language OF the |
Chicago plas t2sm. that these duties should
be adI3,s sd as 10 Nerats equally |
thTosig fioifs :Sts country and not to discrim
tn,se between class or section" and in
the language III the State platform. adopt
ed June u" 1896 that the present tariff
law (which lets Into the country raw ma
tertal free OF duty and levies heavy duties
on manufactured products, thus subject
ing our agricultural and pastoral classes
to competition with the world. while it Ell
ables the rich manufacturers by means CT
combinations and trusts to EXPORT their own
prices for their products from the people
violates the Federal constitution as well as
the fundamental principle OF the demo-
cratic PARTY that tariff duty shall be leglei
and collected for the purpose OF revenue
only This last declaration announces |
the proposition that raw material shall not
be put on the free list in order to man
tain q protective duty on manufactured
products because that would nanifeeily
contraveue the democratic doctrine that
duties shall be fpr revenue AMI no. for
protection. This is not the place 10 dis
cuss the question at Length but 1t is proper
to say that this declaration aecordS with
the last National platform and the prin-
ciple of the Walker tariff Of 1916 the near
est approach to an Ideal revenue tariff the
country has ever known. The act OF 1915
was framed uiong lines laid down by Rob-
ert j. Walker secretary of the treasury,
which were thus stated by hIn In his re-
port:
l. That TO more money should be coll
lected than is necessary FOR the wants
of the government, economically adj
mnistered
:. That no duty be Imposed on any
article above the lowest rate which
viii yield the largest amount of reve- !
nue..
3.Thet below such rate discrimlna- I
lions may be made, descending in the
scale or duties: or for imperative rea-
sons, the article may be placed in the
list of these free from all duty.
4. That 1he maximum revenue duty
should be imposed on luxuries.
). That all mininums and all spe-
cIflc duties should be abolished, and
ad valorem duties substituted In their
place care being taken to guard
against fraudulent Invoices and under
valuation and to assess the duty upon
the actual market value. Il
6 That the duty should be so I'M
posed as to operate as equally as fos-
sible throughout the Union dscrim-
mating neither for nor against AIRY
class or section
II Will be seen from this that revenue (
luty on all Imports was the rule and free
Importation, and only for imperative rea- r
;ons was the exception. On the 9Th day OF /
slay, 1852. before the rule with him be- a
anne free raw material and protected man b
ifactures, Senator Mills when member of i
he hnf fha nrff 10
inder discussion be recnmmtted and the
instructed TO briug in a bill {
IN the precise lines suggested by Secretary Q
Walker 1t is specially significant that in a
he report OF Secretary Walker, already re-
erred 10, he states that in his Judgment S
sufficient means would be obtained at the
owest revenue duties on the articles then
10 duties, but II congress desire
larger revenue III should be procured by A
aSing the free articles, rather than trans 4
end In any case. the lowest revenue du
les" II Is obvious that free raw material .
md heavy duties" on manufactured pro- b
lucts means protection to the latter inter G
SITS, against the fundamental principle of h
democracy that no interest, whether OF the n
'Foducer Of raw material or the finished
rtlcle shall be protected. Henry Clay. n
he father OF the present protective system, =
eclared that "the fourth mode in which =,
roteesion can be afforded to domestic In -
ustfy Is 10 admit free OF duty every ar ! =
icle which aided the operations of the :,
AS Illustrating the pro- "
ectye phase OF the theory which he now
pparently upholas Senator Mills declared
! speech in Boston few years ago -
My friends, is reduction from Il to 40 y
er cent free trade? II II Is, please tell ne
le wfat protection means, Is reduction SO
81 30 In the 500 worth of ircn and steel AZ
free trade step We leave them $40 or 4,
u and that IS all for protection. To pro- ~
,ct whom Remember that capital can On
Ike care OF Itself. Ii is for the protec- co
en- OF labor. that Is what IL is for 49, on
70 have left them In our bill more than n
vice as much as the whole labor cost III
'mes TO and yet they tell US that is free yo
aee- II they found all their iron and
eel already manufactured In the street in
ith the labor cost for nothing, still we St
I'VE left them more than twice as much
! the difference between the labor cost OF err
urore and this country" sel
= IL. : J. l.